Country : Australia

 

Assignment Task:

Task:

  • How to write an Evaluation of a Health Promotion Project
  • Rationale: to ensure that students can demonstrate competence in the evaluation of health promotion interventions.
  • Task: to develop an evaluation plan for a health promotion project and to critique the adequacy and effectiveness of this approach. Be careful not to plagiarise – you will receive no marks if you use RU OK Day as your intervention or use the exact same intervention strategies and evaluation as any of the examples provided in class.
  • Structure of the written report
  • A Logic model plan for the for a health promotion initiative/intervention
  • An evaluation plan based on the Logic Model
  • A word description of the evaluation plan being implemented in this project and
  • A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation plan (NOT the program/initiative itself).
  • Layout
  • Report format
  • No more than 1200 ± 100words (I will stop marking at 1600 words)
  • Exclusions from word count: Title, contents, executive summary/abstract pages plus tables, figures and references
  •  
  • Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory
  • Quality of Logic Excellent Very good Good Adequate Poor understanding
  • Model understanding of understanding of understanding of understanding of of use of a logic
  • 8 marks using a logic model. All components mapped out using a logic model. All components of the intervention use of a logic model.
  • Components of the using a logic model. Some issues with the ordering of the model.
  • (0-3.75 marks)
  • extremely clearly mapped out clearly intervention mapping out of and in the correct and in the correct mapped out well intervention order order with very minor components (7-8 marks) (6-6.75 marks) errors
  • (5-5.75 marks) (4-4.75 marks) Development of Highly developed Very good Good, clear and Adequate No evaluation plan
  • evaluation Plan evaluation plan evaluation plan well developed evaluation plan developed or poorly
  • 8 marks developed, including clearly developed, including evaluation plan, including developed, with an attempt to report developed evaluation plan
  • and well described goals/objectives, goals/objectives, on goals/objectives, submitted.
  • goals/objectives, inputs, outputs and inputs, outputs and outcomes. inputs, outputs and outcomes. inputs, outputs and outcomes reported (0-3.75 marks)
  • outcomes. (7-8 marks) (6-6.75 marks) (5-5.75 marks) on.
  • (4-4.75 marks) Criteria High Distinction Distinction Credit Pass Unsatisfactory
  • Description and Excellent Very good Good evaluation Adequate depth of No depth of
  • depth of evaluation description of evaluation well described and evaluation evident. evaluation evident
  • 8 marks evaluation and high level of depth of evaluation. described and with high level of depth. Process, impact with depth. Process, impact and outcome Limited description (4-4.75 marks) or poor description and depth of evaluation
  • Process, impact and outcome and outcome evaluation evaluation considered, with (0-3.75 marks)
  • evaluation described well, with appropriate described in appropriate methods described. excellent detail, with highly appropriate methods described. (6-6.75 marks) (5-5.75 marks) methods described. (7-8 marks) Critical analysis of High-level critical Very good detailed Good, clear critical Adequate critical No critical analysis
  • strengths and analysis of critical analysis of analysis of analysis of of strengths and
  • weaknesses strengths and strengths and strengths and strengths and weaknesses of
  • 8 marks weaknesses of evaluation and weaknesses of evaluation and weaknesses of evaluation, and weaknesses of evaluation, and evaluation or poor critical analysis of
  • excellent relevant appropriate recommendations. strengths and
  • recommendations provided. recommendations provided. recommendations included. (4-4.75 marks) weaknesses of evaluation.
  • (7-8 marks) (6-6.75 marks) (5-5.75 marks) (0-3.75 marks)
  • Description and sig- Highly developed Well-developed and Well-developed and Media release able Poorly described
  • nificance/relevance and described clearly described clearly described to be implemented. media release.
  • of the media release media release with media release with media release, able Development of Confused or unclear
  • 2 marks insightful suggestions for implementation. (1.8-2 marks) high likelihood of implementation. (1.5-1.75 marks) to be implemented. (1.3-1.48 marks) idea unclear or poorly described. (1-1.28 marks) and unlikely to be implementable.
  • (0-0.75 marks)
  • Feasibility, Highly feasible and Feasible media Feasible media Feasible media Media release not
  • appropriateness and innovative media release, which release, which can release with feasible or unable
  • innovation of health release. Able to be displays multiple be implemented limitations to to be implemented.
  • promotion media developed and elements of with amendments. implementation and Not innovative.
  • release 2 marks implemented easily. (1.8-2 marks) innovation, and can be implemented easily. Project displays some elements of innovation. innovation.
  • (1-1.28 marks) (0-0.75 marks)
  • (1.5-1.75 marks) (1.3-1.48 marks) Referencing and No referencing Very minor Several minor Some reference Wrong referencing
  • formatting. Quality errors in text of referencing error in referencing errors in errors in both text style used in text of
  • of written document or in either text of text of document or and reference list. document and/or
  • expression, proof reference list. Uses document or reference list. Uses Some references of no references used.
  • reading, spelling an extensive reference list. Uses references that are average quality, References are not
  • and editing number of current, references that are mostly good appropriateness appropriate or
  • 4 marks high quality appropriate and/or current, good quality appropriate quality, current, appropriate and/or and/or relevance, or few references used. relevant. Report format not used.
  • relevant references. and/or relevant. relevant. Report Report format used Difficult to read.
  • Report format used Report format used format used with but headings with No structure, with
  • with appropriate with appropriate appropriate minor errors or no headings used.
  • headings and headings. Clear and headings. formatting difficult Difficult to read
  • sub-headings where easy to read. Comprehensively to read. Some and understand.
  • required. High-level Clearly engages the discusses the logic inconsistencies in Fails to attract or
  • thinking and reader and model and logic and sequence, engage the reader.
  • academic writing. comprehensively evaluation plan. but generally easy Not logical in
  • Thought provoking details the logic Some to follow. Some progression or
  • discussion of logic model and inconsistencies in difficulty for the sequence. Very
  • model and evaluation plan. logic or discussion. reader. Generallywordy and or
  • evaluation plan. Logical and thought Engaging. Minor engaging, but verbose. Multiple
  • Logical high quality provoking. Well spelling, sometimes wordy. spelling, editing,
  • writing. No written. No spelling grammatical or Some spelling, grammatical and
  • spelling, errors but minor phrasing errors. grammatical and phrasing errors
  • grammatical or phrasing errors. Report well edited. (3.5-4 marks) phrasing or grammatical errors. (3-3.3 marks) (2.6-2.75 marks) phrasing errors. (2-2.5 marks) (0-1.75 marks)


1) Logic Model Plan
Start with a diagram/figure or table of the logic model stating the overall long-term outcome and intermediate and short-term outcomes to get to that overarching long term aim. Any other important considerations appropriate to your selected program should be included in the logic model. The logic model guides the writing of the evaluation sections (part 2 and 3). Refer to logic model examples in lecture slides to give you ideas for the best way to lay out your project logic model (e.g. the PRECEDE-PROCEED model, the input-output-outcomes model).
Ensure your model captures everything it should. For example:
Inputs/resources (e.g. funds, staff, resources, time, partnerships)
Outputs including the intervention activities and audience
Outcomes (consider short, intermediate and long term/impact)
More complex logic models might also consider:
External factors
Assumptions
Participants
Situation and priorities
Satisfaction
Health Promotion Strategies
Predisposing, reinforcing, enabling factors
Genetics, behaviour, environment

2) An evaluation plan based on the Logic Model
The evaluation plan describes what you will measure, in who and when, and will refer back to short, intermediate and long term outcomes in your logic model from part 1. Table 5.3 in Chapter 5 (page 85) of the Bauman and Nutbeam textbook might be useful. For every step in your logic model, you should have an evaluation planned around that step….so everything in your model needs to be measured. What you include here can vary from model to model but it is usually easier to display this section in table format with dot points. Some example Table column heads might be:
Formative evaluation – the development and improvement of programs in an early stage before the program is implemented. Normally this stage happens when a program is being first developed or when an existing program is being adapted.
Process evaluation
Impact evaluation
Outcome evaluation
OR
Problem definition
Solution generation
Resource mobilisation
Implementation
Impact assessment
Intermediate outcome assessment
OR
Social assessment
Epidemiological assessment
Educational & ecological assessment
Administrative and policy assessment and intervention alignment
Implementation
Process, impact, and outcome evaluation
Ensure your evaluation plan clearly covers everything in your logic model and therefore includes for each step of the logic model:
What exact outcomes are you measuring? Have clear and specific outcomes
Who: State the target group/priority groups that you will measure this outcome in? How many will you measure this outcome in?
When will you measure each outcome?
How will you measure this outcome? Will you use quantitative or qualitative methods? What data will you get from this method
If you have room and it makes sense for you to add references in this section, then do this. Otherwise, you can include your references in the next word section to describe your evaluation plan
In this section you are just highlighting what, who, when, how. In Part 3 you describe these in detail
3) A word description of the evaluation plan being implemented in this project
It is important to clearly identify in part 1 or 3 (wherever it makes most sense for you – it could be a box in your logic model diagram) what the program or intervention actually is (e.g. what health promotion strategies are being used and why/how you propose they will work). Use references to support these strategies. This should not be lengthy, but enough to be clear to the reader of what the program consists of.
In this section, use the same headings as for the evaluation plan in section 2 (you are now describing each step of your evaluation in more detail).
Include specifics on methods of data collection here, who will be involved and when (include references to support choices) and ensure you make it clear exactly what you want to capture and how. Your data evaluation plan must link back to your overall goal/objective and any other relevant stages of your program (from parts 1 and 2). Each activity/strategy in your intervention should have a measurement/s associated with it. This is the main focus of this assessment - evaluation.
HINT: To help you write this section, find journal articles that have looked at similar programs to the program of focus in this assignment to get ideas. What measurement tools did they use and what outcomes were measured? They might have included useful references that you could use to support your decisions.
4) A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation
In this section you need to include:

  • Strengths of the program evaluation (always start with the positives! Do not give the strengths of the intervention – it is of the evaluation of the intervention)
  • Weaknesses of the program evaluation (Do not give the weaknesses of the intervention – it is of the evaluation of the intervention)
  • Recommendations to improve the program evaluation (Do not give the recommendations to improve the intervention – it is the evaluation of the intervention you are providing recommendations for)
  • Some of the following might be useful for you to consider in relation to critiquing areas of your model:
  • Data collection design/methods (what are the strengths/weakness of the methods you are using or of the study design you propose)
  • Reach (are you reaching the target group – what are the strengths and weaknesses of how you are measuring this)
  • Access (are you providing the target group with equal access to the intervention – what are the strengths and weaknesses of how you are measuring this)
  • Cost (are the methods you are using to evaluate steps of your program costly or inexpensive)
  • Meeting objectives (are your methods of evaluation directly measuring all of your stated objectives)
  • Resources (do your methods of evaluation use up a lot of resources or not)
  • Bias (reporting, validity and reliability, sampling, measurement error)
  • References to other studies may be useful in this section (e.g. to highlight a strength of your program evaluation, to suggest a way of over coming a weakness or to recommend other health promotion evaluation strategies etc to improve your evaluation).
  • Evaluation of a Health Promotion Project Checklist
  • Overall Structure and Organisation Y/N Action
  • A report format with headings and sub-headings has been used. A word count for the main document (minus tables) has been performed and the assignment is 1500 +/- 100 words. I have read aloud the whole assignment and/or I have asked a friend or a family member, but not a classmate to read it. A logic model plan for the health promotion project is included, clearly displaying the inputs, activities and outputs, along with other relevant factors, phases and/or descriptors of the program An evaluation plan based on the logic model is clearly summarised (what is being measured, with who and when) A word description of the evaluation plan is detailed with the rationale for: the program and the data collection techniques applied A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation, including how attempts have been made to address weaknesses and or recommendations for future programs A social marketing campaign associated with the intervention included in this assessment has been described Paragraphs and Sentences Each paragraph has a topic sentence to introduce the content. All sentences in each paragraph relate to the content. Arguments are supported with relevant evidence/references. Linking devices have been used to connect ideas, sentences and sections. Use of Academic Language Stems and expressions have been used to clearly signal key messages. Evaluative words have been used to clearly indicate judgments and positions. No informal (spoken) expressions have been used. Academic language only Terms relating to health sciences and health promotion have been used where appropriate. An originality report has been run to check paraphrasing is appropriate. Language conventions The spelling tool is set to Australian English and a check has been performed to ensure correct spelling, capitalisation, punctuation and avoidance of contractions such as don’t. Consistent use of the same tense throughout the report. APA referencing format Appropriate references, ideally more than 13, have been used. These are predominantly academic journal articles and maybe appropriate government/agency documents, or other highly relevant sources. The reference list matches with in-text references. The list is correctly formatted, which includes alphabeticalisation and hanging indent. Part I (1200 words max)
  • Rationale
  • In addition to supporting the development of robust aims and objectives, understanding the ’logic’ and theoretical foundations of a proposed practical intervention is important in ensuring the delivery of quality health promotion interventions.
  • Evaluating a health promotion intervention is a critical part of project planning and implementation, as this is how the effect of the intervention is measured. Evaluation can take many forms (process, impact, outcome). The rationale for this assessment task is to ensure that students can demonstrate competence in the evaluation of health promotion interventions.
  • Task
  • The main aim of this assignment is to focus on planning an evaluation of a health promotion initiative/intervention. Students are required to choose a health promotion intervention that interests them.  This can be an existing health promotion intervention or students can design an intervention of their choice.  The task is to develop an evaluation plan for this health promotion project and to critique the adequacy and effectiveness of this approach.  
  • For your report, you are to select a health need that is of interest to you. Based on an intervention that targets this health issue, develop a Logic Model to evaluate this intervention. You cannot select R U OK Day as your intervention as this will be used in class to provide examples of how to develop a logic model.
  • Students are required to submit the following as part of the assessment task in a report format.
  • A Logic model plan for a health promotion initiative/intervention
  • An evaluation plan based on the Logic Model
  • A word description of the evaluation plan being implemented in this project and
  • A critical analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the evaluation plan (NOT the program/initiative itself).

The above  Medical Science Assignment has been solved by our   Medical Science Assignment  Experts at UniLearnO. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing style.

Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire considered worthy of the highest distinction.

  • Uploaded By : Pearl
  • Posted on : September 10th, 2019
  • Downloads : 268

Whatsapp Tap to ChatGet instant assistance