Implementing the Health Promotion/Intervention Program
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Implementing the Health Promotion/Intervention Program
MHD504_Module 4 – Home
Health Promotion Program Implementation and Evaluation
Modular Learning Outcomes
Upon successful completion of this module, the student will be able to satisfy the following outcomes:
- Case
- Identify and describe the different levels of evaluating a health promotion/intervention.
- SLP
- Discuss principles, processes, strategies, and concerns of implementing a health promotion program/intervention.
- Discussion
- Determine important issues in identifying and allocating resources for health promotion program/intervention.
Module Overview
Organizing the Community
A community is a locale or domain characterized by the following elements:
- Memberships – A sense of identity and belonging
- Common symbol systems – similar language, rituals, and ceremonies
- Shared values and norms
- Mutual influence – community members have influence and are influenced by each other
- Shared needs and commitment to meeting them
- Shared emotional connection – members share common history, experiences, and mutual support
A community may be defined geographically (for example a neighborhood) but this is not always necessary. Health educators may work with small or large communities.
Community organizing is a process through which communities are helped to identify common problems or goals, mobilize resources, and develop and implement strategies for reaching the goals they have collectively set.
When organizing communities, the following assumptions need to be made:
- Communities of people can develop capacity to deal with their own problems.
- People want to change and can change.
- People should participate in making, adjusting, or controlling the major changes taking place in their community.
- Changes in community living that are self-imposed or self-developed have a meaning and permanence that imposed changes do not have.
- A “holistic approach” can deal successfully with problems with which a “fragmented approach” cannot cope.
There are various methods for organizing and building a community. McKenzie and Smeltzer propose these steps:
There are several models available for guiding community organizers.
One widely-used model is the Planned Approach to Community Health (PATCH). PATCH was designed using the PRECEDE model and was created “to strengthen state and local health departments’ capacities to plan, implement, and evaluate community-based health promotion activities targeted toward priority health problems”. PATCH also led to the inspiration for PROCEED.
The essential elements of PATCH include community organization with local support, participation, and leadership, community members using local health data to determine the health problems, prioritize the health problems, and set goals and objectives, carrying out interventions, and evaluating the results. PATCH is a team approach in which the people of the community make the decisions (via a consensus process) and do the work, with technical assistance from the state and local health departments and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. These team members not only facilitate the necessary work, but also provide financial support for the project.
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
Implementing the Health Promotion/Intervention Program
Program implementation is the process of implementing the program’s strategies. It consists of initiating the activities, providing assistance, solving problems, and reporting on progress.
There are some important questions to ask and answer when implementing a program:
- What are the objectives of the program?
- What is the rationale or theoretical basis of the program (i.e., why should it work)?
- What is the content of the program?
- What are the strategies or methods to be used?
- In what context (physical, social, political, etc.) is the program delivered (i.e., selection of organizational location)?
- How will you know if the program has succeeded? (i.e., it is best to consider if you would be able to evaluate your program while you are designing it).
Factors to consider for the implementation process:
- Establish who, what, where, why, how, and when.
- Carefully define your target group or population.
- Perform reality checks. For example, does it seem reasonable to expect that the program can be finished in the available time and with the available resources?
Key processes for program implementation are: establishing effective communication channels, documenting processes, identifying opportunities, and developing contingency plans if obstacles or changes need to be addressed. It is important to monitor all activities on a regular basis to ensure the activities are working towards the initial goals and objectives set for the program.
Three major ways of implementing a program have been suggested: by using a piloting process; by phasing it in, in small segments; or by initiating the total program all at once (not recommended). Borg and Gall suggest a ten-step research and development cycle, of which the last seven steps can be used as an implementation model for health promotion programs: preliminary field-testing, program revisions, main field-testing, operational program revisions, operational field testing, final revisions, dissemination and implementation.
PROGRAM EVALUATION
Evaluation tries to answer the questions:
- What difference has a particular health promotion program made?
- What changes in health status has it produced?
Evaluation involves observing, documenting, and measuring. It compares the actual results of the program with what was expected to happen. Planning for evaluation is an essential part of the initial health promotion program planning process.
Types of Evaluation
There are three different levels of evaluation which can be used to assess the effectiveness of a health promotion program:
- Process evaluation
- Impact evaluation
- Outcome evaluation
These must be done in a logical order – the short-term effects of the health promotion program must be assessed before any long-term benefits can be measured.
Process Evaluation
Process evaluation assesses the health promotion program’s quality, the way the program was run, and whether the target group was reached. Process evaluation usually focuses on the following key areas:
- Is the program reaching the target group?
- Are participants satisfied with the program?
- Are the activities of the program being implemented as planned?
- Are the materials and components of the activity of good quality?
Impact Evaluation
Impact evaluation assesses the short-term effects of the program and is concerned with whether the objectives were met. It measures changes in behavior, environment, health knowledge, social participation, lifestyle, or risk factors.
Examples of questions asked:
- What proportion of the target group have heard of the health promotion activities?
- Has there been a change in behavior (e.g., more people exercising)?
Outcome Evaluation
Outcome evaluation assesses whether the health promotion program has been effective in the long term and whether its overall goal has been met.
Examples of questions asked:
- Has there been an increase in breast feeding?
- How much has the death rate from lung cancer been reduced?
Evaluation Methods
Quantitative evaluation methods involve systematically measuring changes and effects using numbers and statistics (e.g., the percent of people who have stopped smoking). Quantitative methods allow the size of any changes to be measured and comparisons to be made between particular groups.
Qualitative evaluation methods focus on describing people’s experience and feelings about the program. There are many qualitative evaluation tools, for example focus groups and in-depth interviews. Qualitative evaluation is useful in understanding why particular effects occurred as a result of the health promotion program (e.g., why people started to exercise more).
The most comprehensive health promotion evaluations use a combination of both methods.
Purposes of Evaluation
- To determine achievement of objectives related to improved health status
- To improve program implementation
- To provide accountability to those who funded the program, community, and other stakeholders
- To increase community support for initiatives
- To contribute to the scientific base for public health interventions
- To inform policy decisions
Results from evaluations conducted early in the planning process can assist in improving the program. Early data should be analyzed quickly to make necessary adjustments. It is also good to establish early who will conduct the evaluation, and whether it will it be internal or external. Internal evaluators are close to program, already on staff, and thus may be biased when assessing the program. However, costs are usually higher for external evaluation and may be more objective, though evaluators are not as familiar with the program. An evaluation is best done by someone who is experienced in evaluation.
Potential Problems in Evaluation
- If the planners failed to build evaluation into program planning
- Adequate procedures cost time and resources
- Changes sometimes come slowly
- Some changes do not last
- It is sometimes difficult to distinguish between cause and effect
Experimental and Control Groups
One of the most rigorous ways of assessing whether a program worked is to compare the results with a population group that was not exposed to the program. The group that participated in the program is known as the experimental group. The control group should be as similar as possible to the experimental group. If participants cannot be randomly assigned to an experimental or control group, a nonequivalent control group may be used. This, however, needs to be taken into account when analyzing the data.
Module 4 – Background
Health Promotion Program Implementation and Evaluation
Required Reading
Bere, E., Veierod, M. B., Bjelland, M., & Klepp K. I. (2006). Outcome and process evaluation of a Norwegian school-randomized fruit and vegetable intervention: Fruits and Vegetables Make the Marks (FVMM). Health Education Research, 21 (2) 258-267. Available in the Trident Online Library.
Identification and Allocation of Resources [PowerPoint presentation]. (n.d.).
Unite for Sight. (n.d.). Challenges and failures of health fairs and community screenings. Retrieved from http://www.uniteforsight.org/health-screenings/health-screenings
Jang, M., Chao, A., & Whittemore, R. (2015). Evaluating intervention programs targeting parents to manage childhood overweight and obesity: A systematic review using the RE-AIM framework. Journal of Pediatric Nursing, 30(6), 877-887. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2015.05.004
Baba, C. T., Oliveira, I. M., Adriele Evelyn Ferreira Silva, Vieira, L. M., Cerri, N. C., Florindo, A. A., & Grace Angelica de Oliveira Gomes. (2017). Evaluating the impact of a walking program in a disadvantaged area: Using the RE-AIM framework by mixed methods. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 1-11. doi:10.1186/s12889-017-4698-5
Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. F. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr4811.pdf
Recommended Reading
World Health Association-Europe. (2001). Evaluation in health promotion: Principles and perspectives. Retrieved from http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/108934/E73455.pdf
Optional Resources
Purdue Online Writing Lab. (2018). General format. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/general_format.html
Purdue Online Writing Lab. (2018). In-text citations: The basics. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/in_text_citations_the_basics.html
Purdue Online Writing Lab. (2018). Reference list: Basic rules. Retrieved from https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/reference_list_basic_rules.html
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.us/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME]and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!