|Title||The development of a monitoring instrument to measure the strength of health promoting systems|
|Author(s)||Fransen, G.; Wagemakers, A.; Molleman, G.|
|Source||European Journal of Public Health 29 (2019)Supplement_4. - ISSN 1101-1262 - p. 224 - 224.|
Health and Society
|Publication type||Abstract in scientific journal or proceedings|
|Abstract||Background: In the region of the Municipality Health Services GelderlandSouth, each municipality has its own health broker. He or sheadvises the local policy makers, signals/pleads for addressinghealth problems, and facilitates effective approaches. By doingthis health brokers try to strengthen the local health promotingsystem. To show the results of health brokers and to monitorchanges of the local health promoting system, the MHS needs amonitoring instrument. The aim of this study was to developthis instrument and to test it in practice. Methods: Participatory action (qualitative) research is used to develop anonline questionnaire. Structured group processes with the healthbrokers has led to the identification and definition of eightvariables, reflecting the health promoting system: collaboration,support, integrated approach, visibility of results, health monitordata assessment, consistency, reach of the target population andsustainability. A literature study identified appropriate instruments. The online questionnaire is expanded to test the reliability,to evaluate the usability and to gain insight into the strength ofthe health promoting system in 16 municipalities. Results: The questionaire is based on validated questionaires like theCoordinated Action Checklist, and contains 28 items.Sumscores per variable ranged from 0 (weak) to 100(strong). Health brokers and their partners (N = 147, 4-9per municipality) filled out the questionnaire. Support andcollaboration had the highest mean scores (70,5 resp. 69,8),and visibility of results and sustainability the lowest (61,3 resp.59,4). Differences between municipalities were identified andcan be used to know which variables can be improved. Thetest-retest reliability (mean r = 0,713) and the Crohnbachsalphas (all > 0,70) were reasonable good. Conclusions: The questionnaire can help to provide useful insights in the strengths and weaknesses of the local health promoting system.
Key messages: Eight variables reflect the health promoting system: collaboration, support, integrated approach, visibility ofresults, health monitor data assessment, consistency, reach and sustainability. The questionnaire can help to provide useful insights in the strengths and weaknesses of the local health promoting system.