Difference between theory and a model/ Clean Water

Based upon the material from “Text A”, please explain the difference between a Theory and a Model. Next, explain why and how the MATCH Model would be effective in promoting a Clean Water initiative in a developing country. Dont worry about sources. 

“Text A” by Sharma, M

A theory helps health education and health promotion programs identify program objectives, specify methods for facilitating behavior change, provide guidance about the timing of the methods, and select the methods of intervention. These are all very specific functions in the broad area of planning. Planning skills are one of the seven essential responsibilities of health educators. In addition to setting objectives and selecting methods, planning functions may include assessing needs, priori-tizing needs, allocating resources, matching human resources to tasks, and so on. To achieve these goals, health promotion and health education planning relies on various models.
A  can be characterized as a theory in its early stages. Models are eclectic, creative, simplified, miniaturized applications of concepts for addressing problems. Model makers present their ideas but may not yet have the empirical evidence through testing and experimentation that are required of a theory. Sometimes a model is thoroughly tested, yet the word model sticks as part of its name. Unlike theories, models do not provide guidance for micro-level management. An example of a model is the PRECEDE-PROCEED model (), which is used in planning health promotion and health education programs. This model provides guidance for planning at the macro level: what behaviors to target, what resources to tap, how to mobilize the community, and so on. A theory such as social cognitive theory provides guidance at the micro level; it tells which attitudes to change for making the behavior change, what activities to do with the target audience, what educational methods to employ, and so forth.  summarizes the differences between a model and a theory.

TEXT B “Match Model”

In the late 1980s, Simons-Morton, Greene, and Gottlieb () introduced the . It is a very practical, yet comprehensive, model. It places the health educator at the center of planning and can be implemented without an extensive local needs assessment. Few reports on the use of this model are available other than those by the authors.  summarizes the five phases in the MATCH model.

The first phase is goals selection, and it includes four steps: (1) selecting health status goals by looking at prevalence, perceived and actual importance, changeability, and availability of programmatic resources; (2) selecting the target population by looking at health problem prevalence, accessibility, and programmatic interests; (3) identifying health behavior goals by looking at prevalence, association, and changeability; and (4) identifying environmental goals by looking at access to services, availability of programs and resources, enabling policies, practices, regulations, and barriers.
The second phase is intervention planning, which includes the following four steps: (1) identifying the targets of intervention at the community level, (2) selecting intervention objectives, (3) identifying mediators of the intervention objectives (such as knowledge, skills, attitudes, and practices), and (4) selecting intervention approaches by applying theories.
The third phase is program development, and it also includes four steps: (1) creating program units or components that include paying attention to the target population, intervention targets, intervention objectives, structural units, and channels; (2) selecting or developing curricula and creating intervention guides that include learning objectives, content, teaching/learning methods, and materials; (3) developing session plans in which educational objectives are delineated with teaching/learning activities, materials, and specific instructions; and (4) creating or acquiring instructional materials in which existing materials are reviewed and selected and new materials developed after pilot testing.
The fourth phase is implementation preparation and comprises two steps. The first step includes facilitating, adopting, implementing, and maintaining a health behavior by developing a specific proposal; developing the need, readiness, and environmental supports for change; providing evidence of the efficacy of the intervention; identifying change agents and opinion leaders; and establishing constructive working relationships with decision makers. The second step in this phase concerns selecting and training implementers.

Whereas PRECEDE-PROCEED emphasizes formal needs assessment, MATCH as formulated by Simons-Morton and associates () is a framework that gives more attention to implementation.
Simons-Morton, Greene, and Gottlieb (, p. 132)

The fifth and final phase is evaluation. There are three levels of evaluation: (1) process evaluation, which assesses recruitment, session, and program implementation, quality of learning activities, and immediate outcomes; (2) impact evaluation, which examines antecedents of behaviors and environments, changes in behaviors and environments, and any side effects of the program; and (3) outcome evaluation, which assesses health outcomes, cost effectiveness, and policy recommendations. For more details on this model, see Introduction to Health Education and Health Promotion (). In recent years the MATCH model has not been reported in the literature and is losing its popularity