IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v31y2008i2p209-216.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa

Author

Listed:
  • Odendaal, Willem A.
  • Marais, Sandra
  • Munro, Salla
  • van Niekerk, Ashley

Abstract

This paper reflects on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa. The programme, implemented in two low-income communities, focused on the reduction of risks to unintentional childhood injuries. The evaluation comprised a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, including observations in conjunction with an evaluator's journal, diaries kept by the home visitors, interviews and focus group discussions. Short questionnaires were administered to programme staff and home visitors. Caregivers were visited to attain their assessment of visitors and the programme. These methods resulted in a detailed description of implementation processes, but more importantly gave insight into the experiences and perceptions of the social actors, i.e. programme staff, visitors and caregivers. It also offered possible explanations for the difference in the intervention effect between the two sites. Two major challenges to the evaluation were: (i) the power-imbalance between the evaluator and community participants (visitors and caregivers) and (ii) the language- and cultural barriers between evaluator and community participants. The evaluation demonstrated that process information can contribute towards explaining outcome results, but also that active participation from all social actors is a necessary condition if process evaluations are to result in programme improvement.

Suggested Citation

  • Odendaal, Willem A. & Marais, Sandra & Munro, Salla & van Niekerk, Ashley, 2008. "When the trivial becomes meaningful: Reflections on a process evaluation of a home visitation programme in South Africa," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 31(2), pages 209-216, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:31:y:2008:i:2:p:209-216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149-7189(08)00014-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Cunningham, Louise E. & Michielutte, Robert & Dignan, Mark & Sharp, Penny & Boxley, Jeanne, 2000. "The value of process evaluation in a community-based cancer control program," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 13-25, February.
    2. Bouffard, Jeffrey A. & Taxman, Faye S. & Silverman, Rebecca, 2003. "Improving process evaluations of correctional programs by using a comprehensive evaluation methodology," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 149-161, May.
    3. Olsen, Odd Einar & Lindoe, Preben, 2004. "Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 371-380, November.
    4. Butchart, Alexander & Kruger, Johan & Lekoba, Royal, 2000. "Perceptions of injury causes and solutions in a Johannesburg township: implications for prevention," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 331-344, February.
    5. Nichols, Laura, 2002. "Participatory program planning: including program participants and evaluators," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 25(1), pages 1-14, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Massey, Oliver T., 2011. "A proposed model for the analysis and interpretation of focus groups in evaluation research," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(1), pages 21-28, February.
    2. Burford, Gemma & Velasco, Ismael & Janoušková, Svatava & Zahradnik, Martin & Hak, Tomas & Podger, Dimity & Piggot, Georgia & Harder, Marie K., 2013. "Field trials of a novel toolkit for evaluating ‘intangible’ values-related dimensions of projects," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 36(1), pages 1-14.
    3. Olsen, Odd Einar & Lindoe, Preben, 2004. "Trailing research based evaluation; phases and roles," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 371-380, November.
    4. Kenny, Tiff-Annie & Fillion, Myriam & MacLean, Jullian & Wesche, Sonia D. & Chan, Hing Man, 2018. "Calories are cheap, nutrients are expensive – The challenge of healthy living in Arctic communities," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 80(C), pages 39-54.
    5. Grommon, Eric, 2018. "Managed access technology to combat contraband cell phones in prison: Findings from a process evaluation," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 39-47.
    6. Walter, Alexander I. & Helgenberger, Sebastian & Wiek, Arnim & Scholz, Roland W., 2007. "Measuring societal effects of transdisciplinary research projects: Design and application of an evaluation method," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 325-338, November.
    7. Cumming, Jennifer & Whiting, Richard & Parry, Benjamin J. & Clarke, Fiona J. & Holland, Mark J.G. & Cooley, Sam J. & Quinton, Mary L., 2022. "The My Strengths Training for Life™ program: Rationale, logic model, and description of a strengths-based intervention for young people experiencing homelessness," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    8. Amy Weimann & Tolu Oni, 2019. "A Systematised Review of the Health Impact of Urban Informal Settlements and Implications for Upgrading Interventions in South Africa, a Rapidly Urbanising Middle-Income Country," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(19), pages 1-17, September.
    9. Trondsen, Marianne & Sandaunet, Anne-Grete, 2009. "The dual role of the action researcher," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 13-20, February.
    10. Dean T. Jamison & Richard G. Feacham & Malegapuru W. Makgoba & Eduard R. Bos & Florence K. Baingana & Karen J. Hofman & Khama O. Rogo, 2006. "Disease and Mortality in Sub-Saharan Africa, Second Edition," World Bank Publications - Books, The World Bank Group, number 7050.
    11. Saunders, Ruth P. & Ward, Dianne & Felton, Gwen M. & Dowda, Marsha & Pate, Russell R., 2006. "Examining the link between program implementation and behavior outcomes in the lifestyle education for activity program (LEAP)," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 352-364, November.
    12. Holte-McKenzie, Merydth & Forde, Sarah & Theobald, Sally, 2006. "Development of a participatory monitoring and evaluation strategy," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(4), pages 365-376, November.
    13. Leire Gartzia, 2021. "Gender Equality in Business Action: A Multi-Agent Change Management Approach," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-29, May.
    14. Jose Lopez-De-Pedro & Eva Rimbau-Gilabert, 2012. "Stakeholder Approach: What Effects Should We Take into Account in Contemporary Societies?," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 107(2), pages 147-158, May.
    15. Saunders, Ruth P. & Wilcox, Sara & Baruth, Meghan & Dowda, Marsha, 2014. "Process evaluation methods, implementation fidelity results and relationship to physical activity and healthy eating in the Faith, Activity, and Nutrition (FAN) study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 93-102.
    16. Schalock, Robert L. & Lee, Tim & Verdugo, Miguel & Swart, Kees & Claes, Claudia & van Loon, Jos & Lee, Chun-Shin, 2014. "An evidence-based approach to organization evaluation and change in human service organizations evaluation and program planning," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 110-118.
    17. Bauman, Adrian & Smith, Ben J. & Maibach, Edward W. & Reger-Nash, Bill, 2006. "Evaluation of mass media campaigns for physical activity," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 29(3), pages 312-322, August.
    18. Scarinci, Isabel C. & Johnson, Rhoda E. & Hardy, Claudia & Marron, John & Partridge, Edward E., 2009. "Planning and implementation of a participatory evaluation strategy: A viable approach in the evaluation of community-based participatory programs addressing cancer disparities," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 221-228, August.
    19. Arends, Iris & Bültmann, Ute & Nielsen, Karina & van Rhenen, Willem & de Boer, Michiel R. & van der Klink, Jac J.L., 2014. "Process evaluation of a problem solving intervention to prevent recurrent sickness absence in workers with common mental disorders," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 123-132.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:31:y:2008:i:2:p:209-216. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.