The evaluation of the Joint Action on Cancer and Other Non-Communicable Diseases (JA PreventNCD) is considered a relevant contribution to guiding future public health activities in European countries. It will assess the project outputs and evaluate their contribution to achieving the outcomes of the joint action (JA), as well as their impact at both the European Union (EU) and member state (MS) levels.
Methods:
The evaluation, informed by a logic model, assesses project-level outputs as well as outcomes and impacts at the MS and EU levels using mixed-methods approaches. This involves data collection and analysis to address the evaluation questions. Accompanying evaluation approaches will include monitoring selected implementation case studies and examining the influence of contextual factors across diverse settings.
Conclusions:
The evaluation will provide essential insights to guide the adaptation and scaling-up of interventions to prevent non-communicable diseases (NCD) across diverse settings and countries. These insights can assist decision-makers in designing and implementing future public health initiatives.
PiovaniDNikolopoulosGKBonovasS.Non-communicable diseases: The invisible epidemic. J Clin Med2022; 11: 5939.
2.
RootmanIGoodstadtMPotvinL, et al. A framework for health promotion evaluation. WHO Reg Publ Eur Ser2001; 92: 7–38.
3.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development. Health at a glance 2011: OECD indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2001.
4.
BaumanANutbeamD.Planning and evaluating population interventions to reduce noncommunicable disease risk – Reconciling complexity and scientific rigour?Public Health Res Pract2014; 25: e2511402.
5.
KidderDPLunaE, et al. CDC program evaluation framework. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Report no. 73(6). Atlanta: U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/rr/pdfs/rr7306a1-H.pdf (2024, accessed 14 July 2025).
6.
WatersEDoyleJJacksonN, et al. Evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions: The role and activities of the Cochrane Collaboration. J Epidemiol Community Health2006; 60: 285–289.
KleppK-IHelleveAHøstrupE, et al. Scaling up non-communicable disease prevention and health promotion across Europe: The Joint Action PreventNCD. Scand J Public Health2025; 53(3S): 8–17.
10.
SkivingtonSMatthewsLSimpsonSA, et al. A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ2021; 374: n2061.
11.
McGillEMarksDErV, et al. Qualitative process evaluation from a complex systems perspective: A systematic review and framework for public health evaluators. PLoS Med2020; 17: e1003368.
12.
GaglioBShoupJAGlasgowRE.The RE-AIM framework: A systematic review of use over time. Am J Public Health2013; 103: e38–46.
13.
DamschroderLJAronDCKeithRE, et al. Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Sci2009; 4: 50.
14.
PetersHDTaghreedAOlakunleA, et al. Implementation research: What it is and how to do it. BMJ2013; 347: f6753.
15.
DamschroderLJReardonCMOpra WiderquistM, et al. The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Sci2022; 17: 75.
16.
World Health Organization. Social determinants of health. Report by the Director-General. Geneva: Executive Board, 148th session. Report no. EB148/24, https://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB148/B148_24-en.pdf (2021, accessed 14 July 2025).
17.
StraarupMSO’DonovanFLambrouA, et al. The Joint Action on Tobacco Control: A cooperation project for strengthening tobacco control in Europe. Tob Prev Cessation2022; 8: 26.
FreedmanAMSimmonsSLloydLM, et al. Public health training center evaluation: A framework for using logic models to improve practice and educate the public health workforce. Health Promot Pract2014; 15: 80S–88S.
23.
LangleyTGillespieDLewisS, et al. Developing logic models to inform public health policy outcome evaluation: An example from tobacco control. J Public Health (Oxf)2021; 43: 639–646.
24.
JabeenS.Do we really care about unintended outcomes? An analysis of evaluation theory and practice. Eval Program Plann2016; 55: 144–154.
25.
KellyLTwohigCWoodsCB, et al. Reaching consensus on definitions for food and physical activity policies: Experience from the Policy Evaluation Network. Eur J Public Health2022; 32: iv10–20.
26.
GodinhoMAAnsariSGuanNG, et al. Toolkits for implementing and evaluating digital health: A systematic review of rigor and reporting. J Am Med Inform Assoc2021; 28: 1298–1307.
