Positive Health evaluation South Tyneside Council Northumbria University

1
Positive Health evaluation South Tyneside
Council / Northumbria University

• Dr Susan Carr Northumbria University
• Monique Lhussier Northumbria University
• Justine Wilkinson Health Development Officer
• Steve Gleadhill Partnership Manager

2
(No Transcript)
3
Background to South Tyneside

• Population of approx. 151, 000
• 60 of super output areas are amongst the 20
  most deprived in England
• 34 are amongst the most deprived 10
• Particularly along riverside area
• High rates of unemployment, crime and low
  educational achievement
• People in South Tyneside die younger than average

4
Stark Health facts in South Tyneside

• Life expectancy is 74.1 compared to the national
  average of 76 nationally (males)
• gt70 likely to die from lung cancer compared to
  national average
• 8 men and 7 women are more likely to die
  prematurely from CHD than national average
• Cancer death rate is 166 per 100,000
• Increase in type 2 diabetes
• 1 in 6 of working age suffer from mental health
  problems

5
Background to Positive Health

• Community health development project
• 7 years
• Funded from external grants
• 4 Community Health Project Workers
• Focus on wider health issues mainly in most
  disadvantaged wards of South Tyneside

6
Why was it needed?

• Milestone requirement agreed with SRB
• Project running for 7 yrs
• Output focused rather than outcome
• Credibility and sustainability of project
• What difference was the project making?
• Community development model / medical model?
• Did we need to refocus?

7
The Positive Health Projects

• The Breakfast club 48 participants, healthy
  eating group
• The Walking group 14 participants, gentle
  exercise group
• The Arab Women club 10 participants, health
  awareness and integration
• Young men club 10 to 14 participants, health
  education and participation

8
Approaches to evaluation

• Had been based on output
• Attendance registers
• Head counts
• Photographs
• Press articles
• Meeting minutes
• Certificate awarding
• Programme of activities
• Quantifying activities

9
Output vs Outcome

• Output Analysis of what happens when the
  programme is actually working.
• Outcome analysis of the effect of the programme
  on those taking part

10
Outcome tracking process PH workers

• Health impact assessment
• Theories of change

11
Outcome tracking process

• Project activity
• Health determinant targeted
• Health consequences
• Outcome measures

Context why was this health determinant
targeted? Mechanism why was the activity
anticipated to be effective / acceptable in this
context? Outcome what outcomes would indicate
success?
12
Outcome tracking process users

• Based on principles of participatory appraisal

13
Outcome tracking process

• What do you get out of the activity?
• Is the activity impacting on your health?
• What part of the activity brings you the most?
  Why? Could it be improved?
• What are the five most important areas in your
  life? Does the activity impact on these?
• What else, in your community, could improve your
  health?

14
Data collection methods

• Self completion data sheets
• Focus groups
• Message boards
• Participants were left with the choice to opt-in
  to the research and remain anonymous.

15
How useful was it?

• In depth reflection on individual projects
• Showed new ways of measuring impact
• Promoted discussion for change in working
  practice with team
• Anticipated the Choosing Health agenda

16
How has it been used?

• Led to basis for expansion of team and joint
  approach with PCT (Choosing Health Team)
• Outcome evaluation is now a stronger element
• What still needs to be done