Journal Information
Vol. 25. Issue S1.
Evaluación en salud pública
Pages 3-8 (June 2011)
Vol. 25. Issue S1.
Evaluación en salud pública
Pages 3-8 (June 2011)
Open Access
Evaluación de la efectividad en salud pública: Fundamentos conceptuales y metodológicos
Effectiveness assessment in public health: conceptual and methodological foundations
Visits
2991
Manel Nebota,b,c,d,
Corresponding author
mnebot@aspb.cat

Autor para correspondencia.
, Mª José Lópeza,b,d, Carles Arizaa,b,d, Joan R. Villalbía,b,c,d, Anna García-Altésb,d,e
a Agencia de Salud Pública de Barcelona, Barcelona, España
b CIBER de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), España
c Departamento de Ciencias Experimentales y de la Salud, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, España
d Institut d’Investigacions Biomèdiques Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), Barcelona, España
e Agència d’Informació, Avaluació i Qualitat en Salut (AIAQS), Barcelona, España
This item has received

Under a Creative Commons license
Article information
Abstract
Bibliography
Download PDF
Statistics
Resumen

En los últimos años ha aumentado de forma notable el interés por la evaluación de las intervenciones en salud, especialmente en relación a su utilidad social y su eficiencia económica. Sin embargo, todavía estamos lejos de tener un grado suficiente de consenso en los aspectos básicos de la evaluación, como son la terminología, la finalidad y la metodología de trabajo. En este marco se revisan las principales definiciones y clasificaciones de la evaluación aplicada a los programas y políticas en salud pública. En relación a la evaluación de resultados, se presentan los principales diseños evaluativos y sus componentes, y se revisan las amenazas a la validez interna de los resultados de los diseños evaluativos débiles. Se analizan y discuten las características de las intervenciones de salud pública que limitan las opciones de evaluación con diseños tradicionales. Entre estas limitaciones destacan la complejidad de las intervenciones, que habitualmente tienen múltiples componentes, y la dificultad de establecer un grupo de comparación sin intervención, en especial mediante asignación aleatoria. Para finalizar, se describe una propuesta de evaluación a partir de diseños evaluativos débiles, consistente en la valoración de la adecuación y la plausibilidad. La adecuación estaría determinada por la existencia de un cambio observable en los indicadores de resultados, y podría ser suficiente para tomar decisiones bajo determinadas condiciones; otras veces sería necesario analizar la plausibilidad, o atribución de los resultados observados al programa.

Palabras clave:
Evaluación
Efectividad
Salud pública
Abstract

In the last few years, interest has markedly increased in evaluating health programs, especially their social utility and economic efficiency. However, consensus on key issues in evaluation, such as terminology, goals and methods is still a long way off. In this context, we review the main definitions and classifications of evaluation applied to public health programs and policies. We describe the main evaluation designs and their components, focusing on outcome evaluation. Threats to the internal validity of the results of weak evaluation designs are also discussed. The characteristics of public health interventions that limit evaluation with traditional designs are also analyzed. These limitations include the complexity of interventions, usually with multiple components, and the difficulty of forming an equivalent control group with no intervention, especially through random assignment. Finally, a two-step approach to evaluation through weak designs, which takes into account adequacy and plausibility, is described. Adequacy consists of the observation of a change in the selected indicators after the intervention, and would be sufficient to take decisions under certain conditions; at other times, plausibility would need to be analyzed, defined as attribution of the results to the program or intervention.

Keywords:
Evaluation
Effectiveness
Public health
Full text is only aviable in PDF
Bibliografía
[1.]
P.H. Rossi, M.W. Lipsey, H.E. Freeman.
Evaluation: a systematic approach, 7th, Thousands Oaks (CA), (2004),
[2.]
D.T. Campbell, J.C. Stanley.
Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research, Skokie (IL), (1966),
[3.]
D.L. Sacket.
Evidence-based medicine.
Semin Perinatol, 21 (1997), pp. 3-5
[4.]
A. Williams.
The nature, meaning and measurement of health and illness: an economic viewpoint.
Soc Sci Med, 20 (1985), pp. 1023-1027
[5.]
R. Pawson, N. Tilley.
Realistic evaluation, Sage, (1997),
[6.]
M. Nebot.
Evaluación en salud pública: ¿todo vale?.
Gac Sanit, 21 (2007), pp. 95-96
[7.]
M. Porta, J.M. Last.
Dictionary of epidemiology, Oxford University Press, (2008),
[8.]
J.M. Last.
A dictionary of public health, Oxford University Press, (2007),
[9.]
E. Suchman.
Evaluative research, Rusell Sage Foundation, (1967),
[10.]
P. Hawe, D. Degeling, J. Hall.
Evaluating health promotion, MacLennan Petty Pty, (1990),
[11.]
M. Scriven.
The methodology of evaluation.
Evaluating action programmes: readings in social action and education, pp. 36-55
[12.]
J. Overtveigt.
Evaluation purpose theory and perspective.
Evaluating health interventions, pp. 23-47
[13.]
R. Pineault.
La planificación sanitaria.
Masson, (1981),
[14.]
A.C. Haddick, S.M. Teutsch, P.A. Shaffer, et al.
Prevention effectiveness. Introduction, Oxford University Press, (1996),
[15.]
L.W. Green, M.W. Kreuter.
Health promotion planning.
An educational and ecological approach, Mayfield Publ Co, (1999),
[16.]
R. Windsor, T. Branowski, N. Clark, et al.
Evaluation of health promotion, health education and disease prevention programs, Mayfield Co, (1994),
[17.]
D.G. Kleinbaum, L.L. Kupper, H. Morgenstern.
Types of epidemiolgic research.
Epidemiologic research. Principles and quantitative methods, pp. 40-50
[18.]
O.M. Dantas, R.A. Ximenes, M. De Albuquerque, F. De, et al.
A case-control study of protection against tuberculosis by BCG revaccination in Recife, Brazil.
Int J Tuberc Lung Dis, 10 (2006), pp. 536-541
[19.]
P. Sasieni, A. Castanon, J. Cuzick.
Screening and adenocarcinoma of the cervix.
Int J Cancer, 125 (2009), pp. 525-529
[20.]
A. Luna Sánchez.
Efectos de la cobertura vacunal previa en la dinámica de un brote de sarampión.
Rev Esp Salud Pública, 71 (1997), pp. 243-247
[21.]
T.D. Cook, D.T. Campbell.
Quasi-experimentation.
Design and analysis issues for field settings, Houghton Mifflin Co, (1979),
[22.]
L.W. Green, F.M. Lewis.
Measurement and evaluation in health education and health promotion.
Mayfield Publ. Co, (1986),
[23.]
C.G. Victora, J.P. Habicht, J. Bryce.
Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials.
Am J P Health, 94 (2004), pp. 400-405
[24.]
J.P. Habitch, C.G. Victora, J.P. Vaughan.
Evaluation designs for adequacy, plausibility and probability of public health programme performance and impact.
Int J Epidemiol, 28 (1999), pp. 10-18
[25.]
H. Thomson, R. Hoskins, M. Petticrew, et al.
Evaluating the health effects of social interventions.
[26.]
E. Vartiainen, P. Jousilahti, G. Alfthan, et al.
Cardiovascular risk factor changes in Finland, 1972–1997.
Int J Epidemiol, 29 (2000), pp. 49-56
[27.]
A. McAlister, P. Puska, J.T. Salonen, et al.
Theory and action for health promotion: ilustrations from the North Karelia Project.
Am J Public Health, 72 (1982), pp. 43-50
[28.]
J. Stephenson, J. Imrie.
Why do we need randomised controlled trials to assess behavioural interventions?.
BMJ, 316 (1998), pp. 611-616
[29.]
M. Campbell, R. Fitzpatrick, A. Haines, et al.
Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health.
BMJ, 321 (2000), pp. 694-696
[30.]
M. Nebot.
Health promotion evaluation and the principle of prevention.
J Epidemiol Community Health, 60 (2006), pp. 5-6
Copyright © 2011. Sociedad Española de Salud Pública y Administración Sanitaria
Idiomas
Gaceta Sanitaria
Article options
Tools
es en

¿Es usted profesional sanitario apto para prescribir o dispensar medicamentos?

Are you a health professional able to prescribe or dispense drugs?