Applying Epidemiology to Program Design for Chronic Disease Essay

Applying Epidemiology to Program Design for Chronic Disease Essay

Applying Epidemiology to Program Design for Chronic Disease Essay

Applying Epidemiology to Program Design for Chronic Disease

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
Applying Epidemiology to Program Design for Chronic Disease Essay
Just from $13/Page
Order Essay

Chronic diseases are the primary cause of global mortality, increased care costs, disability-adjusted life years, and poor quality of life. According to Dona et al. (2021), chronic conditions result in approximately 41 million deaths (71% of all deaths) annually. People grappling with chronic diseases require appropriate pharmacological and non-pharmacologic interventions for alleviating complications, preventing exacerbation of symptoms, and improving care outcomes. Diabetes is among the burdensome chronic diseases that result from the interplay between genetic, environmental, behavioral, and Psychopathology factors. Smith et al. (2021) contend that diabetic patients are susceptible to various adverse complications, including nephropathy, neuropathy, and vision loss. These complications contribute to premature deaths, prolonged hospitalization, high readmission rates, and low quality of life. Therefore, this paper focuses on the plausibility of applying epidemiology to design diabetes management programs in the United States.

ORDER A CUSTOM PAPER NOW

Identification of the Selected Chronic Health Issue and Population

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) poses a significant public health problem globally. According to the US Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] (2023), diabetes is a long-lasting health condition that affects how the body produces and utilizes insulin. Hampered utilization of blood glucose in patients with type 2 diabetes results in hyperglycemia (elevated glucose levels in the bloodstream), leading to massive damage to various body systems. The World Health Organization [WHO] (2023) argues that the clinical manifestation of diabetes includes multiple symptoms like unexplained weight loss, tiredness, blurred vision, and excessive thirst. Diabetes can have adverse ramifications if timely and evidence-based management strategies are lacking. According to the World Health Organization [WHO] (2023), diabetes and associated kidney complications accounted for approximately 2 million deaths in 2019. Although non-modifiable factors like gender, ethnicity, genetics, and age can increase the risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus, modifiable unhealthy lifestyle choices like sedentary lifestyles, limited physical activity, unhealthy diets, alcoholism, and smoking significantly predispose people to diabetes (Yang et al., 2022). In the United States, African Americans are at risk for type 2 diabetes mellitus and associated complications, including retinopathy and nephropathy.

Description of the Geographical Region and Important Characteristics of this Population

Type 2 diabetes mellitus remains a burdensome chronic disease in the United States due to its associated adverse ramifications. Smith et al. (2021) contend that approximately 34 million Americans had diabetes in 2018. In the same year, about 88 million American adults were prediabetic, meaning they had elevated glucose levels that did not satisfy thresholds for diabetes diagnosis (Smith et al., 2021). Despite the alarming statistics regarding diabetes and pre-diabetes prevalence in the United States, predictive statistics indicate that the disease’s prevalence rate will increase to over 60 million American adults by 2060 (Smith et al., 2021). Risk factors contributing to an upsurge in diagnosed cases of type 2 diabetes include overweight and obesity, tobacco use, alcoholism, physical inactivity, and limited awareness of self-management strategies.

Although the United States is a highly-diverse country comprising Non-Hispanic Whites, Black Americans, Asian Americans, and Latinos, African (Black) Americans are at a higher risk of type 2 diabetes than other ethnic groups. The US Department of Health and Human Services [DHHS] (2023) states that African Americans were twice as likely to succumb to diabetic complications in 2019 as non-Hispanic white. In the previous year (2018), non-Hispanic Blacks were about 60% more likely than white adults to be diagnosed with diabetes. Such statistics predict the presence of various population characteristics predisposing them to a high risk of diabetes and its complications. These characteristics include adulthood obesity, unhealthy behaviors like smoking, physical inactivity, socioeconomic barriers to quality care access, food insecurity, and stress. Also, Cheng et al. (2019) identify various physiological predispositions that increase diabetes prevalence among Black Americans. In this case, studies reveal that non-Hispanic Black people have higher levels of HbA1c than non-Hispanic white people due to the potential prevalence of hemoglobinopathies and other genetic factors. Consequently, it is vital to consider these characteristics when developing and implementing population-centered diabetes management programs.

Patterns of the Disease in the Selected Population Using the Epidemiologic Characteristics of Person, Place, and Time

Notably, there are information gaps in establishing the prevalence patterns of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in African Americans across different states in America. Although it would be complex to obtain datasets that effectively emphasize diabetes patterns consistent with the epidemiological characteristics of person, place, and time, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2022) provides crude datasets on the overtime prevalence of diagnosed diabetes, undiagnosed, and total diabetes among American adults. In a 2017-2020 dataset, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] (2022b) states that non-Hispanic Black adults had a higher percentage of diagnosed diabetes (12.7%), followed by Asians (11.3%), Hispanic (Latino) (11.1%), and White (11.0%). Regarding the total diabetes percentage, Black Americans had the highest share (17.4%), followed by Asians (16.7%), Hispanic (15.5%), and White (13.6%). These intergroup differences in the prevalence rate of diabetes emanate from variations in genetic predispositions and various social determinants of health, including access to physical activity opportunities, food security, socio-economic status, and access to healthy diets.

Health Outcome for the Population

One significant health outcome indicator for people with diabetes is the glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level. In this case, people with type 2 diabetes have above-average blood sugar levels. The recommended blood sugar level is below 5.7%. Therefore, higher HbA1c levels can enable effective diagnosis of prediabetes (5.7% to 6.4%) and diabetes (≥6.5%). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (2022a) states that a high blood sugar level predisposes diabetic patients to other associated complications, including nephropathy and retinopathy. Consequently, an effective diabetes management program should empower diabetic patients to regulate their blood sugar levels as the primary health quality indicator. It is possible to assess participants’ blood glucose levels after every three months to ascertain the efficacy and effectiveness of the diabetes management program.

Current Evidence that Supports the Importance of Improving This Health Outcome

The current scientific evidence supports improved blood sugar levels as the most reliable indicator of quality diabetes management programs. According to Lamidi et al. (2020), control of HbA1c and low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) are ideal outcome indicators of diabetes projects. The Finnish Current Care Guidelines for diabetes recommend that the normal glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) level be around 53 mmol/mol (lower than 7.0%). Although the treatment goals for diabetes management programs should be sensitive to people’s risk-factor levels, the duration of diabetes, age, and the severity of the associated co-morbidities, HbA1c regulation presents a strong incentive for diabetes management. Adu et al. (2019) contend that blood glucose level regulation signifies efficient and impactful diabetes self-management approaches. In this case, diabetic and pre-diabetic people can regulate their blood sugar levels and prevent further adverse complications by implementing evidence-based self-management approaches, including healthy eating habits, adherence to treatment interventions, participating in moderate to vigorous physical activities, and reducing risks by avoiding risky behaviors (Adu et al., 2019). Consequently, improving HbA1c levels can represent an ideal outcome and impact measure.

Description of the Evidence-Based Program

The proposed evidence-based program for improving health outcomes of the population grappling with prediabetes and diabetes should capitalize on the tenets of self-efficacy and self-management. A self-management education (SME) program is essential in preventing, treating, and managing diabetes. According to Kumah et al. (2021), a comprehensive self-management education program entails “the process of teaching people with chronic disease to manage their illness and treatment by providing them with the knowledge and skills that are needed to perform self-care behaviors, manage crises, and make lifestyle changes” (p. 2). Improving people’s self-efficacy and self-management through educational programs aligns with the World Health Organization’s recommendation for addressing chronic diseases. Kumah et al. (2021) state that the World Health Organization [WHO] proposes the need to “educate and support patients to manage their conditions as much as possible” (p. 2). Consequently, a self-management education program for prediabetes and diabetes can support effective disease control, management, and treatment.

A self-management education program for diabetes management, control, and treatment should encompass various elements consistent with the desired outcomes. According to Kumah et al. (2021), the recommended content for diabetes educational programs includes strategies for managing stress, the rationale for healthy eating habits and physical activity, relaxation and fatigue management strategies, problem-solving skills, communication skills, and the requirements for working in partnerships with healthcare professionals. Also, people struggling with diabetes should learn to self-monitor diabetes symptoms, medication management, and conditions for making informed treatment decisions (Kumah et al., 2021). Successful implementation of a self-management education program can improve self-efficacy, interprofessional collaboration between healthcare professionals and patients, stress management practices, and timely communication during emergencies. Also, an educational program can promote adherence to pharmacological and non-pharmacologic interventions for diabetes management and treatment.

Besides the recommended content for the self-management education program, it is essential to apply teaching methods that promote collaboration and interactions between healthcare professionals and the target population. Hong et al. (2022) recommend a teach-back teaching strategy for improving knowledge acquisition, retention, and interprofessional interactions. According to Hong et al. (2022), this teaching approach promotes shared decision-making, confidence in self-care, patient-provider interactions, and health outcomes. The teach-back strategy can integrate various content delivery modalities, including physical education sessions and virtual learning opportunities. Therefore, it is profound in promoting individual and group-based learning activities.

Data Collection

Data collection and analysis are profound project phases that allow effective testing and evaluation of short-and long-term objectives. During the implementation of the diabetes self-management education program, it is essential to collect primary data using quantitative and qualitative data collection methods, including surveys and questionnaires, interview transcripts, participants’ testimonials, and observations. In this case, data regarding participants’ experiences, learning outcomes, attitudes toward the education program, and increased knowledge and skills can inform the program’s outcome and impact measures (Heydari et al., 2019). After collecting qualitative and quantitative data, it is possible to analyze datasets using pretest and posttests strategies to assess measures given to participants before and after the intervention. For example, pretests and post-test data analysis tools can evaluate participants’ behavior changes before and after participating in diabetes self-management education sessions.

Short-and Long-Term Objectives (SMART Method)

Diabetes self-management education aims at promoting healthy behaviors and self-care in at-risk populations. Therefore, the short-term goals of educating prediabetic and diabetic people include the following:

  • Motivating participants to participate in 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous physical exercises from Monday to Friday (5 days per week)
  • Improving medication adherence
  • Promoting stress management practices, including motivating participants to try a 10-minute relaxation exercise daily.
  • Enabling participants to record their HbA1c, blood pressure, and cholesterol levels.
  • Enlightening participants about the need for alcohol and smoking cessation.

The long-term objectives of a self-management education program include the following goals.

  • Promote consistent regulation of participants’ HbA1c levels to achieve the recommended levels (below 6.7%).
  • Prevent diabetes complications and reduce diabetes progression in prediabetic people by 60%.

Identification of Stakeholders for the Program

Successful planning and implementation of diabetes self-management education programs rely massively upon multidisciplinary and interpersonal collaboration between healthcare professionals, the target group, families, and communities. Ryan et al. (2021) argue that a comprehensive diabetes management plan should entail inputs from various stakeholders, including policymakers, payers, healthcare professionals like nurses, physicians, dietitians, healthcare institutions, patients, family members, peer support groups, and principal investigators, including data analysts. Healthcare professionals play a front role in educating participants, establishing inclusion criteria, developing metrics for assessing outcomes and impacts, and providing learning materials.

Program Planning Model

When planning and implementing a diabetes self-management education program, it is vital to align processes and practices with the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. According to Curley (2020), the propositions of this program planning model include the belief that health and health risks emanate from multiple factors and the need to adopt multidimensional change interventions to address health risks. The PRECEDE (Predisposing, Reinforcing, and Enabling Constructs in Educational Diagnosis and Evaluation) process entails identifying population needs and their determinants, analyzing behaviors and environmental determinants relevant to health needs, outlining factors that predispose, reinforce, or enabling specific behaviors, and determining the best interventions for changing behaviors (Curley, 2020, p. 176). These steps can inform diabetes education programs by promoting a comprehensive analysis of health needs and priorities for diabetes patients, determination of social and environmental determinants, and selecting ideal teaching methods consistent with people’s needs and preferences.

The PROCEED (Policy, Regulatory, and Organizational Constructs in Educational and Environmental Development) framework encompasses steps for implementing and evaluating quality improvement initiatives. According to Curley (2020), it entails engaging stakeholders, describing the project, designing evaluation plans, gathering credible evidence, and justifying conclusions. In a diabetes self-management education program, the PROCEED process can guide interventions for establishing evaluation metrics, quantitative and qualitative data collection, information dissemination, feedback, follow-up activities, and evaluation of the program’s outcomes and impacts.

Cultural or Ethical Considerations Related to Program Design

The cultural and ethical considerations when designing diabetes self-management education programs revolve around the four bioethical principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, justice, and autonomy. According to Sugiharto & Huang (2020), it is essential to ensure that diabetes management interventions benefit the target population (beneficence). Also, it is ethically profound to avoid coercive measures of enticing potential participants to participate in educational sessions to prevent possible harm and exploitation. Thirdly, healthcare professionals should respect individual rights to self-determination and autonomy to decide in favor or against participating in education sessions. They should acknowledge cultural values that guide dietary choices and obtain informed consent from potential participants. Finally, healthcare professionals should uphold respect, integrity, fairness, and dignity when implementing the program.

Conclusion

Diabetes poses significant health challenges by exposing at-risk people to multiple adverse complications. A population-centered self-management education program proves reliable in promoting healthy behaviors, improving people’s self-efficacy, and enhancing positive outcomes. When implementing diabetes education programs, a multidisciplinary approach is central to realizing desired results. Equally, adopting a proven program planning model, including the PRECEDE-PROCEED model, is crucial to inform program planning and implementation. Finally, healthcare professionals should understand ethical and cultural considerations and dilemmas that guide individual choices and decisions.

References

Adu, M. D., Malabu, U. H., Malau-Aduli, A. E. O., & Malau-Aduli, B. S. (2019). Enablers and barriers to effective diabetes self-management: A multi-national investigation. PLOS ONE, 14(6), e0217771. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0217771

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022a). All about your A1C. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/managing/managing-blood-sugar/a1c.html

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022b, September 30). Prevalence of both diagnosed and undiagnosed diabetes. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/diagnosed-undiagnosed-diabetes.html

Cheng, Y. J., Kanaya, A. M., Araneta, M. R. G., Saydah, S. H., Kahn, H. S., Gregg, E. W., Fujimoto, W. Y., & Imperatore, G. (2019). Prevalence of diabetes by race and ethnicity in the United States, 2011-2016. JAMA, 322(24), 2389. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2019.19365

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer

Dona, S. W. A., Angeles, M. R., Hall, N., Watts, J. J., Peeters, A., & Hensher, M. (2021). Impacts of chronic disease prevention programs implemented by private health insurers: A systematic review. BMC Health Services Research, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-07212-7

Heydari, M. R., Taghva, F., Amini, M., & Delavari, S. (2019). Using Kirkpatrick’s model to measure the effect of a new teaching and learning methods workshop for health care staff. BMC Research Notes, 12(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-019-4421-y

Hong, Y.-R., Jo, A., Huo, J., Cardel, M. I., & Mainous, A. G. (2022). Pathways of teach-back communication to health outcomes among individuals with diabetes: A pathway modeling. Journal of Primary Care & Community Health, 13, 215013192110666. https://doi.org/10.1177/21501319211066658

Kumah, E., Otchere, G., Ankomah, S. E., Fusheini, A., Kokuro, C., Aduo-Adjei, K., & A. Amankwah, J. (2021). Diabetes self-management education interventions in the WHO African Region: A scoping review. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0256123. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0256123

Lamidi, M.-L., Wikström, K., Inglin, L., Rautiainen, P., Tirkkonen, H., & Laatikainen, T. (2020). Trends in the process and outcome indicators of type 2 diabetes care: A cohort study from Eastern Finland, 2012–2017. BMC Family Practice, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12875-020-01324-5

Ryan, J. C., Wiggins, B., Edney, S., Brinkworth, G. D., Luscombe-March, N. D., Carson-Chahhoud, K. V., Taylor, P. J., Haveman-Nies, A. A., & Cox, D. N. (2021). Identifying critical features of type two diabetes prevention interventions: A Delphi study with key stakeholders. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0255625. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255625

Smith, M. L., Zhong, L., Lee, S., Towne Jr, S. D., Ory, M. G., & Towne, S. D. J. (2021). Effectiveness and economic impact of a diabetes education program among adults with type 2 diabetes in South Texas. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-11632-9

Sugiharto, & Huang, M.-C. (2020). Diabetes self-management engagement: A case study analysis of respect for patient’s autonomy. Saudi Journal of Nursing and Health Care, 3(8), 237–240. https://doi.org/10.36348/sjnhc.2020.v03i08.003

United States Department of Health and Human Services. (2023). Diabetes and African Americans. https://minorityhealth.hhs.gov/omh/browse.aspx?lvl=4&lvlid=18

World Health Organization. (2023, April 5). Diabetes. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/diabetes

Yang, J., Qian, F., Chavarro, J. E., Ley, S. H., Tobias, D. K., Yeung, E., Hinkle, S. N., Bao, W., Li, M., Liu, A., Mills, J. L., Sun, Q., Willett, W. C., Hu, F. B., & Zhang, C. (2022). Modifiable risk factors and long-term risk of type 2 diabetes among individuals with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus: Prospective cohort study. BMJ, 378, e070312. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070312

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

WEEK 10 ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
APPLYING EPIDEMIOLOGY TO PROGRAM DESIGN FOR CHRONIC DISEASE
Roughly 28.5 million Americans were still uninsured as of 2017, and 133 million Americans […] suffer from at least one chronic condition.
—Nash et al. (2021, p. 5)
As you know, promoting positive social change is a part of the Walden mission. To be an effective agent for social change, nurses must be able to logically and critically analyze population health issues using epidemiologic concepts, and then translate this knowledge into evidence-based practice to improve healthcare outcomes. This exercise will afford you such an experience at the population level. This is an exciting time to be working in the field of population health with all the new, dynamic, and innovative technologies and strategies to help patients and populations become more knowledgeable about their health.
This week’s Learning Resources present numerous health problems that result in a need for ongoing care. Your Assignment is to select a chronic disease of professional importance to you, and then design an intervention program to improve the health of populations affected by it.
Reference:
LEARNING RESOURCES:
• Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.
o Chapter 7, “Concepts in Program Design and Development”
• Center for Community Health and Development. (n.d.). Toolkits. In Community tool box.Links to an external site. University of Kansas. https://ctb.ku.edu/en/toolkits
Note: The toolkits page provides guidance on designing and developing programs to improve population outcomes.
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021). National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPHP): Home.Links to an external site. https://www.cdc.gov/chronicdisease/index.htm
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2015). Public health professionals gateway: Develop SMART objectivesLinks to an external site.. https://www.cdc.gov/phcommunities/resourcekit/evaluate/smart_objectives.html
• The Community Guide. (n.d.). Program planning resourceLinks to an external site.. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/content/program-planning-resource
• Minnesota Department of Health. (n.d.). Smart objectivesLinks to an external site.. https://www.health.state.mn.us/communities/practice/resources/phqitoolbox/objectives.html

THE ASSIGNMENT
In a 7- to 10-page proposal (not including title page and references), address the following:
• Briefly identify your selected chronic health issue and population.
• Describe the geographic region and important characteristics of this population.
• Describe the patterns of the disease in your selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time.
• Identify one health outcome you would like to improve for the population.
• Briefly summarize current evidence that supports the importance of improving this health outcome.
• Briefly describe the evidence-based program you are developing, and why this approach will best fit the needs of your population.
• Explain what data you would need to collect, and how you would obtain and analyze it. You may choose to collect primary data or use secondary data. Justify your choice.
• Using the “SMART” method, write short- and long-term objectives for the program.
• Identify the stakeholders who should be involved in program planning.
• Identify which program planning model (see Curley, Chapter 7) you selected for your program. Justify your selection of model. Based on the model, explain how you would plan, implement, and evaluate the program.
• Explain any relevant cultural or ethical considerations related to your program design.
• Explain how you would fund the program.
• Describe strategies that would be appropriate for marketing the program.
• NURS_8310_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
NURS_8310_Week10_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn a 7- to 10-page proposal (not including title page and references), address the following: Briefly identify your selected chronic health issue and population. 20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and concisely identifies the selected chronic health issue and population. 17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately identifies the selected chronic health issue and population. 15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the selected chronic health issue and population. 12 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the selected chronic health issue and population, or it is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the geographic region and important characteristics of this population. 20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and concisely describes the geographic region and important characteristics of the population. 17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately describes the geographic region and important characteristics of the population. 15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely describes the geographic region and important characteristics of the population. 12 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely describes the geographic region and important characteristics of the population, or it is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the patterns of the disease in your selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time. 25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
An accurate and detailed description of the patterns of the disease in the selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time is provided. 22 to >19.0 pts
Good
An accurate description of the patterns of the disease in the selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time is provided. 19 to >17.0 pts
Fair
A somewhat inaccurate or vague description of the patterns of the disease in the selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time is provided. 17 to >0 pts
Poor
An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete description of the patterns of the disease in the selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time is provided, or it is missing.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify one health outcome you would like to improve for the population. 20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and concisely identifies one health outcome for improvement in the population. 17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately identifies one health outcome for improvement in the population. 15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies one health outcome for improvement in the population. 12 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies one health outcome for improvement in the population, or it is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBriefly summarize current evidence that supports the importance of improving this health outcome. 25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
A clear, concise, and well-organized summary of current evidence that supports the importance of improving the health outcome is provided. 22 to >19.0 pts
Good
An accurate summary of current evidence that supports the importance of improving the health outcome is provided. 19 to >17.0 pts
Fair
A somewhat inaccurate or vague summary of current evidence that supports the importance of improving the health outcome is provided. 17 to >0 pts
Poor
An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete summary of current evidence that supports the importance of improving the health outcome is provided, or it is missing.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeBriefly describe the evidence-based program you are developing, and why this approach will best fit the needs of your population. 20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and concisely the evidence-based program you are developing, and why this approach will best fit the needs of your population. 17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately describes the evidence-based program you are developing, and why this approach will best fit the needs of your population. 15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely describes the evidence-based program you are developing, and why this approach will best fit the needs of your population. 12 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely describes the evidence-based program you are developing, and why this approach will best fit the needs of your population.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain what data you would need to collect, and how you would obtain and analyze it. You may choose to collect primary data or use secondary data. Justify your choice. 25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
An accurate and detailed explanation of needed data for the program and how it would be obtained and analyzed is provided. A strong justification for choices is provided. 22 to >19.0 pts
Good
An accurate explanation of needed data for the program and how it would be obtained and analyzed is provided. Appropriate justification for choices is provided. 19 to >17.0 pts
Fair
A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of needed data for the program and how it would be obtained and analyzed is provided. Justification for choices is provided but may be somewhat vague or inaccurate. 17 to >0 pts
Poor
An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete explanation of needed data for the program and how it would be obtained and analyzed is provided, or it is missing. Justification for choices is inadequate or missing.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeUsing the “SMART” method, write short-term and long-term objectives for the program. 25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
Clear and measurable short-term and long-term SMART goals for the program are provided. 22 to >19.0 pts
Good
Measurable short-term and long-term SMART goals for the program are provided. 19 to >17.0 pts
Fair
Short-term and long-term goals for the program are provided but may be somewhat vague or not meet all SMART criteria. 17 to >0 pts
Poor
Short-term and long-term goals for the program are vague or do not meet SMART criteria or are missing.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify the stakeholders that should be involved in program planning. 20 to >17.0 pts
Excellent
The response accurately and concisely identifies the stakeholders that should be involved in program planning. 17 to >15.0 pts
Good
The response accurately identifies the stakeholders that should be involved in program planning. 15 to >12.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the stakeholders that should be involved in program planning. 12 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the stakeholders that should be involved in program planning or is missing.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify which program planning model you selected for your program. Justify your selection of model. Based on the model, explain how you would plan, implement, and evaluate the program. 40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response clearly and concisely identifies the program planning model and provides a strong justification for its selection…. An accurate and detailed explanation of program planning, implementation, and evaluation, based on the selected model, is provided. Response reflects strong understanding and application of program planning concepts and strategies. 35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response clearly identifies the program planning model and provides an appropriate justification for its selection…. An accurate and appropriate explanation of program planning, implementation, and evaluation, based on the selected model, is provided. 31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies a program planning model and justifies the choice…. A somewhat vague or inaccurate explanation of program planning, implementation, and evaluation, based on the selected model, is provided. 27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies a program planning model, or it is missing. Justification for selection is weak or missing…. A vague or inaccurate explanation of program planning, implementation, and evaluation is provided, or it is missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any relevant cultural or ethical considerations related to your program design. 25 to >22.0 pts
Excellent
An accurate and detailed explanation of relevant cultural or ethical considerations related to the program design is provided. 22 to >19.0 pts
Good
An accurate explanation of relevant cultural or ethical considerations related to the program design is provided. 19 to >17.0 pts
Fair
A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of relevant cultural or ethical considerations related to the program design is provided. 17 to >0 pts
Poor
An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete explanation of relevant cultural or ethical considerations related to the program design is provided, or it is missing.
25 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you would fund the program. 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
An accurate and detailed explanation of how the program would be funded is provided. 8 to >7.0 pts
Good
An accurate explanation of how the program would be funded is provided. 7 to >6.0 pts
Fair
A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the program would be funded is provided. 6 to >0 pts
Poor
An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete explanation of how the program would be funded is provided, or it is missing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe strategies that would be appropriate for marketing the program. 10 to >8.0 pts
Excellent
An accurate and detailed description of strategies that would be appropriate for marketing the program is provided. 8 to >7.0 pts
Good
An accurate description of strategies that would be appropriate for marketing the program is provided. 7 to >6.0 pts
Fair
A somewhat inaccurate or vague description of strategies that would be appropriate for marketing the program is provided. 6 to >0 pts
Poor
An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete description of strategies that would be appropriate for marketing the program is provided, or it is missing.
10 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 3 to >0 pts
Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. 5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 300
• PreviousNext

Calculate the price
Make an order in advance and get the best price
Pages (550 words)
$0.00
*Price with a welcome 15% discount applied.
Pro tip: If you want to save more money and pay the lowest price, you need to set a more extended deadline.
We know how difficult it is to be a student these days. That's why our prices are one of the most affordable on the market, and there are no hidden fees.

Instead, we offer bonuses, discounts, and free services to make your experience outstanding.
How it works
Receive a 100% original paper that will pass Turnitin from a top essay writing service
step 1
Upload your instructions
Fill out the order form and provide paper details. You can even attach screenshots or add additional instructions later. If something is not clear or missing, the writer will contact you for clarification.
Pro service tips
How to get the most out of your experience with Proscholarly
One writer throughout the entire course
If you like the writer, you can hire them again. Just copy & paste their ID on the order form ("Preferred Writer's ID" field). This way, your vocabulary will be uniform, and the writer will be aware of your needs.
The same paper from different writers
You can order essay or any other work from two different writers to choose the best one or give another version to a friend. This can be done through the add-on "Same paper from another writer."
Copy of sources used by the writer
Our college essay writers work with ScienceDirect and other databases. They can send you articles or materials used in PDF or through screenshots. Just tick the "Copy of sources" field on the order form.
Testimonials
See why 20k+ students have chosen us as their sole writing assistance provider
Check out the latest reviews and opinions submitted by real customers worldwide and make an informed decision.
Medicine
This was done very well. Thank you!
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Well researched paper. Excellent work
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Good work. Will be placing another order tomorrow
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
Medicine
Very fond of the paper written. The topic chosen is defiantly trending at this time
Customer 452495, July 27th, 2023
DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION OF NURSE ADVOCATE HEALTHCARE PROGRAM
The absolute best ! Thanks for great communication, quality papers, and amazing time delivery!
Customer 452467, November 14th, 2022
Medicine
Great work, Thank you, will come back with more work
Customer 452441, November 11th, 2022
11,595
Customer reviews in total
96%
Current satisfaction rate
3 pages
Average paper length
37%
Customers referred by a friend
OUR GIFT TO YOU
15% OFF your first order
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Claim my 15% OFF Order in Chat