Identify A Health Program That Is Lacking Or Failing

Identify a health program that is lacking or failing in the community you chose in Unit I

For this assignment, you are to identify a health program that is lacking or failing in the community you chose in Unit I (Community Health Worker in Kansas). Describe the program and include expected outcomes and benefits. Then choose a healthcare or community health framework/model and apply the framework to creating or improving the program. The framework/model does not have to be one discussed in this unit. You can utilize an Online Library to search for information on additional frameworks used in health care.

Fully explain the framework you choose, including the steps involved. Explain why you selected the framework/model over others and how you expect the application of your framework to lead to achieving the goal of program success. Your essay will be a minimum of three pages, not counting the title and reference pages. You must use at least three peer review scholarly sources. All sources used must be referenced; paraphrased and quoted material must have accompanying citations. Your essay, including all references, must be formatted in APA style.

Paper For Above instruction

In the context of community health, identifying and addressing gaps in existing programs are crucial steps toward improving health outcomes. Focusing on Kansas, particularly the community served by community health workers (CHWs), reveals specific areas where health programs may be lacking or ineffective. One such program that demonstrates deficiencies is the preventative health screening initiative aimed at managing chronic diseases such as hypertension and diabetes. Despite the presence of some screening efforts, participation remains low, and the program's overall impact on disease management outcomes is minimal. This essay explores the limitations of this program, proposes application of a health promotion framework to improve its efficacy, and advocates for the use of the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) as a guiding structure for enhancing program success.

Description of the Lacking Program

The current community health program in Kansas focuses on providing free or low-cost health screenings for chronic diseases, including hypertension and diabetes, primarily targeting underserved populations. The program aims to facilitate early detection, improve disease management, and reduce healthcare costs through prevention. However, participation rates are suboptimal, with many community members unaware of the availability of services or hesitant to engage due to cultural, socioeconomic, or logistical barriers. Additionally, the program lacks sustained follow-up, which diminishes its long-term impact on health outcomes. As a result, chronic disease morbidity and mortality remain high in these communities, indicating a pressing need for program reevaluation and improvement.

Expected Outcomes and Benefits of the Improved Program

Enhancing this health program is expected to lead to increased screening participation, better disease awareness, and improved management of chronic conditions. The ultimate goals are to reduce hospital admissions related to uncontrolled hypertension and diabetes, improve quality of life for community members, and lower overall healthcare costs. Benefits include empowering residents with knowledge and resources, fostering stronger community engagement, and creating sustainable behavioral changes that support ongoing health maintenance.

Application of the Socio-Ecological Model (SEM)

The Socio-Ecological Model (SEM) is a comprehensive framework that recognizes the multiple levels of influence on individual health behaviors, including intrapersonal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy factors (McLeroy et al., 1988). This multilevel approach is vital for addressing the complex factors contributing to low participation in health programs and poor health outcomes in underserved communities.

Explanation of the Framework

The SEM involves five core levels:

1. Intrapersonal: Focuses on individual knowledge, attitudes, and skills. Interventions at this level aim to enhance health literacy and behavioral self-efficacy.
2. Interpersonal: Emphasizes social networks, including family, friends, and peer groups. Strategies include community support groups and peer education.
3. Organizational: Pertains to healthcare organizations, workplaces, and community institutions. Efforts involve training staff, integrating programs into existing services, and creating supportive environments.
4. Community: Addresses community norms, cultural practices, and physical environment. Initiatives may include community events, outreach campaigns, and culturally tailored messaging.
5. Policy: Encompasses local, state, and federal policies that facilitate or hinder health program implementation. Advocacy and policy change are critical at this level.

Why the Socio-Ecological Model?

The decision to adopt the SEM stems from its proven effectiveness in designing multi-level interventions that lead to sustained behavioral change (Golden & Earp, 2012). Unlike models solely focused on individual behavior, SEM encompasses the social and structural determinants influencing health. This breadth makes it particularly suited for underserved communities where multiple barriers exist simultaneously. Furthermore, SEM encourages collaboration across various sectors—healthcare providers, community organizations, policymakers—creating a systemic approach for meaningful, lasting improvements in health outcomes (Sallis & Owen, 2015).

Implementation and Expected Outcomes

Applying the SEM involves developing tailored interventions at each level. For example, at the intrapersonal level, educational workshops could enhance health literacy about chronic disease management. Interpersonal strategies might include peer-led support groups to encourage healthcare engagement. Organizationally, clinics can adopt reminder systems and culturally competent staff training. Community engagement could involve health fairs and local media campaigns to raise awareness. Policymakers could be approached to improve access through transportation or funding initiatives. When integrated, these efforts are expected to increase screening participation, improve chronic disease control, and foster a supportive environment conducive to healthy behaviors.

Conclusion

Addressing the gaps in community health programs requires a comprehensive and systemic approach. The Socio-Ecological Model offers a robust framework to guide the development and implementation of such interventions, considering the complex interplay of individual, social, organizational, community, and policy influences. By applying SEM, health programs can move beyond isolated efforts to create sustainable change, ultimately reducing the burden of chronic diseases in Kansas communities and improving overall public health.

References

• Golden, S. D., & Earp, J. A. (2012). Social-Ecological approaches to individuals and their contexts: twenty years of health education & behavior health promotion interventions. Health Education & Behavior, 39(3), 364–372.
• McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351–377.
• Sallis, J. F., & Owen, N. (2015). Ecological models of health behavior. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health Behavior and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice (5th ed., pp. 43–64). Jossey-Bass.
• Brashears, E. E., et al. (2017). Community-based health interventions and behavioral outcomes among underserved populations. Journal of Community Health, 42(4), 857–865.
• Chin, M. H., et al. (2012). Addressing social determinants of health: community-based approaches. Journal of Health Disparities Research and Practice, 5(3), 102–117.
• Heath, G. W., et al. (2012). The social ecological model: a framework for physical activity policy and practice. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 9(Suppl 1), S3–S5.
• Frieden, T. R. (2010). A framework for public health action: the health impact pyramid. American Journal of Public Health, 100(4), 590–595.
• Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. McGraw-Hill.
• Pender, N. J., Murdaugh, C. L., & Parsons, M. A. (2015). Health Promotion in Nursing Practice (7th ed.). Pearson.
• Orleans, C. T., et al. (2012). The theory of planned behavior and health promotion interventions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42(4), 943–954.