• Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion
• /
• v.23 no.3
• /
• pp.149-167
• /
• 2006

Objectives: This study examined the national health promotion plan 2010 in order to identify the agenda and issues to be considered for the improvement of the evaluation of the plan and future planning. In specific, the examination focused on both the planning model and practical aspects of the planning work. With regard to the planning model, attention was directed to the theoretical background, logical framework and assumptions involved in the design. Also, an observation was made in comparison with Japanese $\ulcorner$Health Japan 21$\lrcorner$ and American $\ulcorner$Healthy People 2010$\lrcorner$ which provided main reference to our original health plan 2010 and revised health plan 2010 respectively. From this observation it was found that all the plans of three countries, except our original health plan 2010, basically employed a model of educational and ecological approaches to health promotion planning. As predicted, the practical constraints on the health promotion policy and programs in Korea led to many difficulties in attaining the rationality and validity of the plan. The short period of time afforded for the planning work, the limited availability of relevant data and research findings, and the lack of experiences and competent personnel in health promotion planning were main factors impeding the planning work performance. The observation and analysis of the National Health Promotion Plan 2010 suggest two main implications for the future planning of health promotion. First, it will be both theoretically and practically appropriate to maintain the current planning model basically as it is. Second, there are many practical problems that may impede effective planning for health promotion, thus continuous efforts should be made to remove or alleviate such problems.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.1-31
• /
• 1997

In many people's minds, health promotion is simply a more modern term covering roughly the same field as disease prevention or life style related reduction of the risk factors of chronic disease. A review of the modern literature of health promotion make it clear that there is more to this term than what is involved in functioning as a synonym for disease prevention. Therefore, in order to reach a clear understanding of what health promotion is, this study suggest the concept of the health balance model. Health balance is represented in terms of an equilibrium between physical, social, and life-style-related health challenges on the one hand and health potential on the other hand. Thus, health promotion strategies encompasses both the reduction of health challenges and the strengthening of health potential. Many elements of reducing health challenge are mainly related to the regulation laws. Aspects of strengthening of health potential are related to activities of health center. Therefore, health promotion strategies at a community level should be included in regional health planning which is implemented by health center.

• Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion
• /
• v.27 no.3
• /
• pp.59-66
• /
• 2010

Objectives: This paper aims to describe a public health planning model, Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnership(MAPP), and to discuss its application in Korea with a specific focus on the Local Public Health System (LPHS) component of MAPP. Methods: Literature content review was performed on research papers on MAPP development and application, MAPP handbook and guides, the guidelines for the 5th Phase Community Health Plan, and a research report on public health center evaluation system. Results: MAPP has been applied to public health planning (the 5th Phase Community Health Plan) and a performance evaluation system for public health center in Korea. The current application is limited to the early stages of the MAPP. Limited or partial application affects the integrity of the model. Follow-through should be strengthened especially for evaluation planning. Conclusion: Systems thinking approaches should be considered for the development of LPHS and strengthening logical and practical linkage between planning and evaluation of community health planning.

• Osong Public Health and Research Perspectives
• /
• v.9 no.6
• /
• pp.314-324
• /
• 2018

Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze research and development projects in mental health services in Korea, using priority evaluation of mental health promotion policies to determine direction of the service. Methods: An online survey was conducted that targeted experts in the mental health service regarding promotion of mental health in Korea in 2016. The survey was based on 32 policy projects that resulted from 12 strategies according to 4 policy objectives. Results: Analysis of 32 mental health projects were assessed regarding the possibility of technology development success, magnitude of the ripple effect, and necessity of a national response. It was observed that 3 policy projects relevant to suicide, had a high relative priority. This was followed by policies for improvement of health insurance and the medical benefit cost system, and policies for reinforcement of crisis psychological support such as those for disaster victims. Conclusion: The prioritization of mental health services should place an emphasis on promotion of a healthy mental lifestyle, rehabilitation support for patients with serious mental illness, and reinforcement of social safety networks for suicide prevention.

• Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion
• /
• v.21 no.2
• /
• pp.1-16
• /
• 2004

The ultimate goal of health promotion programs is to improve the quality of life through promoting community health. Since the performance of health promotion programs are greatly affected by the quality of the planning and implementation process of the programs, the proper quality assessment of the program process is very important. According to existing literature, the tool for assessing the quality of the process and implementation as well as the outcome. However, no assessment tool for the quality of the process of health promotion programs has been developed in Korea. The purpose of the study is to develop a quality assessment tool for the process of health promotion programs being conducted at public health centers in Korea. The quality assessment tool developed in the study consists of the following four domains： strategic planning (14 items), program management (11 items), monitoring and evaluation (13 items), and resources and information (15 items). The strategic planning deals with the function of the planning staff and committees, community data analysis, the feasibility of the program, and the approach methods for attaining the goal of the program. The program management includes items on the qualification and power of the program staff. Monitoring and evaluation deals with the planning and education for monitoring, reporting and communication among program units, and feedback after monitoring. Finally, the resource and information covers the planning and activities for obtaining resources and information, community networking, beneficiaries' response, and consulting activity of the staff.

• Korean Journal of Health Education and Promotion
• /
• v.27 no.2
• /
• pp.141-149
• /
• 2010

Objectives: This paper aims to compare the intervention development steps of the revised PRECEDE-PROCEED model and the Intervention Mapping model. Methods: Concepts and structure of the intervention development step of each model are reviewed with examples. Results: The revised PRECEDE-PROCEED model and the Intervention Mapping model share characteristics in intervention development in employing PRECEDE assessments, applying a social ecological framework and behavior theories for intervention building, emphasizing multi-interventions at multiple levels, and involving stakeholders and existing resources in intervention development. A detailed explanation of the intervention alignment and matrix building is provided with illustration of examples. Conclusion: Intervention development should not be done compartmentally but in line with other steps in a planning model to sustain the program logic. For successful application of planning models for intervention development, solid understanding of the models and behavior theories are required. Multisectoral collaboration is also critical for the successful application.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.7 no.2
• /
• pp.19-45
• /
• 1997

This study was performed to evaluate the appropriateness of resource allocation based on the ranking of health center function. Through the Delphi processes, health center functions were ranked in order of importance as follows; planning and research, followed by health education, health promotion, management of chronic diseases, health screening tests, welfare activities, mental health services, medical personnel management, medical services, prevention of communicable diseases, maternal and infant health services, housekeeping, management of oral hygiene, nutrition services, surveillance for community health services, family planning, and administration of the health center. In relation to the above priorities, the allocation of manpower was not appropriate. Even though the expert groups emphasized on functions such as planning and research, health education, and health promotion, they inputted more personnel for administration of a health center, maternal and infant health services, and medical services which were evaluated with lower importance. The budget allocation showed the same trends as the above. Although the functions such as planning and research, health education, and health promotion, and management of chronic diseases were evaluated highly, the budget was allocated accordingo to the the results of the former fiscal year rather than on the importance of function. However the budget for nutrition services, surveillance for the community health services, family planning, and administration of a health center was allocated according to priority. Based upon the above findings, community health center should be given the opportunity to make their own ranking of health center function and to allocate their resources including personnel and budget in order to improve the responsibilities and roles of the community health center.

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.13 no.3
• /
• pp.35-51
• /
• 2003

This study purports to develop a quality assessment tool for the process of health promotion programs at public health centers(PHC). The draft of the assessment tool developed by the literature was distributed to 242 staffs who were in charge of the health promotion programs at PHCs for evaluating the feasibility of the tool on September and October 2002. The major results of the study were as follows; The quality assessment tool developed in the study consisted of four domains: strategic planning, program management, monitoring and evaluation, and resources and information. The strategic planning dealt with the function of the planning staff and committees, community data analysis, the feasibility of the program, and the approach methods for attaining the goal of the program. The program management included the items on the qualification and power of the program staff. The monitoring and evaluation included the items on the reporting and communication among program units, and feed back after monitoring. Finally, the resources and information dealt with community networking, clients' response, and consulting activity of the staff. The validity of the tools was tested and partly supported by both formative and criterion-related methods. The assessment tools developed in this study could be used by health promotion workers in the self-evaluation of the program quality. In conclusion, the quality assessment tool developed in the study will be a good safeguard for assuring the quality of the process of health promotion programs.

• Journal of Korean Academy of Nursing
• /
• v.49 no.4
• /
• pp.461-471
• /
• 2019

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a health promotion program utilizing action planning strategy for young adults. Methods: A non-equivalent control group pre-post-test design was used. One hundred three university students participated in the study. Participants in the experimental group (n=51) were provided the health promotion program utilizing action planning strategy for five weeks. The program consisted of weekly sessions that included action planning and group feedback. The control group (n=52) was provided with health information every week for 5 weeks. Program outcomes, including self-efficacy, physical activity health behaviors, total exercise time per week, daily cigarette consumption, frequency of alcohol drinking per month, nutritional health behaviors, and subjective health status, were assessed at baseline and at follow-up after 5 weeks. Results: The participants in the experimental group demonstrated significant increases in self-efficacy, physical activity health behaviors, weekly exercise time, and nutritional health behaviors and significant decreases in daily cigarette consumption than those in the control group. Conclusion: The health promotion program utilizing action planning strategy is a brief and effective intervention to promote health behaviors among young adults. Further investigation is warranted to assess the program's effectiveness among other age groups and populations at high risk for chronic illness.

• The Journal of Korean Society for School & Community Health Education
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.59-73
• /
• 2013

Objectives: Health promotion policies have been developed and implemented in most developed countries. The purpose of this study is to compare the national health promotion plans among Korea, Japan and USA. Methods: Data were collected and involved overview of health promotion plans, formulation of policy, evaluation, monitoring and research, implementation in each countries. I got the some literatures over the governmental websites related to the health promotion. The data from each country were analyzed for comparison. Results: The goals of Healthy People 2020 are to attain high-quality, longer lives, to achieve health equity, to create social and physical environments, to promote quality of life across all life stages. Those of Healthy Japan 21 are increasing the year of healthy life and reducing health disparities. and Those of Health Plan 2020 are prolonging of healthy age and improvement of healthy equity. The number of topic areas and objectives of health promotion in each countries were different. Healthy People 2020 lacks participation of community people and stakeholders in the process of planning, impletation, evaluation. Conclusion: The planning models of health promotion were different among countries. But they reflect the social determinants of health. The health plan goals of Korea were similar to Japan. but were different from USA. The implementation and evaluation systems of USA and Japan were systematic and performed well than those of Korea.