Ethical Review of Health Promotion Program Evaluation Proposals

Health Promotion Practice

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2003, Pages 45-50

  Thurston, Wilfreda E ^a   Vollman, Ardene Robinson ^a   Burgess, Michael M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; CANADA; ETHICS; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; HEALTH CARE QUALITY; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; METHODOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RESEARCH ETHICS; STANDARD; TRI-COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT ON ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMANS; UNITED STATES;

BIOMEDICAL AND BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; HEALTH CARE AND PUBLIC HEALTH; TRI-COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT ON ETHICAL CONDUCT FOR RESEARCH INVOLVING HUMANS;

CANADA; COMPETITIVE BIDDING; ETHICS; ETHICS COMMITTEES, RESEARCH; ETHICS, RESEARCH; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN EXPERIMENTATION; HUMANS; PROGRAM EVALUATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0642312484     PISSN: 15248399     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1524839902238290     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. American Evaluation Association. (1995a). Guiding principles for evaluators: A report from the AEA task force on guiding principles for evaluators. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.eval.org.
2. American Evaluation Association. (1995b). The program evaluation standards. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.eval.org.
3. Baylis, F., Downie, J., & Sherwin, S. (1998). Reframing research involving humans. In S. Sherwin and Feminist Healthcare Network (Eds.), The politics of women’s health: Exploring agency and autonomy (pp. 234-259). Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
4. Blackwell, B. L., & Cartwright, L. K. (1988). Program consultation with human services programs: A clinical perspective. Oakland, CA: Third Party Publishing.
5. Canadian Evaluation Society (CES). (1996). CES guidelines for ethical conduct. Ottawa, Canada: Author. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.evaluationcanada.ca.
6. Crisp, B. R., Swerissen, H., & Duckett, S. J. (2000). Four approaches to capacity building in health: Consequences for measurement and accountability. Health Promotion International, 15(2), 99-107.
7. Fetterman, D. M. (1999). Reflections on empowerment evaluation: Learning from experience. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation [Special issue], 5-37.
8. Hansson, F. (1997). Evaluation traditions in Denmark: Critical comments and perspectives. Evaluation, 3(1), 85-96.
9. Hawe, P. & Shiell, A. (2000). Social capital and health promotion: A review. Social Science and Medicine, 51, 1-15.
10. Henkel, M. (1997). Teaching quality assessments: Public accountability and academic autonomy in higher education. Evaluation, 3(1), 9-23.
11. Koepsell, T. D., Wagner, E. H., Cheadle, A. C., Patrick, D. L., Martin, D. C., Diehr, P. H., et al. (1996). Selected methodological issues in evaluating community-based health promotion. In Pan American Health Organization (Eds.). Health promotion: An anthology (pp. 188-207). Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.
12. Learmonth, A. M., & Watson, N. J. (1999). Constructing evidence based health promotion: Perspectives from the field. Critical Public Health, 9(4), 317-333.
13. McKinlay, J. B. (1996). Health promotion through healthy public policy: The contribution of complementary research methods. In Pan American Health Organization (Eds.). Health promotion: An anthology (pp. 54-67). Washington, DC: Pan American Health Organization.
14. Medical Research Council of Canada, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, & Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. Tri-council policy statement: Ethical conduct for research involving humans. (1998). Ottawa, Canada: Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council. Retrieved February 29, 2000, from the World Wide Web: http://www.sshrc.ca.
15. Resnik, S., Allegrante, J., & Goodman, R. (2000). Introducing our profession-wide code of ethics. Health Promotion Practice, 1(2), 113, 200-203.
16. Rowe, A. (1999). Epilogue: Comments on this special issue. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation [Special issue], 193-197.
17. Scott, D., & Weston, R. (1998). Evaluating health promotion. Cheltenham, UK: Stanley Thornes Publishers.
18. Seal, D. W., Bloom, F. R., & Somlai, A. M. (2000). Dilemmas in conducting qualitative sex research in applied field settings. Health Education & Behavior, 27(1), 10-23.
19. Seedhouse, D. (1997). Health promotion: Philosophy, prejudice and practice. New York: John Wiley.
20. Smith, N. L. (1999). A framework for characterizing the practice of evaluation, with application to empowerment evaluation. Canadian Journal of Program Evaluation [Special issue], 39-68.
21. Speller, V., Learmonth, A., & Harrision, D. (1997). The search for evidence of effective health promotion. British Medical Journal, 315, 361-363.
22. Thurston, W. E., Burgess, M. M., & Adair, C. (1999). Ethical issues in the use of computerized databases for epidemiological and other health research. Chronic Diseases in Canada, 20(3), 127-131.
23. Thurston, W. E., Wilson, D. R., Felix, R., MacKean, G., & Wright, M.-F. (with Alberta Consortium for Health Promotion Research and Education). (1998). A review of the effectiveness of health promotion strategies in Alberta (Report to Alberta Health). Edmonton, Canada: Alberta Health and Wellness.
24. Wiebe, V. J., MacKean, G., & Thurston, W.E. (1998). Public participation in health promotion program planning: A conceptual model. In W. E. Thurston, J. D. Sieppert, & V. J. Wiebe, (Eds.), Doing health promotion research: The science of action (pp. 161-176). Calgary, Canada: University of Calgary Health Promotion Research Group.
25. World Health Organization. (1986). Ottawa charter for health promotion. Geneva, Switzerland: Author.
26. World Health Organization. (1999). Health promotion evaluation: Recommendations to policy makers. Copenhagen, Denmark: Author.