Evaluation of health policies and programs
Evaluation of health policies and programs
Evaluation of health policies and programs is critical as it assists in improving the outcomes and effectiveness of such initiatives on target population. Evaluation entails collections and analysis of information concerning policy features activities and results so that stakeholders can enhance the initiative. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a program on HIV/AIDS aimed at reducing the spread of the disease by the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (AIPAC) to ascertain its effectiveness
Christian values are essential to embody in all aspects of life. While GCU utilizes these values as a foundational component for educational standards, these should also be standard for how students are influenced in their academic performance as well. Academic dishonesty, which is the opposite of academic integrity, plagues all academic levels. There are several reasons why I think students are tempted into dishonesty including pressure for success, lack of understanding about what constitutes plagiarism, and not fully understanding the entire process of academia. Integrity is the intrinsic belief to do the right thing even when no one is watching and is an essential value of the Christian doctrine.
When students believe and practice integrity, they will be able to apply this outside of the classroom and to other aspects of life. If students are engaging in academic dishonesty, this may be suggestive of a lack of integrity outside of the classroom as well. Lack of integrity is one example of the brokenness seen in society today. It shows a desire for success regardless of the means to get there or if there was any actual self-growth in the achievement of success. Having an educational infrastructure based on Christian values will not only foster academic success but will support students to apply these values beyond the classroom and become a part of their daily lives.
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (IAPAC)
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a health issue has different aspects that include social, political and economic impacts. IAPAC is an association of physicians established in 1995 with the aim of representing HIV-treating doctors and allied healthcare providers across the world.
|
| Description | The IAPAC program focuses on a host of components on HIV, right from treatment and prevention to developing a heterogeneous response to HIV. The aim of the IAPAC program and institution is to development of normative guidance, carrying out capacity building activities and engagement in advocacy to support efforts to control the HIV epidemic at all levels. |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured? | IAPAC program utilizes its annual Adherence Conference to evaluate or assess the success of its initiatives. The objectives of the conference include assessing effectiveness of self-reports, evaluating the use of clinical trials in relation to objective adherence and use of other evidence-based interventions. Therefore, measuring the success of the program is critical to its overall effectiveness on the target population. |
| 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 IAPAC program has reached millions of individuals in different parts of the world living with HIV/AIDS. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) close to 40 million people were living with HIV/AIDS. Further, about 1.7 million get infected each year. All these people are potential beneficiaries of the program (IAPAC, 2021). The IAPAC has services in five regions across the world. These include Africa, which is the most affected, Asia/Pacific, Latin America, North America, and Europe.
The program’s impacts include reducing AIDS-related deaths by close to 35% between 2010 and 2017, and preventing new child infections by close to 1.5 million incidents (Brazier et al., 2019). The program has allowed countries to develop effective interventions to prevent further spread of the condition among vulnerable population through resource provision. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | Evaluation of the IAPAC program is done annually through its Adherence Conference where new objectives are set for the coming year. This implies that each year, the stakeholders review the program and seek better ways to enhance its effectiveness to the targeted population (IAPAC, 2021b). |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation? | Program evaluation focuses on various aspects that include processes, resource allocation, feedback and overall impact on target population. Program implementers attain this data through surveys where they collect both qualitative and quantitative information. IAPAC program has used all these approaches to evaluate the impact of this initiative. For instance, it has conducted surveys by contracting firms to evaluate the effects of its interventions in five different regions around the world. These surveys were critical as they revealed significant information on various components like health status, adherence and tolerance to present regime and side effects of different HIV/AIDS medications, and resistance in HIV/AIDS medications. |
| What specific information on unintended consequences were identified? | The program’s unintended consequences included increased stigmatization and discrimination of individuals with HIV/AIDS that reduce the use of services rolled out through the initiative. IAPAC also observes that the program’s rollout also increased isolation and marginalization of individuals with the condition. The program’s rollout also affected the ability of HIV/AIDS patients to lead healthy lives.
A core aspect of the unintended effects of the program was the passage of legislations in over 32 states and two territories in the U.S. that criminalize the failure to disclose an individual’s HIV status (HIV.GOV, n.d). Before the program, many states did not have these laws. |
| 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. | HIV/AIDS affects different types of stakeholders and it is essential to engage, coordinate with, and mobilize them to encounter the disease. Stakeholders in such programs play different roles. Therefore, it is essential to develop, maintain, and leverage both formal and informal interactions among the different stakeholders; right from government agencies to civil society (IAPAC, 2021). The program’s stakeholders include individuals living with HIV/AIDS, healthcare workers, governments and their agencies, local community leaders, medical associations, nursing association and faith-based organizations as well as nongovernmental bodies.
Individuals living with HIV/AIDS and their families, healthcare workers, and government would benefit the most from effective outcomes of this program. People living with HIV/AIDS benefit through access to better treatment regimes, healthy living information, and increased evidence on the best way to manage the condition (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2019). Healthcare workers attain benefits as they understand new treatment trends and how to deal with patients. Healthcare workers benefit from more knowledge on attainment of safety measures to counter the problem. |
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not? | The program’s ambitious but achievable targets require more resources and involvement of more stakeholders. Basing on targets by the UNAIDS, the program hoped to reduce infections, increase access to antiretroviral therapy and more suppression of the virus. The program hoped to attain all these by close to 90% by 2020 (IAPAC, 2021). However, this has not happened since not close to 90% of individuals with HIV/AIDS across the world have access to quality antiretroviral treatment.
For instance, the success in saving lives does not align with the overall goal of reducing new HIV infections. Further, stigma and discrimination are still a significant concern with women and girls being disproportionately impacted by the disease in different parts of the world, especially in developing countries. The program may have attained close to 75% of its original intent and requires more efforts to achieve the set objectives (IAPAC, 2021). |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not? | The program continues to register success in different countries and regions across the world because of its benefits and efforts to reduce HIV/AIDS and its effects to populations. The IAPAC developed this program for an international perspective and not for institutional implementation. Therefore, while I would recommend the program for the workplace, it is not feasibility because of its overall scope.
I would not recommend it because it requires more resources and involvement of different stakeholders, which the organization lacks the capacity to rollout. |
| 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. | Nurses can apply similar principles in assessing the impact and effectiveness of the program just like the evaluate clinical interventions, processes and procedures (Milstead & Short, 2019). Nurses are critical players in policy planning and evaluation with the aims of promoting and illustrating leadership among professional nurses and meeting the quadruple aims of healthcare.
Nurses possess knowledge, experience and skills that allow them to participate in policy evaluation in different ways that include developing interventions to assess the effectiveness of the set policies (Milstead & Short, 2019). Nurses can also leverage their skills to develop better ways of engaging stakeholders like legislators to establish policies that align with the healthcare needs of their respective populations. |
| General Notes/Comments | The IAPAC program is an initiative whose mission is to enhance access to and improve the quality of life of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in different parts of the world. The program’s focus includes improving the quality of prevention, care, and intervention regimens offered to individuals living with and impacted by HIV and the associated comorbidities. The program is an initiative where the U.S. plays a critical role in providing resources from human expertise to material input to reduce the rate of infections and other components of HIV/AIDS around the world. |
Conclusion
Policy evaluation allows stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of a health care program to enhance quality and delivery of care. The evaluation of this policy shows that significant strides have been made and achieved in controlling the prevalence of HIV/AIDS across the world. The implication is that health care policies should focus on communities and individuals that require interventions to improve access to health services. The policy has played a critical role in reducing the effects of HIV/AIDS in the world, especially the worst hit areas in developing world.
https://nursingassignmentgurus.com/assessing-a-healthcare-program-policy-evaluation-worksheet/
References
Brazier, E., Maruri, F., Duda, S. N., Tymejczyk, O., Wester, C. W., Somi, G., … & Wools‐Kaloustian, K. (2019). Implementation of
“Treat‐all” at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global Ie DEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 22(7), e25331. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25331
HIV.GOV (n.d). U.S. Government Global HIV/AIDS Activities.
https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/pepfar-global-aids/us-government-global-aids-activities
International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) (2021). About: History.
International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) (2021b). Adherence 2021.
https://web.cvent.com/event/43ce2fde-9727-4b0a-81a4-6353bd5a08c6/summary
Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) (2019). The U.S. Government and Global Health.
Milstead, J.A., & Short, N.M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed). A. Derouin (Ed.). Health policy and Social
program evaluation (pp. 116-1214). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Assessing a Healthcare Program Policy Evaluation Worksheet
Program/policy evaluation is a valuable tool that can help strengthen the quality of programs/policies and improve outcomes for the populations they serve. Program/policy evaluation answers basic questions about program/policy effectiveness. It involves collecting and analyzing information about program/policy activities, characteristics, and outcomes. This information can be used to ultimately improve program services or policy initiatives.
Nurses can play a very important role assessing program/policy evaluation for the same reasons that they can be so important to program/policy design. Nurses bring expertise and patient advocacy that can add significant insight and impact. In this Assignment, you will practice applying this expertise and insight by selecting an existing healthcare program or policy evaluation and reflecting on the criteria used to measure the effectiveness of the program/policy.
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?
- 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 programs or policies can be state-based, community-based, or at the organizational level. They are formulated to address specific health programs. Evaluation helps to determine healthcare programs’ effectiveness. In most cases, evaluation is progressive if the program or policy is continuous. It can also be done at different intervals depending on the objectives. The purpose of this program evaluation analysis is to examine the Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, whose main aim is to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities.
| Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation | The Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program evaluation |
| Description | The REACH program started in 1999 to reduce racial and ethnic health disparities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). It is a national program administered by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Generally, the program’s recipients carry out extensive local and culturally appropriate programs to address a wide range of issues faced by racial and ethnic minorities such as African Americans, Hispanics, and American Indians. The primary objective is to promote health disparities related to chronic illnesses, mental health, preventive health, and overall health coverage (Carratala & Maxwell, 2020). The program also seeks to improve healthy behaviors. |
| How was the success of the program or policy measured?
|
After a decade, the REACH had significant success as far as its targets are concerned. However, instead of evaluating the program generally, REACH uses data to evaluate the change in the health status of its target communities. For instance, it used data between 2014 and 2018 to assess the number of people it has helped access healthy foods, access to chronic health programs, and opportunities for physical activity. A progressive increase in the population it serves is the primary success indicator. |
| 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 evaluation between 2014 and 2018 showed that millions of people have benefitted in various ways under the REACH program. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2020), over 2.9 million people had better access to healthy foods and beverages, while over 322,000 people benefitted directly from tobacco-free interventions. CDC further reported that about 1.4 million people got opportunities for physical activity, as over 830,000 people got access to chronic disease programs (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). Using these reflection points, there is no denying that the impact of the REACH program cannot be underestimated. |
| At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted? | The REACH program is continuous, where evaluation is done at different implementation points. In most cases, evaluation happens after the completion of a project at the community level. As illustrated in the various CDC reports, evaluation can be after a decade or after some years, depending on the element being assessed. |
| What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
|
Change in health behaviors was the reference data for the evaluation between 2001 and 2009. For instance, Hispanic taking medication for hypertension increased from less than half to more than two-thirds of the affected population. In the same period, vaccination rates for pneumonia increased from 50.5% to 60.5% in black communities (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020). The other data is the impact across REACH communities through a 2009-2012 evaluation. The data examined reduction in smoking and obesity rates in REACH communities. |
| What specific information on unintended consequences was identified?
|
The program’s impact is huge as far as disparities’ reduction is concerned. However, impact evaluation showed that ethnic gaps continue being affected by societies, culture, and the environment (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021). As a result, REACH must use many strategies to address health gaps to ensure that health performance in ethnic and racial minorities reaches the desired state. |
| 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. |
REACH partners with local health departments, community-based organizations, universities, and tribes. Respective partners were consulted during program evaluation to determine success and areas of improvement. On who would benefit from results and reporting of the program evaluation, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention would be the primary beneficiary. CDC would use the report to examine the health performance in the minority groups as the basis of improving outcomes or using other interventions to supplement outcomes.
|
| Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
|
To a huge extent, REACH achieved the original intent using the data from the different evaluations. CDC reports reveal significant community successes, including reducing chronic illnesses and unhealthy behaviors such as smoking as access to healthy food and beverages and physical health activities increases. |
| Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
|
I would recommend the program in my place of work. Firstly, health care organizations should partners with national and community-based organizations to reduce health disparities. Carratala and Maxwell (2020) reported that ethnic and racial minorities continue to be burdened by chronic illnesses and mental health problems. Since such illness burden at the communities has a domino effect in health care organizations, it is crucial to implement the REACH program to improve health outcomes in underserved populations.
|
| 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.
|
One way I could be involved in evaluating a program after one year of implementation is by being part of the evaluation committee. Here, I can share my knowledge on the reference points to consider when determining whether a program was a success or not. The other way is to avail information concerning the program by performing individual research. My information would guide on how to conduct a summative evaluation of the program. |
| General Notes/Comments | Evaluation reliably indicates whether a program achieved the desired outcomes. Healthcare programs can be at the state, community, or organizational levels, and their evaluation can be yearly, terminal, or progressive, as considered appropriate. Nurses should advocate for program evaluation to determine their success and provide the basis for continuous improvement. |
References
Carratala, S., & Maxwell, C. (2020, May 7). Health disparities by race and ethnicity. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2020/05/07/484742/health-disparities-race-ethnicity/
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2020, Mar 10).REACH program impact. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/reach/program_impact/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, Jul 15). Racial and ethnic approaches to community health. https://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/state-local-programs/reach/index.htm
| 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. 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. 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 |
|---|