PubMed · 15357260
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Mayumi Abe. 2004. [Stop smoking program].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15357260/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
The aim of this article is to discuss the implications of health on the Internet for health promotion, focusing in particular on the concept of empowerment. Empowering aspects of health on the Internet include the enabling of advanced information and knowledge retrieval, anonymity and convenience in accessing information, creation of social contacts and support independent of time and space, and challenging the expert-lay actor relationship. The disempowering aspects of health on the Internet are that it involves a shift towards the expert control and evaluation of sources of health information, that it widens the gap between 'information-rich' and 'information-poor' users, thus reproducing existing social divisions, and that the increase in medicalization and healthism results in increased anxiety and poorer health. The health promotive and empowering strategies presented in this article are directed at strengthening people's ability to evaluate different information sources in relation to their own interests and needs rather than in relation to scientific and/or professional standards.
Responsive evaluation offers a perspective in which evaluation is reframed from the assessment of program interventions on the basis of policymakers' goals to an engagement with all stakeholders about the value and meaning of their practice. This article argues for this perspective both generally and more particularly in relation to health promotion. Responsive evaluation is especially appropriate in health promotion contexts characterized by a high degree of ambiguity. Ambiguity refers to the absence of or contradictory interpretations about what needs to, can and should be done, when and where. Ambiguity is high in the case of non-routine programs, lack of knowledge about success indicators, collaborative and community based programs and the absence of consensus among stakeholders. In health promotion contexts marked by a low degree of ambiguity random controlled trials (RCTs) and quantitative methods are to be considered. This implies the evaluators should assess the degree of ambiguity of a situation before deciding about an appropriate design.