Due 7/26 3 P.M. EST: 500 Words, Min 3 Refs, Topic Published

Due 726 3 Pm Est500 Words Not Including Min 3 Reftopic Public Healt

Due 726 3 Pm Est 500 words not including min 3 refs topic: Public Health. You explored formative evaluation, which is evaluation that occurs before, and in tandem with, research. On the other end of the spectrum is summative evaluation. Summative evaluation includes evaluating programs and interventions as they are implemented (process evaluation) and evaluating programs after they are completed (outcome and impact evaluation). This week focuses on the latter type of summative evaluations: outcome and impact. The two are often confused; however, they are not the same. Post an example of an appropriate use of outcome evaluation for a study or project and an example of an appropriate use of impact evaluation. Explain your reason for using each type of evaluation, outcome or impact, for each example.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Public health initiatives are critical in addressing health disparities, preventing disease, and promoting health behaviors across populations. Evaluations play a central role in determining the effectiveness and sustainability of such programs. In the realm of summative evaluation, outcome and impact evaluations serve distinct purposes, providing insights into a program’s immediate results and its long-term effects on health status. This paper explores appropriate examples of outcome and impact evaluations within public health and discusses the rationale behind choosing each type.

Outcome Evaluation in Public Health

Outcome evaluation assesses the immediate effects or changes resulting from a program, intervention, or policy. It focuses on measuring specific health indicators or behavioral changes directly attributable to the program. An example of an appropriate use of outcome evaluation is assessing the effectiveness of a community-based smoking cessation program among adults. The program aims to reduce smoking prevalence by providing counseling services and nicotine replacement therapy. The outcome evaluation would measure changes in smoking rates, quit attempts, or reduction in cigarette consumption within the community during or immediately after the intervention.

The rationale for employing outcome evaluation in this context is to determine whether the program achieved its short-term objectives. It provides actionable data that can inform program modifications, funding decisions, and policy adjustments. Outcome evaluation is particularly valuable here because it offers timely feedback on the program’s effectiveness and whether the intervention was successful in changing targeted behaviors or health indicators (Rossi, Lipsey, & Freeman, 2004).

Impact Evaluation in Public Health

Impact evaluation examines the broader, long-term effects of a program on populations' health and well-being. It considers whether the intervention has led to meaningful changes in health outcomes or structural determinants over an extended period. An appropriate example is evaluating the impact of a statewide vaccination campaign on the incidence of childhood measles over five years.

The reason for choosing impact evaluation in this case is to understand if the vaccination program has contributed to a sustained decrease in measles cases, improved herd immunity, and overall reduction in disease burden. Since impact evaluation deals with long-term effects, it helps policymakers assess whether the program has achieved its ultimate goals beyond immediate behavioral changes. Evaluating impact is essential for understanding the broader societal benefits and informing future resource allocation (Bamberger, Rao, & Woolcock, 2012).

Comparison and Justification

Both evaluation types are crucial for comprehensive assessment. Outcome evaluation provides quick, actionable insights into program effectiveness, which is vital for ongoing program improvement. Conversely, impact evaluation offers a macro perspective, demonstrating whether the program has produced substantive, enduring benefits that improve public health over time. Using both methods sequentially enables public health professionals to track immediate results and long-term changes, ensuring programs are both effective in the short term and sustainable in their benefits.

Conclusion

Selecting between outcome and impact evaluation depends on the program goals—whether immediate behavioral change or long-term health improvement. In public health, these evaluation types complement each other, providing a full picture of a program’s success and informing future interventions. Employing both evaluations strategically ensures that public health initiatives are accountable, effective, and aligned with their ultimate goal of improving community health and well-being.

References

1. Bamberger, M., Rao, V., & Woolcock, M. (2012). Using Mixed Methods in Monitoring and Evaluation: Experiences from International Development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
2. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A Systematic Approach. Sage Publications.
3. WHO. (2018). Monitoring and Evaluation of Public Health Programs. World Health Organization.
4. Cohen, J. (2019). Evaluation in Public Health Practice. American Journal of Public Health, 109(5), 669-670.
5. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental Evaluation: Applying Complexity Concepts to Enhance Innovation and Use. Guilford Press.
6. Scriven, M. (1991). Evaluation Thesaurus. Sage Publications.
7. Sadler, D. R. (1989). Formative Assessment and Theories of Assessment. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policies, and Practices, 1(1), 77-84.
8. Fitzpatrick, J., Sanders, J. R., & Worthen, B. R. (2011). Program Evaluation: Alternative Approaches and Practical Guidelines. Pearson.
9. United Nations. (2015). Transforming Our World: The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.
10. Canada, P. H. (2002). Practical Guide to Program Evaluation. Public Health Agency of Canada.