• Make a Gantt or PERT Chart, and narrative paragraphs that:
  • Justify the timeline for your program evaluation
  • Explain how and to whom you will disseminate your program evaluation results

Note: This section is not an additional submission. You will add your responses to these prompts to your final Course Project.

Final Course Project Submission

• Review the Course Project Guidelines to complete Week 5.
• Combine this week's additional components with all of the sections of your Course Project completed in Weeks 2 through 4.

Note:The information shared in your Discussion postings reflects only a portion of the more extensive documentation you are expected to submit in your Course Project this week.

Your written Assignments must follow APA guidelines. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from this week's Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate.

Week 2

Pinellas County Obesity Reduction Initiative

Addressing the High Prevalence of Obesity in Pinellas County, Florida

Pinellas County Obesity Reduction Initiative (PCORI). Mission statement "Enhancing community health through preventive measures, education, and accessible health services to reduce obesity rates and associated chronic diseases."

The target population in Pinellas County, Florida, residents, particularly those from underserved and high-risk groups.

Location:Pinellas County, Florida

Purposes of Evaluation

Formative Evaluation:This will assess the initial design and implementation process, ensuring the program is set up to meet community needs.

Process Evaluation:This will monitor the implementation of program activities and ensure they are conducted as planned.

Summative Evaluation:This will determine the program's overall effectiveness in reducing obesity rates and improving community health outcomes.

Stakeholders

Those Involved in Program Operations:

Healthcare Providers:These include doctors, nurses, and dietitians who will directly implement the program activities.

Local Government Officials:They are responsible for policy support and resource allocation for the program.

Those Served or Affected by the Program:

Community Members:These are the residents of Pinellas County, especially those at high risk of obesity-related health issues.

Schools and Educational Institutions:They will benefit from health education initiatives in the program.

Primary Users of the Evaluation Results:

Program Funders: Include government agencies, non-profits, and private donors who finance the program.

Public Health Researcherswill use the evaluation results to improve future interventions.

Stakeholder Expectations

Healthcare Providers:Expect insights on program effectiveness and areas for improvement.

Local Government Officials:Need evidence to support continued or increased funding and policy development.

Community Members: Want assurance of program benefits and access to improved health resources.

Schools:Seek evidence of program impact on student health and academic performance.

Program Funders:Require data to justify their financial investment and guide future funding decisions.

Public Health Researchers: Look for comprehensive data for academic and practical applications.

Goals and SMART Objectives

Outcome Goal (Long Term):Reduce obesity prevalence in Pinellas County by 20% over the next five years.

Impact Goal (Short Term):Increase the percentage of residents engaging in regular physical activity by 15% within two years.

SMART Objectives:

For Outcome Goal:

Objective 1: Implement a county-wide healthy eating campaign to reach at least 70% of households within the first year.

Objective 2: Establish ten community gardens within three years to increase access to fresh produce.

For Impact Goal:

Objective 1:Conduct monthly fitness events in local parks to engage at least 500 participants by the end of the first year.

Objective 2:Partner with local gyms to provide discounted memberships to 1,000 residents within the first two years.

Evaluation Design

The most appropriate evaluation design for this program is a quasi-experimental design. This design allows for comparing outcomes between the intervention group (those participating in the program) and a control group (those not participating), providing robust data on program effectiveness without the need for random assignment, which can be challenging in community settings.

Types of Evaluation

Formative Evaluation:

Appropriateness:Ensures the program's design is based on community needs and that initial implementation is on track. It helps in refining program strategies before full-scale implementation.

Example Activities: Pre-testing educational materials, pilot testing community outreach methods, and gathering stakeholder feedback.

Summative Evaluation:

Appropriateness:Assess the program's impact on obesity rates and overall health outcomes. It provides data on the program's effectiveness and areas for future improvement.

Example Activities:Analyzing health outcomes data, conducting surveys to assess changes in health behaviors, and comparing pre- and post-intervention obesity rates.

Strengths and Limitations

Quasi-Experimental Design:

Strengths:

Provides comparative data to evaluate program impact.

It can be implemented in real-world settings without the need for randomization.

Limitations:

Potential for selection bias since participants self-select into the program.

Less control over external variables compared to actual experimental designs.

Formative and Summative Evaluation:

Strengths:

Formative evaluation ensures the program is tailored to community needs and allows for early adjustments.

Summative evaluation provides comprehensive data on program outcomes and effectiveness.

Limitations:

Formative evaluation can be resource-intensive and may delay full implementation.

Summative evaluation requires rigorous data collection and analysis, which can be time-consuming and costly.

References

McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2023).Health promotion programs: Planning, implementing, and evaluating(8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

• Chapter 14, "Evaluating Approaches and Designs," pp. 349-371

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017).A framework for program evaluationLinks to an external site.. http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm

Florida Department of Health in Pinellas County. (2023). Community health assessment. 2023-pinellas-cha.pdf (floridahealth.gov)

Week 3

Pinellas County Obesity Reduction Initiative

The Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) is a highly suitable instrument for evaluating the Pinellas County Obesity Reduction Initiative (PCORI). Its validated psychometric properties, ease of understanding, and cultural adaptability align well with the diverse population of Pinellas County. By effectively measuring physical activity levels, the GPAQ provides reliable data to assess the impact of the program's interventions on obesity reduction. This ensures that the evaluation will offer valuable insights into the program's effectiveness and support evidence-based improvements in community health outcomes.

Explanation:

Describe the Sample Population for Your Public Health Program

The target population for the Pinellas County Obesity Reduction Initiative (PCORI) includes residents of Pinellas County, Florida, with a particular focus on underserved and high-risk groups. According to the Florida Department of Health in Pinellas County (2023), these groups are disproportionately affected by obesity and related chronic diseases. The population demographics include a mix of ages, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses, with significant representation from low-income families and minority communities. Schools and educational institutions are also critical components of this population due to the initiative's emphasis on health education for younger residents.

Describe One Instrument You Have Identified for Measuring Your Selected Outcome Objectives

To measure the effectiveness of the PCORI in reducing obesity rates, we will use the Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ) developed by the World Health Organization (WHO). This instrument assesses physical activity levels across various domains, including work, transport, and recreational activities, making it suitable for evaluating one of our impact goals: increasing the percentage of residents engaging in regular physical activity by 15% within two years (World Health Organization, 2022).

Level of Measurement and Psychometric Qualities

Level of Measurement

The GPAQ employs an ordinal level of measurement for its questions, categorizing responses into different levels of physical activity (e.g., high, moderate, low). This allows for nuanced assessments of changes in physical activity levels over time.

Reading Level and Language

The GPAQ is designed to be accessible and have a reading level appropriate for a general adult population. It is available in multiple languages, including Spanish, ensuring that it is understandable to the diverse population of Pinellas County.

Cultural Appropriateness

The GPAQ has been used globally and has been culturally adapted to various populations. Its questions are designed to be universally applicable, focusing on general physical activities rather than culturally specific practices.

Type of Data

The GPAQ collects quantitative data on the frequency and duration of physical activities. This data type allows for statistical analysis to evaluate the impact of the PCORI.

Psychometric Qualities

The GPAQ has been validated in numerous studies, demonstrating good reliability and validity across different settings and populations (Armstrong & Bull, 2006). To ensure its continued appropriateness for our program, we will conduct a pilot test within Pinellas County to assess its reliability and validity in our specific context.

Explanation of Collection Procedure's Appropriateness for Sample Population

The GPAQ's structure and content are well-suited to the diverse population of Pinellas County. Its availability in multiple languages and its focus on general physical activities make it accessible and relevant to various demographic groups within the community. Additionally, its established reliability and validity ensure that the data collected will be accurate and helpful in evaluating the PCORI's impact on physical activity levels. Using a well-validated instrument like the GPAQ helps maintain the integrity and credibility of our evaluation process, providing stakeholders with reliable evidence of program outcomes (McKenzie, Neiger, & Thackeray, 2023).

Justification of Selected Survey Using Learning Resources and Current Literature

The selection of the GPAQ is justified based on its widespread use and validation in public health research. According to McKenzie, Neiger, and Thackeray (2023), using a validated instrument is crucial for ensuring accurate and reliable data collection in health promotion programs. The GPAQ's ability to measure various domains of physical activity aligns with our program's goals and objectives, providing comprehensive data to assess changes in behavior and health outcomes.

Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) emphasizes the importance of using reliable and valid instruments in program evaluations to ensure data quality and support evidence-based decision-making (CDC, 2017). The GPAQ's psychometric solid properties and cultural adaptability make it an ideal choice for our diverse population in Pinellas County.

In conclusion, the GPAQ is a robust and suitable instrument for measuring the outcome objectives of the PCORI. Its use will enable us to collect reliable data on physical activity levels, contributing to a comprehensive evaluation of our program's effectiveness in reducing obesity rates and improving community health outcomes

References

Armstrong, T., & Bull, F. (2006). Development of the World Health Organization Global Physical Activity Questionnaire (GPAQ). Journal of Public Health, 14(2), 66-70.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). A framework for program evaluation. http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm

Florida Department of Health in Pinellas County. (2023). Community health assessment. 2023-pinellas-cha.pdf (floridahealth.gov)

McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2023). Health promotion programs: Planning, implementing, and evaluating (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning. Chapter 5, "Measurement and Sampling," pp. 97-127

World Health Organization. (2022). Global schools-based student health survey. https://www.who.int/teams/noncommunicable-diseases/surveillance/systems-tools/global-school-based-student-health-survey

Week 4

Alignment with the CDC's Framework for Program Evaluation

The CDC's Framework for Program Evaluation consists of six steps: engaging stakeholders, describing the program, focusing on the evaluation design, gathering credible evidence, justifying conclusions, and ensuring the use and sharing of lessons learned. Below is a detailed explanation of how the Stress Reduction Program evaluation plan aligns with these steps:

1. Engaging Stakeholders:

Engaging stakeholders is crucial to ensure the evaluation reflects the interests and needs of those invested in the program. Stakeholders for the Stress Reduction Program include participants, program staff, healthcare providers, and funding agencies.

Stakeholder Identification: The first step is to identify all relevant stakeholders. Participants provide firsthand feedback on program efficacy. Program staff contribute insights into implementation and operational challenges. Healthcare providers offer perspectives on the program's alignment with health outcomes, and funding agencies are interested in the program's return on investment.

Involvement in Evaluation: Involving stakeholders in the evaluation process ensures their perspectives shape the evaluation questions, data collection methods, and interpretation of results. Regular meetings, surveys, and feedback sessions are conducted to gather stakeholder input, making the evaluation process collaborative and inclusive.

2. Describing the Program: A comprehensive program description clearly explains its purpose, components, and context

Program Description: The Stress Reduction Program aims to reduce participants' stress through techniques such as mindfulness, yoga, and cognitive-behavioral strategies. The description includes details on session frequency, duration, and expected outcomes like reduced stress levels and improved well-being.

Logic Model: A logic model visually represents the program's theory of change, linking activities to intended outcomes. For instance, it shows how engaging in mindfulness sessions (activity) leads to reduced stress levels (short-term outcome) and overall improved mental health (long-term outcome).

3. Focusing the Evaluation Design: Focusing on the evaluation design ensures the evaluation is purposeful and practical.

Evaluation Questions: The evaluation addresses questions such as: "What is the program's impact on participants' stress levels?" and "Which stress reduction techniques are most effective?" These questions guide the evaluation's scope and objectives.

Evaluation Design: Both descriptive and inferential analyses provide comprehensive insights. Descriptive analysis summarizes basic data features like mean, median, mode, and frequency distributions. Inferential analysis uses statistical methods such as t-tests or ANOVA to determine if observed stress level changes are statistically significant or not due to chance.

4. Gathering Credible Evidence: Gathering credible evidence involves collecting reliable and valid data to support evaluation findings.

Data Collection: Data is collected on multiple variables, including the type of stress reduction technique used, duration of practice, frequency of sessions, and self-reported stress levels. Both qualitative and quantitative data are gathered to provide a holistic view of the program's impact. For example, qualitative data might include participant feedback on their experiences, while quantitative data includes pre- and post-program stress levels measured using standardized scales.

Data Quality: Ensuring data quality involves using reliable and valid instruments for data collection. Training data collectors and employing consistent data collection procedures enhance reliability. Pilot testing instruments can help refine them for clarity and accuracy.

5. Justifying Conclusions: Justifying conclusions involves interpreting data to draw meaningful insights and validating these conclusions with stakeholders.

Data Interpretation: Statistical analysis helps determine the significance of the program's impact on stress levels. Methods like pattern matching compare expected outcomes with actual results to verify the program's success. A mixed-methods approach, integrating qualitative feedback and quantitative measures, provides a comprehensive understanding of the program's efficacy.

Stakeholder Review: Engaging stakeholders in reviewing the findings ensures the conclusions are relevant and actionable. Stakeholders provide feedback on interpreting results and suggest practical recommendations for program improvement.

6. Ensuring Use and Sharing Lessons Learned: Ensuring the use and sharing of lessons learned involves disseminating findings and implementing recommendations for program improvement.

Dissemination Plan: Evaluation findings are shared through reports, presentations, and stakeholder meetings. Diverse formats, such as infographics and executive summaries, enhance accessibility and understanding.

Utilization: Results are used to inform decisions about program modifications, scaling, and funding. For instance, if a technique is highly effective, resources may be allocated to expand its use.

Alignment with CDC's Evaluation Standards

The CDC's four sets of evaluation standardsutility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracyensure the evaluation is effective and ethical. Here's how the Stress Reduction Program evaluation plan aligns with these standards:

1. Utility: The utility standard ensures the evaluation serves the information needs of intended users.

Stakeholder Engagement: By involving stakeholders throughout the evaluation process, their needs and interests are prioritized, ensuring the evaluation provides valuable information.

Actionable Recommendations: The evaluation includes practical recommendations for improving the program's utility for decision-makers.

2. Feasibility: The feasibility standard ensures the evaluation is realistic and pragmatic.

Realistic Design: The evaluation design considers available resources, time, and staff capacity. For instance, using existing program records and scheduling data collection to coincide with regular program activities minimizes additional burden.

Efficient Data Collection: Streamlined data collection processes, such as online surveys and automated data entry, enhance efficiency while maintaining data quality.

3. Propriety: The propriety standard ensures the evaluation is conducted ethically and with due regard for those involved.

Ethical Standards: Ethical considerations such as obtaining informed consent, ensuring confidentiality, and avoiding harm are strictly adhered to. Participants are informed about the purpose of the evaluation, how their data will be used, and their right to withdraw at any time.

Respect for Participants: The evaluation respects participants' rights and well-being. Feedback mechanisms ensure participants can express concerns and suggestions, fostering a respectful evaluation environment.

4. Accuracy: The accuracy standard ensures the evaluation produces valid and reliable findings.

Valid and Reliable Data: Data collection instruments are designed for reliability and validity. For example, standardized stress scales with established psychometric properties are used to measure stress levels.

Rigorous Analysis: Both descriptive and inferential analyses are conducted rigorously. Statistical techniques are chosen based on the data type and evaluation questions, ensuring accurate interpretation of results.

Improving the Program Evaluation Plan

To further align the evaluation plan with the CDC's standards, the following improvements are recommended:

1. Enhanced Stakeholder Involvement:

Regular Feedback Loops: Establishing regular feedback loops with stakeholders ensures continuous engagement and input throughout the evaluation process. This can be achieved through periodic stakeholder meetings, feedback surveys, and interim reports.

2. Expanded Data Collection:

Longitudinal Data: Collecting longitudinal data allows for the assessment of the long-term impacts of the program on participants' stress levels. Follow-up assessments at multiple time points post-intervention can provide insights into the sustainability of the program's effects.

Additional Variables: Including additional variables such as participant demographics (age, gender, socioeconomic status) and external factors (work environment, social support) provides a more comprehensive analysis of the program's impact.

3. Improved Data Interpretation:

Advanced Statistical Techniques: Advanced statistical techniques like regression analysis or structural equation modeling can explore complex relationships between variables and identify potential mediators and moderators of the program's impact.

4. Broader Dissemination:

Diverse Formats: Sharing evaluation findings in myriad formats, such as infographics, webinars, and interactive dashboards, enhances the accessibility and understanding of the information. Tailoring dissemination strategies to different stakeholder groups ensures the findings reach and are helpful to all intended users.

References

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). A framework for program evaluation. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/eval/framework/index.htm

McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2023). Health promotion programs: Planning, implementing, and evaluating (8th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Learning.

Walden University. (n.d.). ASC strategies: SMART goals. Retrieved from https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/academic-skills-center/success-strategies/mindset-wellness/smart-goals