Instructor reply to my post:
Thank you for your posting. Good work in your setting up your Methods Grid. That said, you have an evaluation question that is a yes/no response which you will want to revise. Also, you noted the importance of comparing last year’s results to this year (an excellent suggestion) but you would also want to consider the financial ramifications from a stakeholder perspective. What financial impacts would a funding stakeholder likely be most interested in with this program?
Kind regards,
Dr. Holmes
Sydni Aguirre
Nov 4, 2021 at 6:04 PM
During the influenza season, large segments of the population are more at-risk of infection. The homeless population is predisposed to serious flu complications with an increased likelihood of hospitalization and death (Beers et al., 2019). The homeless population added challenges during the flu season with lack of housing and possibly pre-existing chronic health condition. These people require unique outreach strategies and taking the flu vaccine where they congregate. According to Kong et al. (2020), an outreach program involving taking vaccines to the homeless population is a successful strategy to deliver influenza vaccines to high-risk populations. The below grid is an excerpt of the method section of an evaluation report for The Homeless Street Program in Sacramento County.
|
What question the evaluation seeks to answer |
Indicator or Performance Measures |
Potential Data Source |
Frequency of Collection and contact |
Responsibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How does the homeless population react to the Homeless Street Program? |
Feedback and reaction from target population and staff. |
Qualitative Data, surveys, interviews |
Documented at each interaction |
Program Staff, program nurse, and evaluator |
|
Are outcomes, objectives, and goals achieved with the Homeless Street Program? |
Assess results and outcomes with goals and objectives. |
Observation, interviews, surveys, testimonials, focus group, data from local hospital |
Post program data results |
Evaluator and Program Manager |
|
Was the homeless population adequately reached in Sacramento? |
Number of homeless who received and refused the vaccine against the total number of homeless people in Sacramento County. |
Quantitative Data from daily logs and tracking data base and geo-maps |
Pre- and post- program |
Evaluator, program team lead, and local public health team member |
Furthermore, if I were the funder of this program, I would want to know more about cost-efficacy and possible expansion. For example, I’d like to know how the homeless population fared with the flu in years past and how many illnesses, hospitalizations, and flu-associated deaths were spared because of the Homeless Street Program. Lastly, if the program was successful and I had funds to give, I’d want to know if other populations would benefit from the program (i.e., migrant farmworkers).
References
Beers, L., Filter, M., & McFarland, M. (2019). Increasing influenza vaccination acceptance in the homeless: A quality improvement project. The Nurse practitioner, 44(11), 48–54. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.NPR.0000586012.31046.c9
Kong, K. L., Chu, S., & Giles, M. L. (2020). Factors influencing the uptake of influenza vaccine vary among different groups in the hard-to-reach population. Australian and New Zealand journal of public health, 44(2), 163–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/1753-6405.12964
Ashly Polacchi
Nov 5, 2021 at 1:40 AM
Smoking bans in restaurants can promote better overall health among restaurant patrons and staff by improving the quality of the surrounding air and encouraging a decrease in smoking. Studies have shown that implementation of smoking bans in restaurants improve health outcomes without significantly impacting restaurant sales (Noh et al, 2020). This information can help restaurant owners feel confident supporting smoking bans.
When evaluating the effectiveness of public health programs like smoking bans, it is important to consider the who, what, how, why, and when. A clear presentation of the methodologies utilized is a great way to achieve evaluation credibility. As program evaluator, it is my responsibility to establish a sense of credibility among stakeholders. To achieve this, it is important to remain transparent throughout the evaluation process (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2013). Providing stakeholders with periodic evaluation findings prior to the completion of the evaluation is another great way to promote buy-in and encourage collaboration between myself and the stakeholders (National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, 2013).
To ensure the objectives of the evaluation report are accomplished, the following evaluation plan methods grid is presented:
| Evaluation Questions | Indicator or Performance Measure | Data Source | Frequency | Responsibility |
| How has the implementation of smoking bans in restaurants improved restaurant air quality? |
|
|
Pre- and post-program period | EPA or other public health staff member |
| What is the impact of smoking bans on restaurant profits? | Revenue audits |
|
Pre- and post-program period | Restaurant management |
| What is the overall approval rate of the smoking ban among restaurant patrons? | Patron attitudes and feedback |
|
With every restaurant patron, potentially | Evaluator |
From a stakeholder perspective, I would like to see whether or not implementing a smoking ban in restaurants increases or decreases restaurant revenues. Understanding the business effects of a smoking ban can help to determine how best to prepare for smoking bans in other establishments.
References
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (2013). Developing an effective evaluation report: Setting the course for effective program evaluation (Links to an external site.). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/eval/materials/developing-an-effective-evaluation-report_tag508.pdf
Noh, J.-W., Choi, M., Kwon, Y. D., & Yoo, K.-B. (2020). Impacts of smoking ban policies on restaurants in Seoul, South Korea: Analysis of objective sales information. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22(6), 950–957. https://doi-org.proxy-library.ashford.edu/10.1093/ntr/ntz079
Rosa Hernandez
Nov 5, 2021 at 2:55 AM
Crib construction safety standards seek to protect children from unintended injury and death. In the U.S., injuries related to cribs/mattresses are the second most common source of injury and the top reason for nursery product-related fatalities (Gaw et al., 2017). It is estimated that 150-200 infants die each year due to accidents involving crib design or construction (CPSC, 2011).
Drop-side cribs, which allowed parents to lower one side of the crib for easier access to the baby, were dangerous if the hardware malfunctioned because it could lead to suffocation and strangulation. Since 2007, 35 suffocation and strangulation deaths have occurred when the hardware of the drop-side cribs malfunctioned (Hunter & Montuori, 2013).
In response, in 2011, the federal government enacted new crib safety standards. With support from the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), the new standards included a ban on the construction and sale of drop-side cribs, the use of more durable wood slats, mattress supports and hardware, and more rigorous testing (CPSC, n.d.).
The evaluation will include a comprehensive methods section to increase the evaluation’s credibility, reliability, and transparency. Below is an example of what will be included:
|
Evaluation Question |
Indicator or Performance Measure |
Potential Data Source (Existing or New) |
Frequency |
Responsibility |
|
Since implementing this policy, what has been the number of annually reported injuries associated with cribs? |
E.R. visits related to crib injuries (quantitative) |
Existing- CPSC’s National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) |
annually |
Evaluator |
|
What challenges did the CPSC face in lobbying for these new safety standards? |
Surveys (quantitative) In-depth interviews (qualitative) |
New- CPSC Commissioners |
Once, post-implementation |
Survey/interview vendor- TBD |
|
What was the most effective way to educate consumers about these new standards? |
Surveys Focus Groups |
New- Expecting parents |
Once- immediately after implementation |
Survey/focus group vendor- TBD |
As a stakeholder, I would be most interested in finding out whether there was a decrease in injuries and deaths related to cribs since implementing the new safety standards. I believe the first question listed above addresses this need. I would also be interested in knowing whether the CPSC engaged with all the critical partners (i.e., the American Academy of Pediatrics). This information would be helpful for work on future safety standard implementation.
References
Gaw, C. E., Chounthirath, T., & Smith, G. A. (2017). Nursery product-related injuries treated in United States emergency departments. Pediatrics, 139(4), e20162503. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2503
Hunter, R. J. & Montuori, M. A. (2013). The hand that truly rocks the cradle: A reprise of infant crib safety, lawsuits, and regulation from 2007-2012. Loyola Consumer Law Review, 25(2), 229-247. https://lawecommons.luc.edu/lclr/vol25/iss2/3
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (n.d.). A safer generation of cribs- new federal requirements. https://cpsc-d8-media-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/13312666335_b4bfa9e27f_b.jpg
U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission. (2011, October 6). CPSC sets crib safety standards. https://www.cpsc.gov/Newsroom/News-Releases/2012/CPSC-Sets-Crib-Safety-Standards
0 comments