Learning from others

I have left a copy of material which I received from the administrator of Australia’s nat’l health promo db. Please look at this material and write your comments directly on the circulating copy. If there is something which we should include in our design, please let me know.

replies:

Am just reading through the Australian material now, so here are some
immediate comments:
1.What is HEAPS’ perspective on Health Promotion?  Their subject areas look to be disease-oriented – we has a broader perspective, which may or may not be reflected in our subject areas(which we do not really have); but we do need to re-vamp our subject areas as dictated by community requests.

2.HEAPS database contains resources and programs and they’ve made a point of not including books or journals – we concentrate on
programs, people and references with less attention to the A-V materials, pamphlets, etc. I believe that a library of resources takes a
different amount and type of resource($$’s, people and space), but we try to lead people to sources of resources!

3. Both have info. about “who is doing what, where, why and how”- HEAPS has defined the parameters of what programs will be included
in their database.  We have not been as stringent with its criteria (a task for our Services Cttee. of the Board?) We could also look at
including seminars, special events on database instead of in MISH-MASH.

4.Both systems find up-dating to be time-consuming.

5.HEAPS, as a national resource, seems to rely on “State Coordinators” who conduct orientation sessions and do a lot of the data retrieval.  We are looking at ways of regionalizing, but with a broader goal than dissemination of information.

6.HEAPS is promoted to similar groups in health sector but doesn’t move out of health (note-DOES include community groups in
disability area-our provincial Branch might question this!)

7.HEAPS is being built into grant processes and planning policy; I think we want to increase that but is HEAPS government-run as well as funded?

8.Maybe we should take some ideas from their forms?  Although they look like something that some groups might avoid filling in.

9.Maybe we need more information; Simon, you can use E-MAIL and I’ll use  airmail (which means I could personally take some information in my hands and in a pack and PERSONALLY deliver).  Yeh-I can find free accommodation!

Another reply:

I’d like to have the following info. in order of priority (essential, important, nice):

– (essential) program evaluation type (process, impact, outcome)
– (important) of participants, organization, community
– (important) if comparison, quasi-experimental, case study, longitudinal
– (nice) length of time evaluation covers (if done over 6 months, 1 yr)
– (important) baseline data source & type (community health study, clinical assess. organizational records) and data collection means
– essential to know what evaluation results were! and if report is available, references used and who was investigator.

That’s all I can think of just now. Is this an attempt to acquire similar info. to Australian HEAP system? Less likely here…

Advertisements

About mielniczuk

Community, systems, design, collaboration, change, evidence, Intelligent Accountability(c)
This entry was posted in Healthy Systems, OPC, Systems. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s