An introduction to public and community health evaluation -- The community assessment : an overview -- Developing initiatives : an overview -- Planning for evaluation : purpose and processes -- Designing an evaluation, part 1 : describing the program or policy -- Designing the evaluation, part 2a : process evaluation -- Designing the evaluation, part 2b : outcome evaluation -- Collecting the data : quantitative -- Collecting the data : qualitative -- Analyzing and interpreting data : quantitative (part 1) -- Reporting evaluation findings -- Case study : the community assessment -- Case study : process evaluation
"This book provides an integration of key concepts as a part of the organizing framework of each module and consistently references the use of the literature review, ethical and cultural considerations and stakholder engagement in the course of research. Module 1 provides an overview of research principles and how to conduct a literature review as well as expands on the fundamental and guiding principles that are used throughout the book. Module 2 focuses on quantitative research; Module 3 on qualitative research; Module 4 describes mixed method approaches; and Module 5 provides an overview of writing the report and dissemenating the findings from the research"--
In: Appiah-Brempong , E , Harris , M J , Newton , S & Gulis , G 2018 , ' Examining school-based hygiene facilities: a quantitative assessment in a Ghanaian municipality ' , B M C Public Health , vol. 18 , 581 . https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-018-5491-9
Background: The crucial role of adequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities in influencing children's handwashing behaviour is widely reported. Report from UNICEF indicates a dearth of adequate data on WASH facilities in schools, especially in the developing world. This study sought to contribute to building the evidence-base on school hygiene facilities in Ghana. The study further explored for possible associations and differences between key variables within the context of school water, sanitation and hygiene. Methods: Data was collected from 37 junior high schools using an observational checklist. Methods of data analysis included a Scalogram model, Fisher's exact test, and a Student's t-test. Results: Results of the study showed a facility deficiency in many schools: 33% of schools had students washing their hands in a shared receptacle (bowl), 24% had students using a single cotton towel to dry hands after handwashing, and only 16% of schools had a functional water facility. Furthermore, results of a proportion test indicated that 83% of schools which had functional water facilities also had functional handwashing stations. On the other hand, only 3% of schools which had functional water facilities also had a functional handwashing stations. A test of difference in the proportions of the two sets of schools showed a statistically significant difference (p < 0.001). In addition, 40% of schools which had financial provisions for water supply also had functional handwashing stations. On the other hand, only 7% of schools which had financial provisions for water supply also had functional handwashing stations. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportions of the two sets of schools (p = 0.02). Conclusion: We conclude that it is essential to have a financial provision for water supply in schools as this can potentially influence the existence of a handwashing station in a school. An intervention by government, educational authorities and civil society organisations towards enabling schools in low resource areas to have a sustainable budgetary allocation for WASH facilities would be timely.