Please Review The Directions For The Assignment Below And Co

Please Review The Directions For the Assignment Below And Complete Pa

Please review the directions for the assignment below, and complete parts A and B. A. Analyze the following commonly used models for program planning and evaluation: PRECEDE-PROCEED Model, MATCH Model, MAPP Model. Review each model in its entirety and consider the individual strategies, methods, and techniques that each model uses to influence behavior change. What are some of the key differences between the models? What are the similarities? B. Building on the Logic Model that you created in Week 1, this assignment challenges you to expand on that work, and design a planning model for a health education program. Using the following phases of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model as a framework, design your model to address a current health issue in a school, community, or workplace setting. Use your creativity and personal knowledge to design the model, but be sure to include the components below: Phase 1 – Social assessment; Phase 2 – Epidemiological assessment; Phase 3 – Educational & ecological assessment; Phase 4 – Administrative & policy assessment and intervention alignment; Phase 5 – Implementation; Phase 6 – Process evaluation; Phase 7 – Impact Evaluation; Phase 8 – Outcome evaluation. This assignment should be submitted in the form of a PowerPoint presentation, with a minimum of 8-10 slides, along with speaker notes. Attached is my logic model assignment from unit 1 to use in part B of the assignment.

Paper For Above instruction

Comparison of Program Planning Models and Application of PRECEDE-PROCEED Framework

The effective development and evaluation of health education programs rely heavily on well-established planning models. Among the most utilized frameworks are the PRECEDE-PROCEED, MATCH, and MAPP models. Each offers unique strategies, methods, and techniques for influencing behavior change, but they also share commonalities that underpin effective health intervention planning. This paper will analyze these models, highlight their key differences and similarities, and then expand on the application of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model in designing a tailored health education program addressing a pertinent health issue within a community setting.

Analysis of the Program Planning Models

PRECEDE-PROCEED Model

The PRECEDE-PROCEED model is a comprehensive framework that guides health program planning through a series of systematic phases. It emphasizes predisposing, reinforcing, and enabling constructs in educational diagnosis (PRECEDE) followed by policy, regulatory, and organizational constructs in educational and administrative diagnosis (PROCEED). The model promotes a participatory approach, involving stakeholders at each stage to identify issues, set objectives, and evaluate outcomes. Its strength lies in integrating epidemiological data with behavioral and environmental assessments to develop targeted interventions.

MATCH Model

The MATCH (Multi-Attribute Task-Centered Hazard) model focuses on the selection of interventions by evaluating various strategies against multiple criteria through stakeholder input. It uses a problem-driven process to identify specific health issues and then systematically assesses potential interventions based on effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability. The MATCH model emphasizes practicality, stakeholder involvement, and a decision-making process that accounts for multiple attributes, making it particularly useful in complex or resource-limited settings.

MAPP Model

The Mobilizing for Action through Planning and Partnerships (MAPP) model is designed to foster partnerships and community engagement in the planning process. It involves six phases, starting with coalition development and visioning, and progressing through community assessments and strategic planning. MAPP emphasizes community participation, shared leadership, and environmental influences, making it especially suitable for community-wide health initiatives that require broad stakeholder buy-in and multi-sector collaboration.

Key Differences and Similarities

The primary distinctions among these models lie in their scope and focus. The PRECEDE-PROCEED model provides a detailed, step-by-step process that incorporates epidemiological data and behavioral assessments, making it highly systematic for health program evaluation. The MATCH model emphasizes stakeholder-based decision-making for selecting interventions based on multiple criteria, suitable for resource-constrained or complex environments. The MAPP model prioritizes community involvement and dynamic partnerships, aligning well with community development frameworks.

Despite their differences, all three models share core principles such as participatory planning, stakeholder engagement, data-driven decision-making, and a focus on behavior change. They all recognize the importance of formative assessments to inform intervention design and emphasize the integration of evaluation at various stages to ensure program effectiveness.

Application of the PRECEDE-PROCEED Model to a Current Health Issue

Building on my Week 1 Logic Model, I will now expand and adapt that framework using the PRECEDE-PROCEED model to address a current health concern: childhood obesity within a local school setting. This issue is multifaceted, involving behavioral, environmental, and policy components that must be addressed through a comprehensive strategic plan.

Phase 1: Social Assessment

In this initial phase, the focus is on understanding the social and quality-of-life factors affecting children and their families. Through community surveys, interviews, and focus groups with parents, teachers, and students, I gathered data indicating that childhood obesity impacts students’ self-esteem, academic performance, and social interactions. Stakeholders expressed concern about limited access to nutritious foods and safe physical activity spaces within the school environment.

Phase 2: Epidemiological Assessment

Using existing health data from school health records and local health reports, it was evident that the prevalence of obesity among students aged 6-12 has increased by 15% over the past five years. Key risk factors identified include inadequate physical activity, poor dietary habits, and increased screen time. Data showed disproportionate rates among lower socioeconomic groups, indicating a need for targeted interventions.

Phase 3: Educational & Ecological Assessment

This phase examines behavioral and environmental determinants. Behaviors contributing to obesity include consumption of sugary drinks, lack of daily physical activity, and sedentary leisure activities. Environmental factors include a lack of healthy food options in school cafeterias, limited playground equipment, and policies that do not promote active recess or physical education classes. Personal factors such as knowledge about nutrition and motivation to exercise also were assessed.

Phase 4: Administrative & Policy Assessment and Intervention Alignment

This step involved reviewing school policies and administrative support for health initiatives. Existing policies on nutrition and physical activity were found to be outdated and lacking enforcement. Stakeholders indicated a need for policy revision, staff training, and resource allocation to promote healthful behaviors. Collaboration with school administrators, local health agencies, and parent groups is essential for successful intervention alignment.

Phase 5: Implementation

Based on the assessments, an intervention plan was developed that includes revamping the school lunch program to incorporate healthier options, implementing daily physical activity sessions, and initiating health education curricula. Staff training sessions on nutrition and activity promotion are scheduled, along with parent engagement workshops to reinforce healthy behaviors at home.

Phase 6: Process Evaluation

During implementation, data will be collected on participation rates in physical activities, the fidelity of policy enforcement, and feedback from students, parents, and staff. Monitoring tools such as attendance logs, surveys, and observation checklists will be utilized to ensure the program components are being executed as planned.

Phase 7: Impact Evaluation

Post-implementation, short-term outcomes such as increased physical activity levels, improved dietary choices, and increased nutrition knowledge will be assessed through surveys and health screenings conducted at regular intervals. The goal is to measure behavioral changes attributable to the intervention within the first six months.

Phase 8: Outcome Evaluation

Finally, broader impacts such as reductions in BMI percentiles among participating students, improved self-esteem, and better academic performance will be evaluated over one to two years. These long-term health outcomes are critical indicators of the program’s success in addressing childhood obesity and fostering sustainable healthy behaviors.

Conclusion

The integration of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model in planning a health education intervention offers a systematic, participatory, and evidence-based approach to tackling complex health issues like childhood obesity. Its comprehensive phases ensure that all influencing factors are considered, from social determinants to policy environments, facilitating the development of sustainable and impactful programs. Applying this model in conjunction with the insights from my initial logic model enhances the strategic planning process, ultimately contributing to healthier school communities.

References

• Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2005). Health Program Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. McGraw-Hill.
• Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic Model Development Guide. Kellogg Foundation.
• McKenzie, J. F., Neiger, B. L., & Thackeray, R. (2013). Planning, Implementing, & Evaluating Health Promotion Programs. Pearson Higher Ed.
• Salmon, J., et al. (2007). Physical activity and the built environment: Ecological models and international perspectives. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 4(Suppl 1), S24–S29.
• Shediac-Rizkallah, M. C., & Bone, L. R. (1998). Planning for sustainability of community-based health programs: Conceptual frameworks and future directions for research, practice, and policy. Health Education Research, 13(1), 87-108.
• Green, L. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2010). Health Promotion Planning: An Educational and Ecological Approach. McGraw-Hill.
• CDC. (2011). School Health Guidelines to Promote Healthy Eating and Physical Activity. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 60(RR-5), 1-23.
• Snider, J. & Byrd, S. (2018). Community health program planning. Journal of Community Health, 43(2), 231-236.
• Chartier, M. J., et al. (2014). The effectiveness of school-based obesity prevention programs: A systematic review. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 11, 127.
• Brownson, R. C., et al. (2010). Evidence-Based Public Health. Oxford University Press.