Article Critique #2

Laura Rebolledo

California State University, San Bernardino

HSCI 6260

Professor Mshigeni

Apr 4, 2022
Introduction

Peer education has become a common method in health promotion to educate younger

populations, however evaluation of these practices is not readily available. The evaluations that

do exist on this type of work tend to concentrate on the quantitative aspects and the short-term

impacts. In result, information on qualitative methods used, participants’ subjective feelings, and

on the factors that may influence peer education are not presented or analyzed. To combat this,

an evaluation of a peer education program implemented in Fife, Scotland was conducted where

qualitative factors that influenced the development of the program were inspected and analyzed.

Methodology

The Fife Project was implemented over three years to address concerns in young people such as

sexual health, drug use, and HIV/AIDS. The objectives included providing young people with

positive experiences such as becoming peer educators and building strong relationships within

their school and the community as well. The project was initially implemented among three

schools, however only two schools were involved with the project at the end. The peer educators

involved in the project totaled to 85 students with ages ranging from 15 to 18. Stakeholders were

comprised of members from the Health Promotion Department, the Health Education Board for

Scotland, and the Fife Health Board

Results

The Fife Project had several objectives and several of them were met in the results. To begin

with, peer educators confirmed they gained an increase in self-confidence and assertiveness

when discussing their opinions and feelings. There was a difference in personal development for

females versus males, with females reaping more benefits from the project. Individuals were
learning new skills and abilities at different rates, however this was in line with the individuality

objective for the project.

Another observation that was made was that the ability for peer educators to accurately

educate on their own, without an adult being involved, was limited. Concerns regarding if peer

educators were providing correct and accurate information arose which conflicted with the

project’s objective of encouraging personal development as peer educators with their own

individuality. Lastly, there were conflicts in assessing the information the recipients received

from the project due to informal discussions. These informal contacts were difficult to measure

since the peer educators were simply partaking in casual conversations on their own time with

friends, family, or other individuals. Several peer educators believed informal discussions were

important and took peer education to a more intimate level where both parties felt more

comfortable asking questions. Ultimately, the process evaluation confirmed success for the

project relied heavily on using methods in response to the project needs.

Process Evaluation

The evaluation that was conducted was an interactive process that placed the focus on the actual

process of the project versus the outcomes that lasted almost the entirety of the project. The

evaluator utilized qualitative methods such surveys, interviews with stakeholders and peer

educators, observations of peer education training sessions, participants, and recruitment

workshops, and evaluation from the peer educators on their experience with their duties.

Consistent contact and feedback among the evaluator and the project was required for this

interactive evaluation method. The evaluation process also observed the recruitment process of

the project and the setting and organizational context of the project.

Positive Points
The article was very detailed in explaining the role of each project objective and the processes

involved in the project implementation. The format in which the project objectives were

explained were simple to understand as well. The addition of remarks from participants in the

project were helpful in understanding their subjective opinion on their experience.

Constructive Points

As the article points out, part of the data collected relied heavily on the relationships between

staff members. For example, the evaluator relied on the attendance of the Coordinator and their

ability to provide descriptive details regarding peer education sessions. I understand the main

objective of the evaluation was to monitor qualitative methods, however the collection methods

used may have been too subjective at times. There were several changes throughout the three

years of the project implementation such as three different coordinators and other staff members

as well which may have resulted in inaccurate data, especially when some roles that were

constantly being replaced were vital to the project.

 References

Backett-Milburn, K., & Wilson, S. (2000). Understanding peer education: insights from a
process evaluation. Health education research, 15(1), 85–96.
https://doi.org/10.1093/her/15.1.85