Evaluation of the National Trachoma Health Promotion Programme
Report for Indigenous Eye Health, University of Melbourne; Ninti One Research Report NR002
Ninti One Limited
E-Publications; E-Books; PublicationNT; Report NR002
Ninti One was invited by Indigenous Eye Health (IEH) to conduct an evaluation of the Trachoma Health Promotion Programme (THPP). The project evaluated the work of IEH at the University of Melbourne and its contribution to the goals of the National THPP in six remote Aboriginal communities in Central Australia (namely the tristate border region of South Australia, the Northern Territory and Western Australia). The intent of the project was to identify community knowledge and perceptions of the THPP and what impact this knowledge had on the respondents and their actions. The outputs will be used by IEH and others working in this field to continue the work of eliminating trachoma and to improve and develop future activities and initiatives. The research was conducted over six locations – Ali Curung, Finke, Lajamanu, Ntaria, Pukatja (Ernabella) and Warburton – ensuring that a sufficiently large and representative sample of people was reached in each community and overall across the population. - Executive summary; Made available via the Publications (Legal Deposit) Act 2004 (NT).
Executive summary -- Introduction -- Monitoring and evaluation strategy -- Research process -- Dara from survey questions -- Data analysis -- Conclusion -- Appendix A-B
Prevention and control; Trachoma; Health and hygiene; Ophthalmology; Eye diseases; Aboriginal Australians
Ninti One Limited
iv, 38 pages : colour illustrations ; 30 cm.
Check within Publication or with content Publisher.
Ninti One Research Report NR002 12 Evaluation of the National Trachoma Health Promotion Programme Ninti One Limited Report for Indigenous Eye Health University of Melbourne The responses to the preceding two questions are categorised in a way that brings out the key differences between them. We are interested in knowing how Milpa is perceived by participants in relation to health messages and exactly how these messages are interpreted. For example, the difference in a response that Milpa means eyes, which came from 28 people (shown in Dataset 4), is distinct from one in which Milpa means wash eyes and face, as indicated by 12 people (Dataset 4). The key difference is that the second response refers to Milpa being interpreted as requiring an action, in this case washing. The most commonly received response pertained to having clean eyes, faces or hands. Other frequent responses included eyes and good message. 4.6 Where have you seen Milpa? Where have you seen Milpa? Ali Curung Finke Ntaria Warburton Lajamanu Pukatja TOTAL Childcare 0 4 1 1 0 1 7 At the clinic 2 4 0 9 1 8 24 Hiphop video/song 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 In community 11 3 2 3 4 4 27 Mural at store 0 0 0 14 0 0 14 On TV 9 13 10 6 16 8 62 Pamphlets 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 Posters 4 8 0 11 3 7 33 School 9 11 5 4 2 8 39 Sporting event 0 0 0 0 5 0 5 Work 0 0 1 1 0 1 3 I did not see Milpa 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 Others 1 1 1 1 1 2 7 Dataset 6: Categorised responses for Where have you seen Milpa? 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Childcare At the clinic Hiphop video/song In community Mural at store On TV Pamphlets Posters School sporting event Work I did not see Milpa Others Ali Curung Finke Ntaria Warburton Lajamanu Pukatja