Loading...
Using theories of power and place to evaluate community health promotion
Powell, Katie Thurston, Miranda Bloyce, Daniel
Powell, Katie
Thurston, Miranda
Bloyce, Daniel
Citations
Altmetric:
Advisors
Editors
Other Contributors
EPub Date
Publication Date
2025-12-17
Submitted Date
Collections
Files
Loading...
Published version
Adobe PDF, 590.36 KB
Other Titles
Abstract
There is some consensus that better ways of evaluating complex public health programmes are needed as experimental methods are limited in explaining the 'how' and 'why' of change. Methods like 'theory-of-change,' 'realist evaluation,' and 'systems evaluation' try to give a more complete picture of change by looking at the context of the programme. However, when these methods are used to study programmes that aim to reduce health inequalities, they often miss a crucial issue: how power affects people's health and engagement with programmes. This paper addresses that gap by reporting an ethnographic study of a community health promotion programme that was informed by a social theory of power (figurational sociology). When looking at how power dynamics played out in the targeted community, we could see why residents often did not trust the people running the programme, and why local status was so important to them. When programme staff understood these power dynamics, they were better able to connect with residents and help them improve their wellbeing. We argue that combining this way of looking at power with our observational approach gives us a much clearer understanding of how complex public health programmes work and why they succeed or fail in their aims.
Citation
Powell, K., Thurston, M., & Bloyce, D. (2026). Using theories of power and place to evaluate community health promotion. Evaluation and Program Planning, 115, article-number 102745. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102745
Publisher
Elsevier
Journal
Evaluation and Program Planning
Research Unit
PubMed ID
PubMed Central ID
Type
Article
Language
en
Description
© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Series/Report no.
ISSN
0149-7189
EISSN
1873-7870
ISBN
ISMN
Gov't Doc
Test Link
Sponsors
This research was funded by a Gladstone Bursary from the University of Chester and NHS Western Cheshire. Writing time for this paper was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) School for Public Health Research (SPHR) (Grant Reference Number PD-SPH-2015).