Cargando…

'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes

BACKGROUND: A community public health programme, 'Breathing Space', aimed to tackle smoking in a low income area in Scotland. This paper draws on the qualitative process evaluation of a community-based initiative 'Breathing Space', which set out to tackle smoking in a low income...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ritchie, Deborah, Gnich, Wendy, Parry, Odette, Platt, Steve
Formato: Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2008
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18498632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-173
_version_ 1782155679047352320
author Ritchie, Deborah
Gnich, Wendy
Parry, Odette
Platt, Steve
author_facet Ritchie, Deborah
Gnich, Wendy
Parry, Odette
Platt, Steve
author_sort Ritchie, Deborah
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: A community public health programme, 'Breathing Space', aimed to tackle smoking in a low income area in Scotland. This paper draws on the qualitative process evaluation of a community-based initiative 'Breathing Space', which set out to tackle smoking in a low income area of Scotland, in order to explore user perceptions of key factors affecting implementation, and in particular to explore the implications of participant knowledge and expertise for programme stability and continuity. METHODS: The overall evaluation of Breathing Space used a quasi-experimental design and incorporated a detailed process evaluation. The process evaluation aimed to document development and implementation of the programme using a range of qualitative methods, including observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis. The paper draws upon 59 semi-structured in-depth interviews which were carried out as part of the process evaluation. FINDINGS: Staff numbers from the multi-agency partnership dwindled across the lifecouof the programme and respondents identified lack of continuity as a key issue. While staff changes are an anticipated problem in programme implementation, here we draw on concepts of technicality and indeterminacy to explore the different aspects of public health programmes which are forfeited when individuals leave. The paper argues that, while technical components of public health programmes (such as the importance of staff complement and continuity) are widely recognised, it is the more indeterminate aspects, including the loss of key theoretical understanding underpinning the programme, which most affect programme delivery. Indeed, the paper suggests that, where inadequate planning and resources threaten the continuity of indeterminate knowledge, the success of public health programmes may be especially jeopardised. CONCLUSION: Community-based programmes which rely strongly on partnership processes would benefit from early consideration of the potential risks associated with both expected and unexpected stakeholder change. Building in appropriate contingency plans is necessary for sustaining the theory and culture of the programme. Evaluations of innovative community development initiatives may benefit from a formative approach.
format Text
id pubmed-2408582
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2008
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-24085822008-05-31 'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes Ritchie, Deborah Gnich, Wendy Parry, Odette Platt, Steve BMC Public Health Research Article BACKGROUND: A community public health programme, 'Breathing Space', aimed to tackle smoking in a low income area in Scotland. This paper draws on the qualitative process evaluation of a community-based initiative 'Breathing Space', which set out to tackle smoking in a low income area of Scotland, in order to explore user perceptions of key factors affecting implementation, and in particular to explore the implications of participant knowledge and expertise for programme stability and continuity. METHODS: The overall evaluation of Breathing Space used a quasi-experimental design and incorporated a detailed process evaluation. The process evaluation aimed to document development and implementation of the programme using a range of qualitative methods, including observation, in-depth interviews, focus groups and documentary analysis. The paper draws upon 59 semi-structured in-depth interviews which were carried out as part of the process evaluation. FINDINGS: Staff numbers from the multi-agency partnership dwindled across the lifecouof the programme and respondents identified lack of continuity as a key issue. While staff changes are an anticipated problem in programme implementation, here we draw on concepts of technicality and indeterminacy to explore the different aspects of public health programmes which are forfeited when individuals leave. The paper argues that, while technical components of public health programmes (such as the importance of staff complement and continuity) are widely recognised, it is the more indeterminate aspects, including the loss of key theoretical understanding underpinning the programme, which most affect programme delivery. Indeed, the paper suggests that, where inadequate planning and resources threaten the continuity of indeterminate knowledge, the success of public health programmes may be especially jeopardised. CONCLUSION: Community-based programmes which rely strongly on partnership processes would benefit from early consideration of the potential risks associated with both expected and unexpected stakeholder change. Building in appropriate contingency plans is necessary for sustaining the theory and culture of the programme. Evaluations of innovative community development initiatives may benefit from a formative approach. BioMed Central 2008-05-22 /pmc/articles/PMC2408582/ /pubmed/18498632 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-173 Text en Copyright © 2008 Ritchie et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Ritchie, Deborah
Gnich, Wendy
Parry, Odette
Platt, Steve
'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
title 'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
title_full 'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
title_fullStr 'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
title_full_unstemmed 'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
title_short 'People pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
title_sort 'people pull the rug from under your feet': barriers to successful public health programmes
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2408582/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18498632
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-8-173
work_keys_str_mv AT ritchiedeborah peoplepulltherugfromunderyourfeetbarrierstosuccessfulpublichealthprogrammes
AT gnichwendy peoplepulltherugfromunderyourfeetbarrierstosuccessfulpublichealthprogrammes
AT parryodette peoplepulltherugfromunderyourfeetbarrierstosuccessfulpublichealthprogrammes
AT plattsteve peoplepulltherugfromunderyourfeetbarrierstosuccessfulpublichealthprogrammes