Annotated Bibliography
June 7, 2021Theodore Dalrymple’s The Frivolity of Evil
July 6, 2021Women’s Reproductive Health
Women’s Reproductive Health
Draft a 3-4 page pager based on the outline below.
Outline for Women’s Reproductive Health, Program Evaluation
I. Introduction
Program evaluation is a crucial company process in health care. Nevertheless, it is not adequately integrated or reliably practiced in the daily management of most programs. This process is significant in satisfying the center for disease and center prevention’s [CDC’s] functioning standards for directing public health operations (CDC, 2017). The operations include broadening social equity via public health approaches, utilizing science as a foundation for decision-making and health care approaches, becoming responsible, issuing functional services as a company, and making efforts outcome-based. These operating standards insinuate certain methods for enhancing the planning and of public health care operations. They emphasize the importance of programs to come up with definite plans, feedback frameworks, and inclusive stakeholders that permit continuous growth and learning (Moore, 2018). Program practical evaluations that issue information about management and enhancing program functionality is one method of guaranteeing that existing and new programs adhere to these standards.
II. Key Concepts Definition
This assignment will utilize the program term to detail the evaluation’s object that might be any structured public health care act. The definition of a program is deliberately wide since the structure can be utilized to almost any structured public health action, comprising of community mobilization measures, policy enhancement actions, administrative systems, direct service interventions, communication awareness campaigns, research objectives, laboratory diagnostics, training and learning services, and infrastructure building projects (Holt & Ahlmark, 2018). In addition, this assignment will include the definition of women’s reproductive health and other extra terms that determine common women’s reproductive health practitioners’ assessment vocabulary.
III. Integrating Routine Program Practice with Assessment
The integration of the two is done when the focus is on continuous rationale assessment that includes all program specialists, partners, and employees. The assessment practice goes hand in hand with program management by collecting the necessary information for enhancing and account for program functionality. Public health officials commonly use assessment processes when solving problems from associated individuals, consulting stakeholders, refining program activities, and decision-making that depends on feedback (Moore, 2018). When program alterations or probable decisions stakes incline, implementing assessment processes that are complete, formal, and valid becomes significant.
IV. Allocating the Women’s Reproductive Health Program Actions’ Significance
The allocation of the program action’s significance comprises of three aspects, including cost-effectiveness, importance, and quality (CDC, 2017). Passing judgment concerning a program based on evidence needs resolving several questions. Firstly, one has to expound on the program and explain the context it exists. Secondly, one needs to regard the program’s factors that are significant in judging program functionality. Additionally, one has to address the principles and the levels of functionality that the program must attain to be validated as successful. Moreover, one has to consider the evidence that will display how the program functions. Further, one will regard the findings that are validated by comparing the present evidence to the chosen principles concerning program functionality. Lastly, one will consider how the lessons learned from the inquiry are applicable in enhancing public health efficiency. The researcher should address these queries during the program’s commencement and enactment (Holt & Ahlmark, 2018).
V. Women Reproductive Health’s Program Assessment Framework
The framework is a rational tool structured to outline and arrange the important program assessment components (Moore, 2018). It involves the Evaluation practice phases and effective evaluation principles.
a. Evaluation Practice Phases
There are six phases that a researcher has to comply with during evaluation. They help comprehend a program’s context and enhance how individuals perform and form assessments (CDC, 2017). They include:
1) Involve stakeholders
2) Program detailing
3) Evaluation design emphasis
4) Assembling valid evidence
5) Prove findings
6) Guarantee use and share learned lessons
b. Principles for evaluating the quality of assessment operations
The second component of the framework involves a set of 30 principles that are structured into four categories, including:
a) Utility
b) Feasibility
c) Propriety
d) Accuracy
VI. Framework Application
i. Performing optimal assessments.
ii. Gathering an assessment group.
iii. Tackling common problems.
VII. Conclusion
Evaluation or assessment is the only method of differentiate programs that promote and support health and hinder disease, harm, and dysfunction from those that do not. It also emphasizes structuring effective public health approaches, enhancing existing programs, and displaying the outcomes of resource investments (CDC, 2017).
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Program performance and evaluation office. http://www.cdc.gov/healthyyouth/evaluation/index.htm
Holt, D. H., & Ahlmark, N. (2018). How Do We Evaluate Health in All Policies? Comment on” Developing a Framework for a Program Theory-Based Approach to Evaluating Policy Processes and Outcomes: Health in All Policies in South Australia”. International journal of health policy and management, 7(8), 758. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&as_ylo=2017&q=health+program+evaluation+framework&oq=health+program+evaluation+fr#d=gs_qabs&u=%23p%3DGWstuYHUlXMJ
Moore Jr, D. E. (2018). Assessment of learning and program evaluation in health professions education programs. New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, 2018(157), 51-64.