3.8 Article

Applying Systems Science to Evaluate a Community-Based Social Marketing Innovation: A Case Study

期刊

SOCIAL MARKETING QUARTERLY
卷 20, 期 4, 页码 247-267

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/1524500414556649

关键词

community coalitions; policy advocacy; utilization-focused evaluation; complexity; developmental evaluation

类别

资金

  1. U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) [U48-DP001900]
  2. University of South Florida's Department of Community and Family Health

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the United States, community coalitions are an important part of the public health milieu, and thus, subject to many of the same external pressures as other organizations-including changes in required strategic orientation. Many funding agencies have shifted their funding agenda from program development to policy change. Thus, the Florida Prevention Research Center created the Community-Based Prevention Marketing (CBPM) for Policy Development framework to teach community coalitions how to apply social marketing to policy change. The research reported here was designed to explicate the framework's theory of change. We describe and demonstrate a hybrid evaluation approach: utilization-focused developmental evaluation. The research question was What are the linkages and connections among CBPM inputs, activities, immediate outcomes, intermediate outcomes, and ultimate impacts?'' We implemented a case study design, with the case being a normative community coalition. The study adhered to a well-developed series of steps for system dynamics modeling. Community coalition leaders may expect CBPM to provide immediate gains in coalition performance. Results from causal diagramming show how gains in performance are delayed and follow an initial decline in performance. We discuss the practical implications for CBPM's developers-for example, importance of managing coalition expectations-and other social marketers-for example, expansion of the evaluation toolkit.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据