Evaluation & the Health Professions

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kennedy, M. G.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kennedy, M. G.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 30, No. 3, 229-253 (2007)
DOI: 10.1177/0163278707304041
© 2007 SAGE Publications

Guidance for Evaluating Mass Communication Health Initiatives

Summary of an Expert Panel Discussion Sponsored by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

The Communication Evaluation Expert Panel

Jodie Abbatangelo-Gray

Ogilvy & Mather Worldwide, New York City

Galen E. Cole

National Center for Health Marketing, Atlanta, Georgia

May G. Kennedy

Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, Virginia, mgkennedy{at}vcu.edu

In May 2004, 12 experts in evaluating large-scale health communication programs came to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to participate in an electronic focus group discussion. They offered advice on topics ranging from the role of logic models to the best strategies for controlling for self-selection bias in surveys regarding outcomes of exposure to mass media health messages. The experts also highlighted health communication evaluation topics that have received too little scientific attention. Finally, they made strategic policy recommendations. Use of the state-of-the-art evaluation methods that they recommended could improve the communication of factual and persuasive health messages and help to guard the public health of the nation. Their advice may also advance evaluation practice in other substantive areas, especially where it is difficult or impossible to implement randomized designs.

Key Words: health communication • logic models • self-selection bias • mass media health messages • expert panel • panel recommendations • evaluation


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?