4.2 Article

Process evaluation of European 'Healthy Stadia' program

Journal

HEALTH PROMOTION INTERNATIONAL
Volume 30, Issue 4, Pages 881-890

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/heapro/dau025

Keywords

settings approach; health promotion programs; evaluating health promotion; process evaluation

Funding

  1. European Union

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Healthy Stadia (HS) is a European public health pilot-program started in 2007 to support sports stadia in promoting the health of people who work and visit sports stadia, as well as inhabitants of the surrounding communities. The aim of this study is to describe the process evaluation of the program, from its beginning in July 2007 to December 2009, in order to assess the feasibility and sustainability of an HS network across Europe. The program involved nine associate partners involved in the coordination of activities at a local level, in the recruitment of stadia, in the development of specific program tasks and in the dissemination of the program at a national level. The activities of associate partners were evaluated through structured questionnaires administered every 6 months. The questionnaire response rate from associate partners was 77.8% for the first and third evaluations and 88.9% for the second and fourth evaluations. According to the evaluation's results, several good practices such as alcohol prevention policies and those supporting people with disabilities were implemented in stadia over the course of the program. Conversely, practices supporting mental health and green transport were generally not achieved. The implemented activities mainly involved staff and visitors. Lack of human and economic resources, especially toward the end of the program, was considered the principal challenge for program development. In conclusion, the process evaluation presented the feasibility of the HS program and the development of health promoting practices in sport stadia over time.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available