Formal Evaluation Plan for the Health Promotion Program Proposal
Evaluation of a health promotion program is essential to examine the effectiveness of the program. The program’s purpose is to examine the impact of the program on AA smokers in Michigan. The participants will go through a series of training to promote behavior change. An impact evaluation will examine the knowledge of the participants and the desire to change behavior. The evaluation plan will examine if the participants understand the benefits of smoking cessation than the risks of smoking. Experimental design is the golden standard for evaluating the effectiveness of a healthcare promotion program.
• The benefit of using the experimental design is to demonstrate a causal link between the participants and the program.
• An experimental evaluation design is vital in examining if a healthcare program is effective compared to the current process.
The best method to collect data to answer the evaluation question is a questionnaire. A pilot questionnaire will be used to determine that the instrument has no errors. The success of the evaluation is to ensure scholars and healthcare workers can use the data to design future health promotion programs. A formal evaluation of the healthcare promotion program is vital in examining the program’s impact on AA smokers in Michigan.
Type of Evaluation Plan
The impact evaluation plan seeks to examine the knowledge of the participants and the desire to change behavior. One of the impact evaluation questions would be, “what was the change in knowledge of the benefits of smoking cessation use as compared to baseline/pre-test data?” The focus is to examine the behavior change resulting from the training during the health promotion program (Trieu et al., 2018). For instance, it was essential to educate the participants about the risks of smoking. Studies show that smoking increases the risk of lung cancer (Tindle et al., 2018). The cases of lung cancer have been high among AA males in Michigan due to the negative habits of smoking. The community continues in the negative behavior due to lack of knowledge that their lifestyle exposes them to a severe health outcome (Tindle et al., 2018). The evaluation question will be critical to determine if the health promotion program successfully transformed the lives of the participants (Trieu et al., 2018).
The evaluation plan will examine if the participants understand the benefits of smoking cessation than the risks of smoking. For example, smoking cessation reduces the risk of lung cancer. Patients diagnosed with lung cancer end up spending more resources seeking healthcare services (Tindle et al., 2018). The risk is higher among the AA males in Michigan who have been smoking for a long time. Smokers require early screening to ensure they start treatment if they have lung cancer. Cancer is a severe disease that can undermine patients’ health (Tindle et al., 2018). The younger generation needs to note the risks associated with smoking.
The impact evaluation is vital to understand if the program had an impact on the community. The purpose is to examine if the resources deployed in the program are justifiable. The impact evaluation outcome will be necessary to determine if the program is an evidence-based practice that healthcare workers and community health workers can utilize to address healthcare problems (Smith et al., 2017). The impact evaluation will justify the program’s activities and ensure that a similar program can be implemented in the future in other places. The results of the program will serve as a basis for future programs. Scholars and healthcare workers can use the program to enhance future programs among smokers or alcohol addicts (Smith et al., 2017). Evidence-based practice data is critical in the healthcare environment to enhance the quality of outcomes.
Evaluation of the outcomes examines if the healthcare program had an impact on the target group both in the short and long-term basis. The participants should change their behavior and attitude toward smoking. For instance, smokers should start reducing the smoking trends and eventually quit smoking (Smith et al., 2017).
Experimental design is the golden standard for evaluating the effectiveness of a healthcare promotion program. The benefit of using the experimental design is to demonstrate a causal link between the participants and the program (Mäkelä, 2017). It will be effective for the proposed healthcare program. An experimental design effectively demonstrates if the healthcare program effectively changed the participants’ behavior (Mäkelä, 2017). For instance, the program’s objective is to change the behavior by introducing new knowledge to the participants. For example, educating them about the risks of smoking and the relationship to lung cancer is a game-changer.
The evaluation design is effective since it eliminates the risk of bias. Health promotion programs can flop if they are embroiled in cultural bias. A healthcare program among AA males in Michigan should be bias-free. Another benefit is that the evaluation design has a robust internal validity. Internal validity is effective in generating quality results (Mäkelä, 2017). The participants will be randomly assigned control and treatment groups. The approach is effective in addressing the evaluation question. For example, the objective is to ensure the participants have new knowledge about the healthy lifestyles they should embrace to improve their health. The evaluation process should determine if the program successfully eliminates the risk of further smoking (Mäkelä, 2017). A behavior change will reduce the risk of poor health outcomes such as lung cancer. Behavior change is vital in the success of the health promotion program.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Design
An experimental evaluation design is vital in examining if a healthcare program is effective compared to the current process. Currently, AA males in Michigan have no interventions that can help them to stop smoking. Another benefit is the elimination of bias (Mäkelä, 2017). Bias-free research or evaluation is vital in promoting the quality of the results. Healthcare workers working among diverse ethnic groups should observe objectivity (Mäkelä, 2017). If the participants realize the program is plagued with bias, they are less likely to support the initiative.
The experimental evaluation design effectively generates a causal link between two variables (Mäkelä, 2017). Establishing a cause and effect is vital in understanding the relationship between smoking and lung cancer. The outcomes will educate the participants on the risks of smoking. For instance, some people smoke as part of their lifestyle behavior without acknowledging the risk of lung cancer. Generating excellent results is vital in attaining the research objective. Experimental results can be replicated, which means that the studies can be repeated to understand more concepts of the healthcare program (Mäkelä, 2017). The design is effective in ensuring internal validity due to the ability to control the variables. The reliability is high since the program can generate the same results every time despite the external variables.
Experimental design can lead to artificial situations that are not related to the real world. Replicating the real world can lead to poor results that do not justify the outcomes (Mäkelä, 2017). Another disadvantage is that the design requires a vast investment. Researchers require costly resources and time to evaluate a healthcare program. Another weakness is that random mistakes can affect the quality of the outcomes. For example, personal bias can limit the quality of the results. In some situations, it is not feasible to carry out an experimental design evaluation since it requires vast resources. Researchers should be under caution to evaluate the dynamics of the program to ensure quality outcomes.
The best method to collect data to answer the evaluation question is a questionnaire. A structured questionnaire is effective in ensuring quality results. It helps in gathering diverse data about the behavior change (Myers et al., 2018). For instance, the program will evaluate the effectiveness of the program in changing the behavior. Participants will receive a copy of the questionnaire and answer all the questions. The questionnaire will have two parts, including the demographics and the behavior change intentions. Researchers use questionnaires to understand the perceptions of the participants (Myers et al., 2018). Questionnaires are effective for small and large groups.
Focus groups and surveys are essential methods for collecting data. Focus groups will improve the discussion among the participants on their intention to change behavior (Hirai et al., 2018). It will be vital to understand the behavior change tactics and the challenges. Discussions among the participants will be vital in sharing ideas about smoking behavior.
The data will be collected using the two methods since they enhance the credibility of the data. Questionnaires will provide the participants an opportunity to share confidential information that they cannot share in public (Hirai et al., 2018). The members will be briefed that the data is confidential. Informed consent is vital in eliciting confidence among the participants. The focus groups will utilize an interactive method to ensure every member shares their views about the program and smoking behavior. A facilitator will be responsible for sharing the questions to trigger a discussion (Hirai et al., 2018). The data from the two methods of data collection will be cleaned and analyzed to generate the results.
A questionnaire is a vital tool in the data collection process. During the process of developing a data collection tool, a pilot study is essential. A model questionnaire will guide the development of the final questionnaire (Dahne et al., 2021). A pilot questionnaire will be used to determine that the instrument has no errors. For instance, it will be vital to confirm that the questions are not misleading or unclear. A pilot study will be subjected to opinions from experts, peers, and selected participants. It will be vital to examine if the questions need to be corrected or remodeled.
It is expected that the ideas from the experts and opinions will lead to changes in the questionnaire. For example, the phraseology of the questions can be edited to ensure the questions elicit the exact meaning. An evaluation of the questions for the focus group session is essential (Dahne et al., 2021). Opinions from the experts and participants will be used to improve the quality of the questions. The improvements are necessary to ensure the results are valid, reliable, and clear.
Smoking cessation involves various stages such as pre-contemplation, contemplation, preparation, and action. The transition across the different stages will require support from the family and healthcare workers (Dahne et al., 2021). Changes in the instrumentation are vital to consider the different stages of smoking cessation. The changes will include questions about family and social support. For example, the individuals should have support from friends and family members. The family members should show appreciation for the efforts made to change behavior.
The questions should include an aspect of how to overcome relapse. The participants should know how to overcome the distress of relapse. For instance, changing the social circle will be vital in changing the behavior. Smokers who live with friends are likely to influence them negatively. The negative influence can trigger a relapse, which will make the program less useful (Hirai et al., 2018). It is vital to encourage the participants to ensure they do not stay close to smokers. Counter-actions are vital to eliminating the risk of relapse, which can jeopardize their health.
An impact evaluation plan seeks to examine the knowledge of the participants and the desire to change behavior. The focus of the evaluation is to ensure the program was successful in promoting smoking cessation. Experimental design is the standard strategy for evaluating the quality of a healthcare program. The focus is to establish a link between cause and effect. A questionnaire will be effective in the data collection process. A formal evaluation is essential to ensure the program is successful.
Dahne, J., Player, M., Carpenter, M. J., Ford, D. W., & Diaz, V. A. (2021). Evaluation of a Proactive Smoking Cessation Electronic Visit to Extend the Reach of Evidence-Based Cessation Treatment via Primary Care. Telemedicine and e-Health, 27(3), 347-354.
Hirai, A. H., Sappenfield, W. M., Ghandour, R. M., Donahue, S., Lee, V., & Lu, M. C. (2018). The Collaborative Improvement and Innovation Network (CoIIN) to reduce infant mortality: an outcome evaluation from the US South, 2011 to 2014. American Journal of Public Health, 108(6), 815-821.
Mäkelä, M. (2017). Experimental design and response surface methodology in energy applications: A tutorial review. Energy Conversion and Management, 151, 630-640.
Myers, G., Wright, S., Blane, S., Pratt, I. S., & Pettigrew, S. (2018). A process and outcome evaluation of an in-class vegetable promotion program. Appetite, 125, 182-189.
Smith, B. J., Rissel, C., Shilton, T., & Bauman, A. (2017). Advancing evaluation practice in health promotion. Health Promotion Journal of Australia, 27(3), 184-186.
Tindle, H. A., Stevenson Duncan, M., Greevy, R. A., Vasan, R. S., Kundu, S., Massion, P. P., & Freiberg, M. S. (2018). Lifetime smoking history and risk of lung cancer: results from the Framingham Heart Study. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 110(11), 1201-1207.
Trieu, K., Webster, J., Jan, S., Hope, S., Naseri, T., Ieremia, M., … & Moodie, M. (2018). Process evaluation of Samoa’s national salt reduction strategy (MASIMA): what interventions can be successfully replicated in lower-income countries?. Implementation Science, 13(1), 1-14.