Assignment: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template

NRSE 6050 Assignment: Assessing a Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation

Assignment: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template

ORDER NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER!!! Assignment: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template

A health program includes actions developed by an organization or Government to improve the health status of a population. Government authorities often conduct prevention campaigns to promote democratic and mass access to health services. Healthcare programs are usually evaluated to establish if they have met the objectives and intended outcomes and to what degree (Balmer et al., 2020). The purpose of this assignment is to describe a healthcare program and discuss how it was evaluated.

 

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation  

WhyWeRise Mental Health Program

Description  

·       The program is a social marketing campaign carried out by the Los Angeles County Department of Mental Health (LACDMH).

·       It was purposed to foster community engagement on mental health issues from self-care to professional care services, alleviate barriers to care, and increase awareness of access to mental health care (Collins et al., 2022).

 

How was the success of the program or policy measured?

 

·       The program implementers conducted an online survey of a representative sample of Los

·        Angeles County adults aged 18 years and above. The survey allowed the implementers to compare individuals who were exposed to the

·       WhyWeRise campaigned with those who were not exposed. This enabled the assessment of the possible effects of exposure to the program (Collins et al., 2022).

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 WhyWeRise program targeted LA residents and emphasized Black, Hispanic, and Asian residents.

·       The program reached 37% of Los Angeles County adults, approximately 3 million people.

·       The program effectively reached all the county’s major racial/ethnic groups, mostly Spanish-speaking Hispanic residents and people with lower incomes and education levels (Collins et al., 2022).

·       Individuals exposed to WhyWeRise confirmed that they planned to help eliminate barriers that keep individuals with mental health challenges from accessing treatment.

·       Respondents also reported that they planned to take action to prevent discrimination against individuals having mental illnesses and that they could recognize the signs that someone may be experiencing a mental health problem (Collins et al., 2022).

 

At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?

 

·       The WhyWeRise program was evaluated one year after it was initiated.
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?

 

·       Respondents’ demographic and background characteristics: Age; Education; Household Income; Race/ethnicity/language; Personal experience with mental illness.

·       General exposure to the WhyWeRise campaign (Collins et al., 2022).

·       Respondents’ perceptions of the campaign materials and events.

·       Knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors targeted by the campaign

·       Stigma and Mobilization against Barriers to Mental Health (Collins et al., 2022).

·       Respondents’ Awareness, Use, and Perceptions of the LACDMH Website and Help Line.

·       Respondents’ wellbeing.

What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?

 

·       The program may have unintentionally focused more attention on some of the challenges related to mental health issues instead of the ability of many individuals to recover and lead normal and even extraordinary lives (Collins et al., 2022).

·       People exposed to the campaign were nearly twice as likely to believe that individuals with mental illness will never have the capacity to contribute much to society.

·       Approximately 50% of the respondents were more likely to believe that an individual with a mental disorder is a danger to society.

 

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.

 

·       Los Angeles County residents were the identified stakeholders in the program evaluation since they were exposed to the program through broadcast media like television and radio adverts.

·       The county residents would benefit the most from the program’s results and reporting since it would lead to more campaigns for mental health prevention and early intervention (Collins et al., 2022).

·       More similar campaigns would increase individuals’ awareness about mental illnesses and access to mental health care, leading to improved mental health outcomes in society.

·       Besides, reporting on the program can lead to the health department channeling more resources to close gaps in access to mental health resources and deliver mental health services to county residents most in need (Collins et al., 2022).

 

Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?

 

·       As anticipated, the program effectively drove exposed residents to the LACDMH website and Help Line. Individuals exposed to the campaign were four times as likely to utilize the website.

·       12% of individuals exposed to the campaign reported using the website, a significant increase from 8% who reported using the website in fall of 2020 (Collins et al., 2022).

·       Among the county residents exposed to the program, 80% reported they were aware of these resources, 60% mentioned they were specifically aware of the LACDMH website, and more than 50 % reported being aware of the LACDMH Help Line.

·       Each of these was specifically targeted by the program.

Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?

 

·       I would recommend implementing a similar program in my organization since it can help boost mental health awareness in the community and increase the use of key mental health resources to improve mental wellbeing and health-seeking behavior.

 

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, one can evaluate a program by collecting data on the program’s impact in meeting its goals through surveys, interviews, focus groups, or observation.

·       The nurse advocate can also participate in the data collection and give honest reviews on the program’s impact and how it can be improved to achieve intended outcomes (Adams & Neville, 2020).

 

General Notes/Comments ·       The program successfully increased awareness of the mental health information and resources provided by LACDMH.

·       More mental health campaign programs should be conducted to utilize government mental health resources.

 

Assignment: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template Conclusion

The WhyWeRise program was conducted in Los Angeles County and aimed at preventing and promoting early interventions for mental health challenges among county residents. Residents were mostly exposed to the campaign through broadcast media. As anticipated, the campaign reached 37% of County residents and effectively drove exposed residents to the LACDMH website and Help Line. However, unintended consequences were identified as the program increased the stigma of persons with mental disorders.

Assignment: Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation Analysis Template References

Adams, J., & Neville, S. (2020). Program Evaluation for Health Professionals: What It Is, What It Isn’t and How to Do It. International Journal of Qualitative Methods19, 1609406920964345. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920964345

Balmer, D. F., Riddle, J. M., & Simpson, D. (2020). Program Evaluation: Getting Started and Standards. Journal of Graduate Medical Education12(3), 345–346. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-20-00265.1

Collins, R. L., Eberhart, N. K., Estrada-Darley, I., & Roth, E. (2022). Evaluation of Los Angeles County’s Fall 2020 WhyWeRise Mental Health Campaign and WeRise 2021.

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

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.
·   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 time in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?

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.

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%) – 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?
·   What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
·   What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit the 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?
·   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.

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%) – 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%)

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%)

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.

Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

(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%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
(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%) – 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%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
(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%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Total Points: 100