Process Evaluation in Health Communication Media Campaigns: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objective. The objective is to examine the scope of health communication media campaign process evaluation methods, findings, and dissemination practices. Data Source. A systematic review of peer-reviewed literature was conducted using database searches. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Published studies on process and implementation evaluation of health campaigns with a media component were included. Exclusion criteria included not health, non-empirical, no media campaign, or a focus on other evaluation types. Data Extraction. Articles were assessed for general campaign information, theory use, and details about process evaluation plan and procedures. Data Synthesis. A coding scheme based on 9 process evaluation best practice elements (e.g., fidelity and context) was applied. Process evaluation methods, measures, and reporting themes were synthesized. Results. Among 691 unique records, 46 articles were included. Process evaluation was the main focus for 71.7% of articles, yet only 39.1% reported how process evaluation informed campaign implementation strategy. Articles reported 4.39 elements on average ( SD = 1.99; range 1–9), with reach (87.0%) and recruitment (73.9%) described most frequently, yet reporting was inconsistent. Further, the level of detail in reporting methods, theory, and analysis varied. Conclusions. Process evaluation provides insight about mechanisms and intervening variables that could meaningfully impact interpretations of outcome evaluations; however, process evaluations are less often included in literature. Recommendations for evidence-based process evaluation components to guide evaluation are discussed.

Understanding the what, how, and why in advocacy: Assessing the applicability of participatory process evaluation methodology in an advocacy context

“…In the case study of Cordaid’s global health advocacy program, PPE was found to help advocates to better understand the barriers and facilitators of their implementation processes and adjust their strategies accordingly. These findings are in line with process evaluations in other contexts (Getachew-Smith et al, 2022), with PPE being able to adapt to fit the unique needs of an advocacy team. This was enhanced by the stakeholder involvement in the study, which motivated advocates to reflect on their role, work, and knowledge as an individual and as a team, which according to a study by Law et al (2016) is crucial for health advocates to grow in their role.…”

“…In addition, the workshop gathered input on a framework to guide the PPE. The evaluator created a "base framework" using the process evaluation framework (described by Getachew- Smith et al, 2022) and the personal narratives framework (described by Cornwall and Aghajanian, 2017). This framework consists of five key concepts from process evaluation theory: Aims focus on the goals and strategy of the advocacy set before the implementation of the tool or activity and what the expectations were of those involved.…”

“…Process evaluations lend themselves well to operationalizing an LOA (Carless, 2015). Process evaluations describe the program and activities, identify the barriers and facilitators for successful implementation of tools and activities within the program, and assess lessons learned (Getachew-Smith et al, 2022). It assesses longer term processes and outcomes, contextualizes and explains these outcomes, and aims to improve future performance (Freimuth et al, 2011; Nutbeam, 1998; Saunders et al, 2005).…”

“…While many evaluators have their own approach to conducting process evaluations, a recent systematic literature review found an increasingly accepted core set of elements brought together in a, in this article called, Process Evaluation Framework (Getachew-Smith et al, 2022). This framework includes an assessment of the (program) context, reach, output, fidelity, implementation, recruitment, barriers, and contamination (Getachew-Smith et al, 2022). These concepts are operationalized for advocacy contexts in Table 1.…”

“…Operationalization of the concepts for process evaluation (as inspired by Getachew-Smith et al, 2022).…”