Using theories of power and place to evaluate community health promotion
Name:
Publisher version
View Source
Access full-text PDFOpen Access
View Source
Check access options
Check access options
Affiliation
University of Sheffield; University of Inland Norway; University of ChesterPublication Date
2025-12-17
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
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.2025.102745Publisher
ElsevierJournal
Evaluation and Program PlanningType
ArticleLanguage
enDescription
© 2025 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.ISSN
0149-7189EISSN
1873-7870Sponsors
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).ae974a485f413a2113503eed53cd6c53
10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102745
Scopus Count
Collections
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/


