RESUMO
Objetivo Analizar las líneas de acción propuestas por los proyectos de promoción de la salud participantes en el proyecto de investigación EvaluAGPS, y su relación con las puntuaciones obtenidas con EvalGuía, una herramienta para evaluar la participación comunitaria basada en la evidencia. Diseño Estudio multicéntrico cuali-cuantitativo. Emplazamiento Proyectos de atención primaria o de red intersectorial de atención primaria y municipalidades de 5 comunidades autónomas en España. Participantes Personas que trabajan en 10 proyectos de promoción de la salud, seleccionados con muestreo intencional según criterios de inclusión (proyectos con un mínimo de participación comunitaria centrados en la salud comunitaria). Método Se recogieron los datos mediante cuestionarios (herramienta EvalGuía) y talleres participativos. Los datos cuantitativos se analizaron con estadística descriptiva, los datos cualitativos se analizaron utilizando el análisis de matriz. Resultados Tras pasar la herramienta EvalGuía, las puntuaciones más bajas estaban en la evaluación de resultados, conocimiento de leyes relacionadas con participación comunitaria, diversidad en el grupo motor, medidas de conciliación, recursos financieros y devolución de resultados. Las líneas de acción planteadas eran heterogéneas y no siempre coinciden con las priorizadas. Las líneas priorizadas giraban en torno a la organización del proyecto y a la comunicación. Conclusiones La herramienta EvalGuía puede ser útil para diseñar planes de acción en proyectos de promoción de la salud. La implementación de medidas en 12 meses para aumentar la diversidad del grupo motor, incorporar medidas de conciliación o mejorar la evaluación es difícil. Se requiere más tiempo para implementar este tipo de medidas. (AU)
Objective To analyse the lines of action identified in the health promotion projects participating in the EvaluA GPS research, and their relationship with the scores assigned in EvalGuia, a tool for evaluating evidence-based community participation. Design Qualitative-quantitative multicentre study. Setting Primary care or intersectoral network of primary care and municipalities in five autonomous communities in Spain. Participants Participants of 10 health promotion projects, selected with convenience sampling, following inclusion criteria (projects with a minimum of community engagement and centred on community health). Method Data were collected through questionnaires (EvalGuía tool) and participatory workshops. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics, qualitative data were analysed using matrix analysis. Results After implementing the EvalGuide tool, the lowest scores were assigned in outcome evaluation, knowledge of policies related to community participation, diversity in the core working group, inclusivity policies, financial resources and diffusion of results. The lines of action proposed were heterogeneous and did not always match with those prioritised as lower score. The prioritised lines revolved around project organisation and communication. Conclusions The EvalGuide tool can be helpful to design action plans in Health Promotion projects. The implementation of measures in 12 months to increase the diversity of the core working group, to incorporate worklife balance measures or to improve evaluation is difficult. More time is needed to implement such measures. (AU)
Assuntos
Humanos , Promoção da Saúde/métodos , Promoção da Saúde/normas , Saúde Pública , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Inquéritos e Questionários , EspanhaRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To analyse the lines of action identified in the health promotion projects participating in the EvaluA GPS research, and their relationship with the scores assigned in EvalGuia, a tool for evaluating evidence-based community participation. DESIGN: Qualitative-quantitative multicentre study. SETTING: Primary care or intersectoral network of primary care and municipalities in five autonomous communities in Spain. PARTICIPANTS: Participants of 10 health promotion projects, selected with convenience sampling, following inclusion criteria (projects with a minimum of community engagement and centred on community health). METHOD: Data were collected through questionnaires (EvalGuía tool) and participatory workshops. Quantitative data were analysed with descriptive statistics, qualitative data were analysed using matrix analysis. RESULTS: After implementing the EvalGuide tool, the lowest scores were assigned in outcome evaluation, knowledge of policies related to community participation, diversity in the core working group, inclusivity policies, financial resources and diffusion of results. The lines of action proposed were heterogeneous and did not always match with those prioritised as lower score. The prioritised lines revolved around project organisation and communication. CONCLUSIONS: The EvalGuide tool can be helpful to design action plans in Health Promotion projects. The implementation of measures in 12 months to increase the diversity of the core working group, to incorporate work-life balance measures or to improve evaluation is difficult. More time is needed to implement such measures.
