According,
to Heron, J, (2001) the type of communication skills
that the participation and professional will deliver and receive is informative
communication to give facts information or seek the professionals help for
legislative action activity for example being equally important and to
contribute to others process also to give and get handouts, visual aids.
Whereas for the personal counselling will use prescriptive communication
type to encourage the smoker to think about their health and offer help to deal
with the negative thoughts about quitting. Moreover, Cathartic
type of communication is useful for the process of counselling to help the
smoker to get in touch with their emotions and maybe let them out. However, confronting
type of communication type fits into the health persuasion activity for example
the smokers don’t tend to ask for information when they feel low self-esteem
because of stigma, additionally the activity can provide the information for
the person with lung cancer.  Additionally,
the catalytic type of communication that the community development
activity will use by listening to others opinion and open questions to help
people to express their feelings and knowledge, also supportive type of
communication can come under community development for example they demonstrate
the support for the smoker so they can get what information they need to
support them change behaviour by accepting people’s behaviour to change and
supporting change. 

Evaluation

Naidoos
and Wills, (2009) demonstrate the types of evaluation for all the four
activities, process type of evaluation will evaluate and measure the experience
for the smokers, if they felt respected, the involvement in the activities
which activity how many participated, also about the materials and equipment
used in the health persuasion and the community development activity, the
quality and if they were relevant and if they were inclusive. Additionally, the
impact evaluation will evaluate the short terms effects for the personal
counselling, the health persuasion, community development and the legislative
action activity whether the aims and objectives of the intervention were met.
Checking for the smoker’s knowledge, have they gained awareness are they
willing to quit are they planning to reduce the number of cigarettes they smoke
a day and if they are up taking services to access help and support. Also, if
they are seeking counselling, if is there quitting equipment available at workplaces,
education settings, hospitals, shopping centres are they easy to access.
Moreover, the outcome evaluation will measure the longer-term effects for
example lower rates of lung cancer in people exposed to anti-smoking advice,
smoker stopping smoking earlier, lower rates of lung cancer caused by smoking,
if young people are not up taking smoking at younger age or never. The
evaluation will take place at the activities settings such as hospitals, doctor
surgeries, educational settings, workplaces in the public areas and shop
centres. The evaluation could be done through questionnaires or surveys it
could be either an online survey or questionnaire or paper copy. According, to Naidoo
and Wills, (2009) study indicates that participants in
personal counselling, health persuasions and community development will involve
a professional from an inside to impose the evaluation for the certain
activities, the insider input because they may be looking for efficiency
results which can be taken as cost-effective. However, different groups of
people engaging in different health promotion interventions will each have
invested something but may well be looking for different results. Additionally,
the legislative action activity will be an outside someone from the public to
calculate the effective of the activity data this will be effective because the
MPs will be able to share their ideas and what they will be doing to help the
smokers to get an earlier screening.