Cardio-Vascular Disease and Cancer – Cardiovascular System Example

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

"Cardio-Vascular Disease and Cancer" is a great example of a paper on the cardiovascular system. In order to carry out a successful evaluation plan for COPD intervention, the project will employ the objective-based evaluation approach. This type of evaluation focuses on the specification of objectives as well as the measurement of the outcome. In addition, this evaluation approach centers on generating information for decision-making and accountability through developing as well as measuring the appropriate objectives for the said purposes (Mattson et al. , 1990). The program will benefit from this type of evaluation as it determines the degree to which COPD intervention objectives are being achieved.

In addition, the approach is straightforward as it follows the scientific tradition. For instance, one of the program’ s objectives is that by the end of the project the COPD patients in GML will reduce smoking cigarettes by 50%. Since this is the projected end objective, the program will have to come up with sub-objectives at every stage of the program. To know if the desired sub-objectives have been realized, the evaluator will look at the outcomes in the next stages.

For instance, in the introductory stage of smoking cessation, all the patients will be screened, as well as asked if they have smoked before. Secondly, smokers will be counseled on the harmful effects of smoking. Third, the smokers will be invited to meet with the staff regarding possible strategies to help them quit. Fourth, the referral program will be completed. Next, the flag will be placed on the chart cover of the current smoking status. Lastly, smokers including program dropouts and “ relapsers” will be reminded of the availability of programs continuously.

Conversely, the outcomes of the activities that were initiated would determine f the sub-objectivity has been realized. For example, the program reflects outcomes such as the percentage of the newly screened practice members identified as smokers each week by health workers. Secondly, is the number and percentage of smokers who are referred to the program each week. Lastly, is the number of patients who are seen but not screened every week. Through evaluating such objectives progressively will lead to the realization of the overall objective of the program.

2) Process Evaluation PlanThe purpose of a Process Evaluation Plan is to examine, supervise and evaluate the step-by-step implementation of a self-management program. Thus, the Evaluation process seeks to examine how the self-management program is developed as well as how it can be implemented in terms of quality and quantity. Second, the evaluation aims to examine whether the provision of Nicotine Replacement Therapies, as well as other Pharmacological Aids, would motivate smokers to follow the cessation program. Consequently, the impact of the evaluation will be carried with the intent of identifying connections as well as relationships between interventions and outcomes.

Process Evaluation for ‘ Self-Management’ program for Smoking Cessation Main Activity Component/element Process Evaluation Question Data Source Tools/Procedures Timing of Data Collection Data Analysis or Synthesis ReportingHealthcare practitioners training smokersabout Self-management Fidelity 1.To what extent has the training curricula regarding a)Self-management and b)Smoking Cessation implemented as planned? Smoking patients, Healthcare providers, local community leaders, and government health officials -Health care trainer self-report-Interviews with smoking patientsHealthcare trainers report after weeks and two observations per healthcare trainer scheduled -Calculate and Record the progress in percentages based on the number of cases observed.

Formal feedback to healthcare trainers after the completion of each sessionDose Delivered 3.To what extend were all the training sessions within the curriculum regarding: a)Self-management andb)Smoking cessation implemented? Patients on the smoking cessation, healthcare trainers and observing government health officials -Healthcare self-report-Interview with the patients on smoking cessation program Healthcare trainers report after weeks and two observation per healthcare trainer scheduled -Calculate and Record the progress in percentages based on the number of cases observed Formal feedback to healthcare trainers on the completion of each sessionDose Received To what extend do smokers get involved with the knowledge and practice regarding: a) self-management andb) smoking cessation -Exit and post-intervention patient surveys conducted at end of the intervention and regularly thereafter (6 and 12 months preferred).

-Healthcare trainers self-care reports -Opinion by the government health officials present-Evaluation forms filled by the patients regarding the same-Self-reflection from the government health officials -Interviews conducted at the beginning of new sessions or modules with patients- End session evaluation forms filled by the patients-Calculated means score from the marks awarded in the evolution rating scale questions Formal feedback to healthcare trainers on completion of each sessionReach Was the intervention delivered to more than 70% percent of the smoking population in GML?

-Entrance or pre-entrance surveys and post-intervention client surveys Health workers from GML-Beginning and end of the program and calculation based on the percentage of patients who benefited from the program against those that did not attend the sessions in GML Formal feedback to healthcare trainers on completion of the programRecruitment Context What were the barriers and facilitators to implementing the smoking sensation program?

Logs of intervention activities that were actually implemented and exceptions that were made. The healthcare trainer’ s recommendations -recorded observations by healthcare at the end of every session Formal feedback after every sessiona) Impact evaluation PlanAn impact evaluation plan assesses the changes brought about by a program intervention. The key impact evaluation query should be, “ what would have happened to those the intervention plan should impact if they had not received the intervention program (Mattson et al. , 1990). Since it is not possible for an evaluator to observe a group both with and without the project intervention, he/she has to develop a counterfactual (Mattson et al. , 1990).

As such, the impact of the evaluation component of the ‘ self-management for smoking cessation is designed with the purpose of estimating what would have happened if the intervention had not taken place. Here, the report uses a type of evaluation design called Quasi-experimental design. In this kind of design, the change seen in the group that has received intervention is measured against the performance of a comparison group, which has not received the intervention (William et al. , 2002).

In effect, the difference in performance between the two groups is recorded thus analyzing the impact of program intervention. Methods for data collection in this design include interview schedules, questionnaires, and oral interviews (William et al. , 2002). By using self-selected groups, it avoids the ambiguous formalities that are associated with carrying a new study. Moreover, using the quasi-experimental design limits the potential ethical concerns associated with delaying treatment or rather substituting a less effective intervention for a particular group of study participants.

The questions to be considered include: Impact Evaluation Questions: 1.To what extend has the number of people with complicated COPD reduced compared with the baseline data as well as the program's planned objective of reducing at least 50%? 2. To what extent has the percentage of people with COPD illness reduced compared with the program’ s baseline data objective of reducing at least 40%? 3. To what extend has the number of people attempting to quit smoking increased compared with the government’ s scientific set standards of 70% of smokers attempting to quit annually in the GML region? 4.

To what extent has the number of people adopting a better self-management of COPD increased compared with the baseline data objective of increasing 65%?

References

Mattson, M. E., Cummings, K. M., Lynn, W. R., Giffen, C., Corle, D., & Pechacek, T. 1990. Evaluation plan for the community intervention trial for smoking cessation (COMMIT). International Quarterly of Community Health Education, 11(3), 271-290.

William R.. Shadish, Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. 2002. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Wadsworth Cengage learning.

Download free paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us