Outcomes and Evalustion of Community Health Project
Outcomes and Evaluation of Community Health Project
Jeanette Gorton
Walden University
NURS6150, Section 14, Promoting and Preserving Health in a Diverse Society April 16, 2011 Outcomes and Evaluation of Community Health Project
It is important to evaluate any public health program to determine its contribution and health impact on the population it was designed to help, in addition to its sustainability. Processes should be established during the inception of the program to establish a baseline, and methods of gathering data, which would be used for this evaluation. The RE-AIM evaluation model was chosen to guide the process of evaluating the American Indian Diabetes Program (AIDP). This paper examines how the AIDP program’s methods and results will be measured and evaluated to ensure the best possible outcomes. Elements of the Evaluation Model
The RE-AIM model is specifically well suited for evaluating the population based-impact of large public health programs. It contends that some more effective, expensive, programs that conduct trials using a highly motivated population, are usually not generalizable to the real world. It is preferable for a program to have a more realistic efficacy goal, reach more people, and achieve a larger adoption by communities and policy makers, a program that is implemented as intended, and results in behavioral change that is maintained over the long term (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999). The name RE-AIM is an acronym that stands for reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. The five RE-AIM dimensions are each given a 0 to 1 (or 0% to 100%) score during program evaluation (Glasgow et al., 1999). It is suggested that the program’s implementation be evaluated over a period of at least 6 months to a year, and 2 years or longer for the maintenance portion of the program
Jeanette Gorton
Walden University
NURS6150, Section 14, Promoting and Preserving Health in a Diverse Society April 16, 2011 Outcomes and Evaluation of Community Health Project
It is important to evaluate any public health program to determine its contribution and health impact on the population it was designed to help, in addition to its sustainability. Processes should be established during the inception of the program to establish a baseline, and methods of gathering data, which would be used for this evaluation. The RE-AIM evaluation model was chosen to guide the process of evaluating the American Indian Diabetes Program (AIDP). This paper examines how the AIDP program’s methods and results will be measured and evaluated to ensure the best possible outcomes. Elements of the Evaluation Model
The RE-AIM model is specifically well suited for evaluating the population based-impact of large public health programs. It contends that some more effective, expensive, programs that conduct trials using a highly motivated population, are usually not generalizable to the real world. It is preferable for a program to have a more realistic efficacy goal, reach more people, and achieve a larger adoption by communities and policy makers, a program that is implemented as intended, and results in behavioral change that is maintained over the long term (Glasgow, Vogt, & Boles, 1999). The name RE-AIM is an acronym that stands for reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance. The five RE-AIM dimensions are each given a 0 to 1 (or 0% to 100%) score during program evaluation (Glasgow et al., 1999). It is suggested that the program’s implementation be evaluated over a period of at least 6 months to a year, and 2 years or longer for the maintenance portion of the program
References: Eilat-Adar, S., Xu, J., Zephier, E., O’Leary, V., Howard, B. V., & Resnick, H. E. (2008, March 4), Adherence to dietary recommendations for saturated fat, fiber, and sodium is low in American Indians and other U.S. adults with diabetes. The Journal of Nutrition, 138: 1699-1704. Evangelista, L. S., & Shinnick, M. (2008), What do we know about adherence and self-care?. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 23(3), 250-257. doi: 10.1097/01.JCN.0000317428.98844.4d. Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999, September), Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. Goyder, E., Wild, S., Fischbacher, C., Carlisle, J., & Peters, J. (2008, September 1), Evaluating the impact of a national pilot screening program for type 2 diabetes in deprived areas of England. Family Practice Advanced Access, 25, 370-375. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmn054 Healthy People 2020,(2008), Diabetes Objectives 2020 (Fact sheet). Retrieved from http://www.healthypeople.gov/2020/topicsobjectives2020/objectiveslist.aspx?topicid=8 Mukhtar, Q., Jack, L., Martin, M., Murphy, D., & Rivera, M.(2006, January), Evaluating progress towards Healthy People 2010 national diabetes objectives. Preventing Chronic Disease, Public Health Research, Practice, and Policy, 3(1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2006/jan/05_0122.htm