The Assignment: (2–3 pages)Based on the program or policy evaluation you select.
The Assignment: (2–3 pages)
Based on the program or policy evaluation you selected. 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.
Milstead, J. A., & Short, N. M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.
• Chapter 7, “Health Policy and Social Program Evaluation” (pp. 116–124 only)
Glasgow, R. E., Lichtenstein, E., & Marcus, A. C. (2003). Why don’t we see more translation of health promotion research to practice? Rethinking the efficacy-to-effectiveness transition. American Journal of Public Health, 93(8), 1261–1267.
Shiramizu, B., Shambaugh, V., Petrovich, H., Seto, T. B., Ho, T., Mokuau, N., & Hedges, J. R. (2016). Leading by success: Impact of a clinical and translational research infrastructure program to address health inequities. Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(5), 983–991.
Williams, J. K., & Anderson, C. M. (2018). Omics research ethics considerations. Nursing Outlook, 66(4), 386–393. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2018.05.003