How do you evaluate whether health promotion action has built resilience and improved health?
Evaluate the effectiveness of health promotion action against criteria and recommend refinements that strengthen resilience and equity
A QCE Health Unit 4 answer on evaluating health promotion action, covering evaluation criteria, equity and access, drawing evidence-based conclusions, and recommending refinements that strengthen collective resilience.
Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed
Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page
What this dot point is asking
The top of every QCAA Health criteria sheet rewards evaluation: making a justified judgement against criteria and recommending what to do next. Unit 4 asks you to evaluate health promotion action, decide how effective it was at building resilience and improving health, and recommend refinements. "Evaluate" is the highest cognition here, so you must set criteria, weigh evidence on both sides, reach a defensible judgement, and propose improvement, including attention to equity.
The answer
What evaluation means
Evaluation is a judgement of merit or value made against criteria and supported by evidence. It is not the same as describing what a campaign did, or even analysing why it did it. To evaluate you must decide how well it worked and justify that decision. The judgement should be balanced, acknowledging both strengths and limitations rather than only praising or only criticising.
Setting evaluation criteria
Good evaluation starts with explicit criteria. Useful criteria for health promotion action include:
- Reach: did it get to a representative slice of the target population.
- Effectiveness: did the intended health or behaviour outcomes change, and by how much.
- Fit with determinants: did it target the determinants actually driving the issue.
- Equity: did it reduce or widen gaps between groups.
- Sustainability: are the effects and the program likely to last.
The RE-AIM framework supplies several of these dimensions and is a ready-made evaluation lens.
Weighing evidence
A defensible judgement rests on evidence weighed for quality. You consider the reliability and validity of the data, whether outcomes can plausibly be attributed to the action, and whether sources are current and authoritative. Triangulating several sources strengthens the conclusion. You also distinguish outputs (a poster was distributed) from outcomes (behaviour changed), because only outcomes show real effect.
Equity and access
Equity is a deliberate Unit 4 focus. An intervention can lift the average yet widen gaps if it mainly reaches advantaged groups, an effect sometimes called the inverse equity problem. Evaluating for equity means asking who was reached and who was missed, and whether the action improved access for the groups carrying the greatest burden. Strong evaluation flags equity even when overall results look positive.
Drawing conclusions and recommending refinements
Close by stating a clear, justified conclusion (for example, the action was moderately effective for the general cohort but reached disadvantaged groups poorly), then recommend specific, evidence-based refinements that address the weaknesses you identified. Tie refinements to the determinants and the Ottawa Charter action areas, and to lifting equity. This forward-looking, fix-it step is the cyclical action-research mindset and is exactly what the highest criteria band rewards across the IA1 action research, the IA3 investigation and the examinations.
Exam-style practice questions
Practice questions written in the style of QCAA exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.
2022 QCAAEvaluate the likely impact the selected innovation may have on Scuba Island's new employee cohort developing respectful relationships in their gap year. Justify an action strategy to strengthen diffusion of the innovation.Show worked answer →
Question 2 of the external assessment is, at its core, an evaluation of health promotion action against criteria, worth 24 marks. The command word 'evaluate' sits at the top of the QCAA Health criteria, so make a justified judgement, weigh strengths and limitations, and recommend action.
- Evaluate against explicit criteria (up to 14 marks combined)
- The marking guide uses RE-AIM and diffusion process variables as the criteria. Judge the innovation on RE-AIM (reach a representative slice of the 30-employee intake, effectiveness, adoption, faithful implementation, maintenance after launch) and on diffusion variables such as relative advantage and compatibility. A balanced judgement acknowledges both what works and what is limited (for example, the online program's reliance on scarce shared computers and patchy connectivity).
- Distinguish outputs from outcomes
- Credit goes for outcomes (relationships and wellbeing actually improve), not outputs (modules were delivered). Use evidence from the research findings in the stimulus rather than assertion.
- Justify refinements through an action strategy (up to 10 marks)
- Conclude with a justified diffusion action strategy that fixes the weaknesses you identified, tied to a need, barrier or enabler, so the action lasts and reaches the cohort more equitably.
2024 QCAAEvaluate the Cohort Companion Incorporated innovation for its capacity to strengthen students' respectful relationship skills within and beyond their final year of schooling. Reflect on the uptake and impact of the Cohort Companion innovation in Region A. Justify a diffusion action strategy for the two expanding co-educational schools that will have Year 12 cohorts in 2025.Show worked answer →
This 24-mark Question 2 is an evaluation task: judge the innovation's merit against criteria and recommend refinements, the highest cognition on the criteria sheet.
- Set the criteria and weigh evidence (up to 14 marks combined)
- Evaluate with two RE-AIM steps and two diffusion process variables. Region A data lets you weigh both sides: Reach and Adoption grew strongly (1 to 5 co-educational schools, 24 to 120 students, 2020 to 2024) and Effectiveness looks positive (50 per cent fewer bullying reports, 5 per cent higher attendance), but early Implementation suffered from timetabling and technology problems. A defensible judgement balances these rather than only praising the growth.
- Check equity and sustainability
- Ask who was reached and who was missed, and whether the benefits will last, before concluding.
- Recommend refinements (up to 10 marks)
- Justify a diffusion action strategy for the two expanding schools that addresses the weaknesses, for example resolving technology and timetabling barriers up front and recruiting a program champion as an opinion leader, tied to a specific need, barrier or enabler.