Program Planning Evaluation
Joanne Glenn
University of Phoenix
DHA 732
June 28, ,2021
Introduction
As a new Potential Blogger and scholar learner pratcioner , this assignment in the Doctoral journey led me to quite a bit of research and synthesizing to understanding the real definition and meaning of blogging, that will facilitate access and the sharing of information and meaningful experience. Looking at the evaluation process, and understanding the value of information, experience, process and protocols as well as the ongoing need for change in health care to address disparities, inequities and bias is a primary focus of mine as a Clinician and Advocate.
The purpose of the evaluation is to see if something is working, a program, class, or policy? As a leader the development of evaluations can include through surveys, questionnaires, focus groups, observation, or experience . The intent is to have factual information that adds validity and understanding to the process for all stakeholders.
The following groups listed below can benefit from the evaluation process.
- Community leaders
- County board members, elected officials
- Colleagues
- volunteers,
- collaborators
- funders
- Media
- Grantors
- Agencies
- interest groups
Potential Questions for Evaluations:
Who can benefit from the program?
What stakeholders actually participates in the program? At what level of involvement?
Who benefits from the program? What do they gain?
What is the particular expertise/niche of the organization and is it being supportive?
Effective Communication and dissemination of an evaluation, information or report is important. Listed below is a number of sources for effectiveness of the intended message for distribution:
- summary briefs
- statements
- videotape , short film
- Pictures, photo
- charts, bulletin boards
- Slide-tape presentations
- Graphs and visuals
- Media releases
- Internet postings
- Written report
The statement, “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are.” is an important statement and can be applied with a significant meaning during program evaluation planning. As a Clinician and an individual with great imagination couple with some interesting and amazing experiences , the only way to see things through my lens is based on results, outcomes and opportunities or lack of. What is experience regardless of intent is the reality of its’ existence.
Program Evaluation for health professionals is important to assure staying up to date with changes research, validity and community needs. According to Adams and Neville (2020),
the aspect of “What It Is, What It Isn’t and How to Do” supports the opportunity to get it right acknowledging the diversity within the health profession community and should be part of the evaluation process because of knowledge, attributes, and skills to evaluate the impact of the services they provide. “Easy Evaluation” provides guidelines for its implementation of proper evaluation, which many professionals are not included in that process. The framework presented distinguishes program evaluation from research and this is where health professionals value with judgement can apply an evaluative lens representing merit, worth, and significance of effective programs including quality iniativies.
Easy Evaluation comprises six key phases
According to Bowen et al (2019), and in agreement there is evidence that implementing knowledge through relationships are predictors used in research to enhance collaborations, partnerships and add value to the design in the area of health service organizations. In support of the need to retool and rethink, while reflecting on of the saying “We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are”, another example of how some barriers remain in place and the lack of experienced leadership interventions show evidence of informed practices continuing to marginalize operations and still receive funds for research. Roger et al (2019), adds and recognizes the designing and evaluating of health professions educational programs and training should support the skill set and be recognized as an attribute to program planning and evaluation. There continues to be a focus on systematic program evaluations and outcomes that compare industry benchmarks and continuous quality improvement (CQI) as a measure of success. Leaders realize and accept the need for more engagement of the interprofessional team for guidance and teamwork to achieve the standards and expectations on the industry.
Throgmorton et al. (2016), highlighted a subject that was addressed earlier in the discussion channel regarding physician leadership, which also has a significant role in programs, as part of the interdisciplinary team all strategies are important and part of the design for program planning evaluation. Here lies another opportunity to enhance physician learning, engagement and relationship building.
Recognizing the digital edge with technology and social media both having a high penetration and interactive role in healthcare, governance, ethics and research, there must be a level of synergy established between the various stakeholders for support and ongoing training.
The need for evidence-based practice, as well as develop institutional policies that benefit patients, clinicians, public health practitioners, and industry alike continues to be of high priority. Grajales et al (2014). Below is a chart illustrating Program evaluation, description and prevention as an example of activities occurring within the industry, Honeycutt et al (2015).
Table 1
Description of Prevention Research Center Evaluations of Initiatives to Change Policies, Systems, and Environments
| Description | No. | Emory | Texas A&M | Tulane | UAB | UCLA | UI | UNC |
| Evaluation client | ||||||||
| State department of public health | 3 | X | X | X | ||||
| Not applicable (internal evaluator) | 4 | X | X | X | X | |||
| How program was described | ||||||||
| Logic model | 4 | X | X | X | X | |||
| Conceptual framework | 3 | X | X | X | ||||
| Logic mapping | 1 | X | ||||||
| Study design | ||||||||
| Cross-sectional | 4 | X | X | X | X | |||
| Pre–post assessment | 3 | X | X | X | ||||
| Longitudinal follow-up | 2 | X | X | |||||
| Case study | 1 | X | ||||||
| Control group | 1 | X | ||||||
| Comparison group | 1 | X | ||||||
| Data sources | ||||||||
| Surveys | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Observation | 4 | X | X | X | X | |||
| Interviews | 3 | X | X | X | ||||
| Document review | 3 | X | X | X | ||||
| Analysis methods | ||||||||
| Mixed methods | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Qualitative | 1 | X | ||||||
| Quantitative | 1 | X | ||||||
| Stakeholders involved in justifying conclusions | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Focus of findings | ||||||||
| Adoption/ implementation of PSE strategies | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Contextual factors influencing PSE change | 5 | X | X | X | X | X | ||
| Individual behavior change | 2 | X | X | |||||
| Methodological issues | 1 | X | ||||||
| Sharing lessons learned | ||||||||
| Evaluation report | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Meeting/presentation to stakeholders | 4 | X | X | X | X | |||
| Manuscript for peer-reviewed publication | 7 | X | X | X | X | X | X | X |
| Conference presentation | 6 | X | X | X | X | X | X |
Abbreviations: PSE, policy, systems, and environmental; UAB, University of Alabama at Birmingham; UCLA, University of California, Los Angeles; UI, University of Iowa; UNC, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Honeycutt et al (2015)
Reference- Planning a Program Evaluation Ellen Taylor-Powell Sara Steele Mohammad Douglah G3658-1 Program Development and Evaluation https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5220766.pdf
*(The following “Portion” of the N.Y. Times article is Not part of word count, informational only and a point of reference) By Deb Amlen
SATURDAY PUZZLE — It’s not really a secret that we all see, feel, smell and hear things differently. If you have ever sat through a course in philosophy, you know that our perception of what is “real” is based not on what something actually is, but what we say it is. Which is always incredibly disappointing to a teenager who has come to college to discover the “real” world (“That’s it?! That’s all there is to it? Can I go now?”)
The quote that is normally attributed to the writer ANAÏS NIN, “We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are” is also a Talmudic idea about dream analysis: People can only dream about things they have encountered or thought about, and so their dreams consist not of reality — whatever that is — but is instead a version filtered through the lens of the dreamer’s experiences.
This clue at 36D jumped out at me in the midst of solving David Phillips’s Saturday crossword because it’s so similar to the way we solve — or try to solve — crossword puzzles. Anecdotally speaking, I could run a clue that involves wordplay by 10 different solvers, and I would probably get at least three unique interpretations of the clue, maybe more.
There’s nothing wrong with that on the surface, except that there can only be one officially correct answer for each entry (unless it’s a Schrödinger puzzle, but I digress.) Some solvers will immediately see the “correct” answer — or at least the answer that is meant to fit in the slot that day — and others will have to make their way to it by sheer dint of imagination.
We Don’t See Things As They Are, We See Them As We Are
Anaïs Nin? Babylonian Talmud? Immanuel Kant? G. T. W. Patrick? H. M. Tomlinson? Steven Covey? Anonymous?
Dear Quote Investigator: Our preconceptions can dramatically alter the way we perceive the world. There is a saying attributed to the prominent writer Anaïs Nin that reflects this idea:
We don’t see things as they are; we see them as we are.
These words have also been assigned to a number of the popular motivational authors…..and additional citations.
In conclusion, this saying has been used by many. However, its origin is not known, and it is not possible to provide a precise ascription. Hence, the expression should be labeled anonymous.. Perhaps future discoveries will help clarify matters.
Image Notes: Multi-colored eye from PublicDomainPictures at Pixab
Reference
Adams, J., & Neville, S. (2020). Program Evaluation for Health Professionals: What It Is, What It Isn’t and How to Do It. International Journal of Qualitative Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406920964345
Bowen, S., Botting, I., Graham, I. D., MacLeod, M., Moissac, D., Harlos, K., Leduc, B., Ulrich, C., & Knox, J. (2019). Experience of Health Leadership in Partnering With University-Based Researchers in Canada – A Call to “Re-imagine” Research. International journal of health policy and management, 8(12), 684–699. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2019.66
Edwards, R. A., Venugopal,S., Navedo , D..& Ramani, S. (2019) Addressing needs of diverse stakeholders: Twelve tips for leaders of health professions education programs, Medical Teacher, 41:1, 17-23, DOI: 10.1080/0142159X.2017.1396307
Grajales III FJ, Sheps S, Ho K,Novak-Lauscher H, Eysenbach G
Social Media: A Review and Tutorial of Applications in Medicine and Health Care
J Med Internet Res 2014;16(2):e13
doi: 10.2196/jmir.2912PMID: 24518354PMCID: 3936280
Honeycutt, S., Leeman, J., McCarthy, W. J., Bastani, R., Carter-Edwards, L., Clark, H., Garney, W., Gustat, J., Hites, L., Nothwehr, F., & Kegler, M. (2015). Evaluating Policy, Systems, and Environmental Change Interventions: Lessons Learned From CDC’s Prevention Research Centers. Preventing chronic disease, 12, E174. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd12.150281
Throgmorton, C., Mitchell, T., Morley, T. and Snyder, M. (2016), “Evaluating a physician leadership development program – a mixed methods approach”, Journal of Health Organization and Management, Vol. 30 No. 3, pp. 390-407. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-11-2014-0187
Download as .RIS
Doctorjaygee 