Introduction: Health promotion programs are planned actions aimed at increasing con- trol over health and its determinants. WHO describes good practice in health promotion as the knowledge of what works in specific situations and contexts that can be used to develop and implement adapted solutions in other situations and contexts. Good practice evaluation refers to the assessment of an intervention implemented to generate evi- dence-based practice. Good practice guides in health promotion interventions become the quality tools for assessing the dimensions of an intervention and identifying good practices. Objective: The objective of this work is to evaluate good practices in health promotion programmes and interventions of public administrations in Catalonia. Methodology: Descriptive and quantitative cross-sectional study. The study population are health promotion programmes carried out by public administrations of a supramuni- cipal nature with competence in public health in Catalonia. The programmes are identi- fied through a search on the administration’s web portal. The DORS guide of the Centro Regionale di Documentazione por la Promozione della Salute (Piemonte) is used to eval- uate the identified programmes. The programmes are evaluated in relation to the 18 blocks of analysis of the instrument and in relation to the administrations to which they belong. Results: 26 health promotion programmes belonging to six public administrations are identified. Of these, 14 meet the inclusion criteria of the instrument to be evaluated. The evaluation results identify one programme as good practice; 9 as acceptable practice; 2 as sufficient practice; and 2 as insufficient practice. The overall results show that, of the 18 blocks of analysis, the best scores are those related to the description of the pro- gramme activities. The lowest scores are those referring to evidence of effectiveness, the theoretical models of design and behavioural change on which they are based to develop the programme, and information on the necessary resources (economic, pro- fessional and instrumental). Differences are observed in the results between administra- tions and between projects of the same organisation. Conclusions The lack of a protocol shared and accepted by the administrations on how to document a programme in health promotion, so that it can be evaluated, and the knowledge generated can be transferred, is highlighted. Administrations have little open or published information on the health promotion interventions they carry out. There is a long way to go in terms of the culture of good practice in health promotion