Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A framework for evaluating community-based heart disease prevention programs.

D G Altman

    Social Science & Medicine (1982)
    |January 1, 1986
    PubMed
    Summary
    This summary is machine-generated.

    Related Concept Videos

    You might also read

    Related Articles

    Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

    Sort by
    Same author

    CONSORT 2010 statement: extension checklist for reporting within person randomised trials.

    The British journal of dermatology·2019
    Same author

    'Allocation concealment': the evolution and adoption of a methodological term.

    Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine·2018
    Same author

    [Better Reporting of Interventions: Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) Checklist and Guide].

    Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany))·2018
    Same author

    GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

    Research involvement and engagement·2017
    Same author

    GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research.

    BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2017
    Same author

    Quality control of ultrasound for fetal biometry: results from the INTERGROWTH-21<sup>st</sup> Project.

    Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology·2017
    Same journal

    From presence to participation: Ethical engagement in community advisory boards for drug use research.

    Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
    Same journal

    Why we need political values in epidemic modelling: parameters, populations, and public health policy goals.

    Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
    Same journal

    Physical activity, indoor air pollution, and cognitive function among older-adults in India: Evidence of gendered environmental disadvantage.

    Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
    Same journal

    The gendered burden of natural disasters: Evidence from two catastrophic earthquakes in Türkiye.

    Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
    Same journal

    Epidemiologic approaches to policy research - examinations of single policies, policy clusters, and policy climates: Conceptualization, measurement, and analysis.

    Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
    Same journal

    Time to check up: Retirement and cancer screening in Australia.

    Social science & medicine (1982)·2026
    See all related articles

    Evaluating community-based heart disease prevention programs requires a structured approach. This review offers a framework to assess process, impact, and social relevance for better program design and implementation.

    Area of Science:

    • Public Health
    • Health Program Evaluation
    • Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

    Background:

    • Community-based programs are crucial for heart disease prevention.
    • Effective evaluation is essential to determine program success.
    • Existing evaluation methods face several challenges.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To review challenges in evaluating community-based heart disease prevention programs.
    • To propose a framework for improving future program evaluations.
    • To enhance the design and implementation of health interventions.

    Main Methods:

    • Literature review of evaluation issues.
    • Development of a framework for program assessment.
    • Discussion of process, impact, and social relevance evaluation components.

    Related Experiment Videos

    Main Results:

    • Identified key issues in current evaluation practices.
    • Proposed a structured framework to guide evaluations.
    • Highlighted the importance of assessing process, impact, and social relevance.

    Conclusions:

    • A comprehensive framework aids in answering "do community-based health programs work?"
    • Improved evaluations lead to more successful health interventions.
    • Focusing on process, impact, and social relevance optimizes program outcomes.