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 22 Evaluation of the National Trachoma Health Promotion Programme Ninti One Limited Report for Indigenous Eye Health University of Melbourne 4.12 How do the community feel? How do the community feel? Ali Curung Finke Ntaria Warburton Lajamanu Pukatja TOTAL Community is aware 2 4 2 3 0 2 13 Community is happy 0 1 2 2 2 1 8 Good message 7 11 4 14 5 6 47 Kids are engaged 1 0 2 1 1 1 6 Not everyone understands 1 2 1 1 0 0 5 People are listening 2 4 2 2 2 1 13 Some don't listen 4 1 0 1 7 0 13 I don't know 4 2 0 2 0 1 9 Others 5 0 1 2 1 9 18 Dataset 12: Community attitudes to the programme categorised by theme and in response to the question How does the community feel (about the programme)? The responses to this question reveal its shortcomings in that good is by far the largest response. We interpret good to mean that the community is responding well to the programme and is supportive of the messages it delivers. The negative responses imply a problem in the message being received and acted on. They show that not everyone hears or understands what Milpa is saying. These responses amount to 34% of the total (n=132), and are derived from the categories not everyone understands, some dont listen, I dont know and others. Responses categorised as others (18) included unrelated responses (3), wanting to learn more (1), alright (1), uncomfortable (1), and for more people to come and visit (1), worried/fearful (3), unsure (3). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 Community is aware Community is happy Good message Kids are engaged. Not everyone understands People are listening Some don't listen I don't know Others Ali Curung Finke Ntaria Warburton Lajamanu Pukatja