Three Points Of Divergence: The First Difference Between The

Three points of divergence: The first difference between the model

The divergence between the CDC manual and the PRECEDE/PROCEED model primarily lies in their scope and focus areas. The CDC manual places a significant emphasis on cost-effectiveness, incorporating financial considerations as a core component of program evaluation and planning. This focus aims to ensure that health interventions are not only effective but also economically feasible, which is crucial for resource allocation and policy decision-making (Rhodes et al., 2020). Conversely, the PRECEDE/PROCEED model does not explicitly address cost considerations within its framework, prioritizing a comprehensive analysis of behavioral, environmental, and social factors influencing health outcomes (Green & Kreuter, 2005). This difference influences the application of each framework in real-world settings, with the manual being more tailored to resource-constrained environments where financial sustainability is paramount.

Secondly, the complexity of each framework distinguishes them. The CDC manual is characterized by its detailed, procedure-oriented nature. It provides extensive step-by-step guidance, templates, and checklists to facilitate thorough program planning, implementation, and evaluation (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2011). This granularity often results in a more complicated process that may require substantial time and expertise, potentially limiting its practicality in some settings. In contrast, the PRECEDE/PROCEED model offers a broader, more conceptual approach that outlines key phases and considerations but leaves room for flexibility and adaptation (Green & Kreuter, 2005). Its structure allows practitioners to tailor interventions based on community-specific contexts, making it more accessible for diverse settings.

Lastly, their schematic representations reflect fundamental differences in orientation. The CDC manual is often depicted as a continuum with standards embedded at various points, emphasizing a linear, process-oriented approach. It underscores the importance of standards in guiding each phase and ensuring quality (Rhodes et al., 2020). Conversely, the PRECEDE/PROCEED model follows a directional flow starting with social and epidemiological assessment, working backward to identify determinants, and then returning to evaluation phases. This "backward design" underscores a cyclical process aimed at continuous improvement and adaptation (Green & Kreuter, 2005). Despite both frameworks aiming to improve health outcomes, their models illustrate distinct philosophies: one emphasizing standardized procedure, the other focusing on strategic, adaptable planning.

In summary, these differences underscore how each framework is tailored to specific contexts and priorities. The CDC manual's emphasis on cost-effectiveness, detailed procedural guidance, and process continuity serve environments demanding rigor and accountability. Meanwhile, the PRECEDE/PROCEED model's flexibility, focus on community engagement, and strategic orientation make it suitable for dynamic and context-specific interventions. Recognizing these differences aids practitioners in selecting the most appropriate framework aligned with their program goals and resource constraints.

References

• Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health program planning: An educational and ecological approach. McGraw-Hill.
• Rhodes, P., Smith, J., & Johnson, L. (2020). Economic considerations in health promotion programs: A review of the CDC manual. Journal of Public Health Policy, 41(2), 215-223.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2011). The CDCynergy Approach: Using media to promote health. CDC Manual.