PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Gerard R M Molleman

Publications and source records attributed to Gerard R M Molleman.

5 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2006

Preffi 2.0- a quality assessment tool.

The findings of many meta-studies into the effects of health promotion programmes indicate that there is still much room for improvement in the quality of these programmes. Insights gained from research are rarely applied in practice. Practitioners and policymakers often find it hard to assess the value of the many and sometimes contradictory research findings, partly because the necessary contextual information is usually lacking. Practical considerations force them to respond to specific problems at short notice in the form of programmes that are as effective as possible. Hence, effective health promotion requires not only the dissemination of effective programmes but also insights into principles of effectiveness and the way professionals use these insights. It is against this background that the Netherlands Institute for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (NIGZ) has developed and implemented the Preffi instrument. Preffi consists of a set of guidelines with items relevant to the effectiveness of health promotion and prevention projects, reflecting scientific and practical knowledge about effect predictors. This article describes the systematic, seven-step development process of the second version of the instrument, Preffi 2.0, a process in which scientists and practitioners were closely involved throughout. The article also describes the Preffi model and its scoring method. The draft version of Preffi 2.0 was tested for usefulness among 35 experienced practitioners from a range of health promotion institutes. They were asked to use the draft version to assess two project descriptions and to comment on their experiences using Preffi 2.0. They gave the instrument an average overall mark of 7.7 on a scale of 10, and the large majority of them evaluated the instrument as valuable, complete, clear, well-organised and innovative. The findings of this trial implementation were used to construct the definitive version of Preffi 2.0. To an experienced user, applying Preffi to assess a project takes less than an hour. Preffi is used as a diagnostic quality assurance instrument at various stages of a project, either to critically evaluate one's own project or to comment on projects proposed by others. Assessing other people's projects may be difficult if the necessary information is lacking or unclear. A supplementary discussion with the project manager is always required. Users have commented that applying Preffi to a project yields a balanced and useful assessment, as well as a clear overview of points in the project that could be improved.

Guidelines as Topic↗
PubMed2005

Project quality rating by experts and practitioners: experience with Preffi 2.0 as a quality assessment instrument.

Preffi 2.0 is an evidence-based Dutch quality assessment instrument for health promotion interventions. It is mainly intended for both planning and assessing one's own projects but can also be used to assess other people's projects (external use). This article reports a study on the reliability of Preffi as an external quality assessment instrument. Preffi is used to assess quality at three levels: (i) specific criteria, (ii) clusters of criteria and (iii) entire projects. The study compared Preffi-based assessments of 20 projects by three practitioners with their intuitive assessments of the same projects and with assessments by three experts, which were to be used as external criteria. The intuitive assessments only related to the cluster and project levels. Our main hypothesis was that intuitive assessments by practitioners would be less reliable and accurate than their Preffi-based assessments and the experts' assessments. On the whole, we failed to confirm this hypothesis: the experts' assessments proved less reliable and accurate than the practitioners' intuitive and Preffi-based assessments and differed too much from each other to be used as external criteria. The Preffi-based assessments by the practitioners had an acceptable generalizability coefficient (G) and accuracy (standard error of measurement). At the level of the entire project, two assessors are needed to produce sufficiently reliable and accurate assessments, whereas three are needed for assessment at cluster level. The study also showed that different assessors use different perspectives and base their assessment on a variety of aspects. This was regarded as inevitable and even useful by the assessors themselves. Discussions between assessors are important to achieve consensus. The article suggests some improvements to Preffi to further increase its reliability.

Health Promotion↗
PubMed2004

Implementation of a quality assurance instrument (Preffi 1.0) to improve the effectiveness of health promotion in The Netherlands.

This paper describes the design and outcomes of implementing Preffi 1.0, a quality assurance instrument for health promotion (HP) interventions, among Dutch HP professionals. The Preffi instrument promotes a systematic way of working that is driven by evidence, which is expected to lead to high-quality projects and better outcomes. Implementation interventions included nationwide activities aimed at awareness of and positive attitudes toward the instrument, and an intensive 5-day programme for a self-selected sample aimed to enhance self-efficacy and use. Effects of the nationwide activities were measured in two independent representative samples of Dutch HP professionals (N = 120 and 316, respectively), while a cohort design was used to measure the effects of the training programme. The Theory of Planned Behavior was used to guide both the interventions and the study. While the nationwide implementation activities raised awareness of Preffi and contributed to a more positive attitude towards the instrument, a significant increase in its use required a more intensive training programme. Attitude was especially influenced by the perceived value and necessity of a systematic approach, and the usefulness of the instrument. Health managers in The Netherlands failed to stimulate a systematic implementation of Preffi, even though the embeddedness of Preffi in the quality system of a HP team was found to be a major predictor of its implementation. The study showed that determinants of the implementation stages vary by stage.

Health Personnel↗
PubMed2004

[Preffi 2.0: a Dutch instrument to analyse the effectiveness of health promotion interventions].

Preffi is a set of guidelines with items relevant to the effectiveness of health promotion projects, reflecting scientific and practical knowledge. Preffi is used to assess quality at various stages of an intervention, either to critically evaluate one's own project or to comment on projects proposed by others. This article describes the Preffi model, its scoring method and the systematic, seven-step development process that led to its second version: Preffi 2.0. The draft version of Preffi 2.0 was tested for usefulness among 35 experienced Health Promotion specialists. They gave the instrument an average overall score of 7.7 on a scale of 10. The large majority of them evaluated it as valuable, complete, clear, well-organised and innovative. Users have commented that applying Preffi to a project yields a balanced and useful assessment, as well as a clear overview of points in the project that could be improved.

Guidelines as Topic↗