Critique 

Park Nicollet Health Education Program - Health Education Program

The following assessment of program strengths and weaknesses has been abstracted from reviews by the Task Force on Program Selection of The Health Project. Where weaknesses are postulated, it must be taken into account that the review Task Force is very critical, that no programs are perfect, that the Award Winning programs have been selected from over 300 candidate programs and represent the very best, that the materials reviewed may have been incomplete, that suggested deficiencies may have resulted from incomplete understanding of the program by the reviewers or that any problems may have been corrected since the time of review.

Evaluation: Park Nicollet Medical Foundationís program begun in 1974 provides self-care materials for community, employer and patient health education at costs between $5 and $150 per year per participant as tested on about 15,000 patients, has saved $3 for each $1 spent, by helping participants understand when professional care was needed and when it was not necessary. The comprehensive program includes prevention guidelines, hypertension screening, guidelines and counseling on HIV testing, a heart program, and a "Quit and Win" program that cut smoking over six months by 26 percent.

In January 1993 they began an ambitious health promotion program that links many employers to HMOs and three group practices. The linkage is designed to deliver health promotion and the program is well designed. Some of its content is based on components that have had adequate testing for effectiveness. They have provided two well-designed evaluations of blood pressure change in their SHAPE program and in an HIV testing program. Both used a randomized treatment-control design, a truly rare phenomenon. There are many informal publications. There is a self-care emphasis. There are broad program capabilities. These are low-cost education strategies which appear effective. 

Evaluation of their new program beginning in 1993 is not all available. The study design of the reduction in visits for colds study is weak. Program evaluations focus more on changes and knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors than on cost reductions. The program description did not provide all the details needed to assess. The strength of the evaluations could be improved.