Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment
To Prepare:
- Review the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template provided in the Resources.
- Select an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation or choose one of interest to you.
- Review community, state, or federal policy evaluation and reflect on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program or policy described.
The Assignment: (2–3 pages)
Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following:
- Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
- How was the success of the program or policy measured?
- How many people were reached by the program or policy selected?
- How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
- At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?
- What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
- What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
- What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
- Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
- Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment
- Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after 1 year of implementation.
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis
NURS – 6050C: Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health
|
Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template
Use this document to complete the Module 5 Assessment Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation |
Georgia Diabetes Prevention and Control Program (DPCP) |
| Description | Diabetes mellitus (DM) is a serious public health concern globally, with statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) showing that there were approximately 422 million adults with the condition globally and the incidence of DM and prediabetes mounting at an alarming rate in 2021 (CDC, 2022). At least 37.3 million adult Americans were diabetic in 2021 accounting for 11.3% of the national population (CDC, 2022). In Georgia, 12.4% of the adult population (>1.013 million) were diagnosed with DM by 2021(American Diabetes Association, 2021). Georgia Department of Public Health developed the DPCP initiative with the principal mission of addressing the DM epidemic in the state by aiming to decrease DM prevalence and the associated complications, including blindness, non-traumatic lower extremity amputations, kidney failure, cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), and disability (Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH), n.d.). The state-based DM prevention program is financed by the CDC and DPH via a collaborative agreement between the two agencies. It seeks to use DM surveillance data, alongside multi-sector collaborative efforts and partnerships to promote healthcare policies and push for the implementation of recommended evidence-based practices to decrease DM incidences throughout the state. The foundation of DPCP includes DM data surveillance and evaluation, quality of care, access to DM Self-Management Education (DSME), health communication, and health equity through public policy (Georgia Department of Public Health, n.d.). Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
Evaluation is a procedure adopted by educators, practitioners, and researchers to assess the significance or cost of a certain initiative, policy, or project (Matthew & Ory, 2017). Evaluative attempts facilitate the determination of whether the predetermined aims associated with health improvement or behavioral change were accomplished by the program apart from providing accountability for stakeholders (Matthew & Ory, 2017). Measuring the success of the DPCP program pre-and-post-intervention analysis of outcome data, including the incidence of DM, pre-diabetes, and DM-related complications. |
| How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected? | The statewide program targeted the approximately six million adult residents of Georgia aged ≥18 years. The DPCP initiative had substantial intermediate and long-term impacts, ranging from enabling participants to lose weight and subsequently decrease the odds of developing DM or the associated complications to prompting behavioral/lifestyle changes that edged towards the attainment of the Healthy People 2020 objectives. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | In line with the CDC’s (2016) six-step policy evaluation procedure, the DPCP program was evaluated at the start of the implementation and one-year post-implementation. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
|
DM surveillance data acquired from Georgia’s DHP and Health People 2020 initiatives were used to evaluate the effectiveness of the DPCP initiative in reducing the statewide prevalence of DM and the associated complications. Specifically, administrative Cardiovascular Disease Data featuring reports of CVD-associated risk factors, hospitalizations, and mortality rates, as well as Heart Disease and Stroke Data, were employed to track the success of the program in attaining the predetermined objectives (Georgia Department of Public Health, n.d.). |
| What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
|
The unintended implications of the DPCP are the subtle perpetuation of health inequity, with residents from low-income households unable to access primary healthcare (PHC) services not captured in the DHP database. Notably, such individuals are either unable to access or fail to utilize the DHP medical services; therefore, they do not profit from the DPCP program. |
| What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples. | The stakeholders involved in the design and implementation of the DPCP program include the DHP, CDC, frontline medical professionals, including physicians, nurses, physical therapists, dieticians, and nutritionists, implementing the initiative in PHC facilities, and the residents of Georgia who are the ultimate users of the program. The DHP and the CDC, who collaborate in financing the program are the beneficiaries of successful implementation of the program, as the funding demand would drop; however, the residents of Georgia are the ultimate profiteers as they will be motivated to live healthy lifestyles free from DM and related complications. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | Yes, the successful implementation of the program was facilitated by adequate funding and effective leadership that saw the statewide cases of DM plummet significantly within the evaluation period. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | The DPCP has had substantial positive impacts on the health and wellbeing of Georgia’s residents, and it will have similar effects on employees at my workplace, including improved quality of life, reduced risk of DM, and diminished odds of developing CVD. Thus, I would recommend it to be enforced at my workplace. Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment |
| Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation. | As a nurse advocate, I could be involved in the program evaluation by participating in the collection and processing of the outcome data. I could also participate in educating other frontline medical staff on the policy implementation procedures.
|
| General Notes/Comments | DPCP is a timely intervention that has been implemented at a time when sedentary lifestyles and poor eating habits involving heavy consumption of salty, sugary, and fatty fast food are the norms among residents of Georgia state. The principal mission of the program is to tackle the DM epidemic in the state by aiming to decrease DM prevalence and the associated complications, including blindness, non-traumatic lower extremity amputations, kidney failure, CVDs, and disability (Georgia Department of Public Health (DPH), n.d.). So far, the program has enabled Georgia’s DPH to successfully fight the DM epidemic, although the condition, particularly prediabetes remains a major challenge. |
References
American Diabetes Association. (2021). The burden of diabetes in Georgia. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30556-4
CDC. (2016). Brief 1: Overview of policy evaluation. https://www.cdc.gov/injury/pdfs/policy/brief 1-a.pdf
CDC. (2022). National diabetes statistics report. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html
Georgia Department of Public Health. (n.d.). Georgia Diabetes Prevention and Control Program (DPCP). https://dph.georgia.gov/georgia-diabetes-prevention-and-control-program-dpcp
Healthy People 2020. (n.d.). Healthy People 2020 objectives. https://www.healthypeople.gov/2020
Matthew, S., & Ory, M. (2017). Measuring success: Evaluation article types for the public health education and promotion section of frontiers in public health. Frontiers in Public Health, 2(111), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.93.8.1261 Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment
BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
| Excellent | Good | Fair | Poor | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Program/Policy Evaluation
Based on the program or policy evaluation you seelcted, complete the Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template. Be sure to address the following: · Describe the healthcare program or policy outcomes. |
32 (32%) – 35 (35%)
Response clearly and accurately describes in detail the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
Response accurately and thoroughly explains in detail how the success of the program or policy was measured. Response clearly and accurately describes in detail how many people were reached by the program or policy and fully describes the impact of the program or policy. Response clearly and accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted. |
28 (28%) – 31 (31%)
Response accurately describes the healthcare program or policy outcomes.
Response accurately explains how the success of the program or policy was measured. Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment
Response accurately describes how many people were reached by the program or policy and accurately describes the impact of the program or policy. Response accurately indicates the point at which time the program or policy evaluation was conducted. |
25 (25%) – 27 (27%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate or incomplete.
Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate or incomplete. Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the impact is vague or inaccurate. Response vaguely describes the point at which the program or policy evaluation was conducted. |
0 (0%) – 24 (24%)
Description of the healthcare program or policy outcomes is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing.
Explanation of how the success of the program or policy was measured is inaccurate and incomplete, or is missing. Description of how many people were reached by the program or policy and the associated impacts is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Response of the point at which time the program or policy was conducted is missing. |
| Reporting of Program/Policy Evaluations
· What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? |
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)
Response clearly and accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Response clearly and thoroughly explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. Response clearly and accurately explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. Response clearly and accurately explains in detail who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. Response includes a thorough and accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate and detailed explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. |
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Response accurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Response explains in detail specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation. Response explains in detail the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation. Response explains who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation. Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program met the original intent and outcomes, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. Response includes an accurate explanation of whether the program should be implemented, including an accurate explanation of the reasons supporting why or why not. |
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Response vaguely or inaccurately identifies the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation.
Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unintended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague or incomplete. Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate. Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague or inaccurate. Explanation of whether the program/policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete or inaccurate. Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete or inaccurate. |
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)
Identification of the data used to conduct the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing.
Explanation of specific information on outcomes and unitended consequences identified through the program or policy evaluation is vague and incomplete, or is missing. Explanation of the stakeholders involved in the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation is vague and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of whether the program or policy met the original intent and outcomes and the reasons why or why not is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing. Explanation of whether the program or policy should be implemented, and the reasons why or why not, is incomplete and inaccurate, or is missing. |
| Written Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization:
Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity.
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. |
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time.
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. |
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.
Assessing Diabetes mellitus Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Assignment
Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. |
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time.
No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. |
| Written Expression and Formatting – English writing standards:
Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
|
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
|
| Written Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. |
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
|
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
|
3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
|
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
|
| Total Points: 100 |
|---|