CLICK on the left picture to reach the site index
Archive
INVESTMENT IN HEALTH 1995 - Evaluation of the Investment in Health
Project Aims
Checklist of measures of success
Suggested indicators/measures of evidence
  • Developing policy tools to secure the promotion of health
  • There is an established methodology and new approaches to policy making
  • The policy tools and approaches are capable of being applied to other health issues
  • Documentation of the methodology
  • Those who have been involved in the project feel comfortable with thinking and using the new tools and approaches
  • There is evidence that the new approach has been applied to other health issues
  • Strengthening the capacity of responsible public authorities to support health gain for population
  • There is a new understanding for the principles and processes required to make investments in health in its broadest sense
  • The ability of the two Provinces to work together and learn from each other is increased
  • The development agenda for public policy reflects the principles for health promotion set out in the Ottawa Charter
  • The language of investment in health is evident in policy documents within and beyond the health sector
  • Public and private sector polices are developed with explicit regard to their potential impacts on health
  • There is a continuing interest in developing the skills and competencies required to support health gain
  • Enabling local resources to undertake and sustain processes of analysis, development and implementation of polices for health.
  • There is a more balanced approach to policy analysis combining different sources of data and decision making tools
  • There are ideas for transferring the skills that have been learned to other people in the two Provinces
  • There is a better understanding of how an analysis of stakeholder views can support policy making and implementation
  • There are new multi-sectoral committees with clear remits for addressing health issues
  • There are funding mechanisms which enable inter-sectoral investment in promoting health
  • There are inter-sectoral structures and processes in place to enable the Investment in Health approach to be taken
Draft Criteria for the selection of Feasibility Projects
Possible Indicator Range
1. Equity

Do the projects enhance an equitable gain in health for the target population?

 The equal consumption of services in the target population is optimised across differences in social class
  • Urban/rural areas
  • Ethnic groups
  • Economic sectors (e.g. agriculture/tourism)
  • Gender differences
2. Empowerment

Do the projects enhance the capacity of the target population to self-manage their health effectively?

 The target population has maximum opportunities for involvement in the planning and delivering of services
  • Opportunity for developing self-relianc
  • Opportunity for exercising choice about risk factors
  • Opportunity for receiving feedback on choices made
3. Accountability

Can the services, which the projects are designed to deliver, be evaluated effectively for the achievement of their intended benefits?

 Evidence is/can be made available to corroborate anticipated benefits
  • Quantitative data
  • Qualitative data
4. Sustainability

Can the services, which the projects are designed to deliver, be sustained by local resources, skills and managerial capacity?

 Sustainability is characterised by
  • Political commitment
  • Policy shifts
  • Re-oriented health services
  • Using existing structures and processes where effective
  • An appropriate match with local managerial capability
  • Developing managerial and organisational capability
  • Locally determined resourcing framework
5. Multi-settoral

Does the final selection include at last two projects which would involve multi-sectoral collaboration?

 Multi-sectoral partners include
  • Two or more policy sectors
  • Voluntary organisations
  • Private businesses
6.Cost-effective

Will the projects, when implemented, have a positive cost-impact ratio?

 Dimensions of cost and impact include low absolute cost
  • Comparative low cost per unit of output
  • Option appraisal (cost/benefits)
  • Widespread diffusion of impact
7. Risk-effective

Do the projects have a positive risk-impact ratio?

 Dimensions of risk and impact include
  • Risk criteria
  • Risk assessment (risk/benefits)
  • Extent of related research
  • Access to related experience elsewhere
8.Speed of implementation

Are the projects capable of being implemented quickly?

 Dimensions of speed implementation might include
  • Few dependencies
  • Few or no changes of regulations
  • Implementation through existing structures
9. Flexibility

Will the services, which the projects are designed to deliver, be characterised by flexibility?

 Dimensions of flexibility include
  • Few dependencies
  • Not highly dependent on timing
  • Shorter rather than longer delivery time scales
  • Having some modular elements
10. Real Need

The projects demonstrate real need

 Real need can be demonstrated by
  • Quantitative data
  • Qualitative data
11. Political Acceptability

Will the services, which the projects are designed to deliver, be acceptable to local people?

 Dimensions of acceptability include
  • Reasonable cost to tax payers
  • Culturally acceptable to target population
  • Accountable to local politicians
  • Within scope of local jurisdiction
  • bilingual
XX