HLTH 1000 Week 10 Evaluation Plan Example

Course	HLTH 1000 Concepts of Health Promotion
Week	Week 10
Paper type	Evaluation plan
Length	About 1,120 words, 7 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	BS in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 1000 Week 10

Evaluation Plan for Check Your Numbers at Home: What Will Be Counted, by Whom and When, and What Result Would Mean the Program Fell Short

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 1000: Concepts of Health Promotion

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title promises measures, people, timing and a failure condition, the last being the part most first plans leave out.

Evaluation Plan for Check Your Numbers at Home: What Will Be Counted, by Whom and When, and What Result Would Mean the Program Fell Short

The Program and Its Claims

Check Your Numbers at Home runs for six months at Riverside Terrace and teaches residents with diagnosed high blood pressure to monitor it themselves. The building is a composite: 96 senior apartments in Pueblo, Colorado. A community health worker (CHW) trains residents to use loaned home monitors, reviews their readings at a weekly drop-in hour and helps them prepare summaries for their own clinicians. The program makes four claims, stated as objectives in the proposal:

Objective 1, reach and training: 30 or more diagnosed residents signed up and checked for technique by the end of March.

Objective 2, monitoring: seven in ten enrollees logging a dozen or more readings monthly from April on.

Objective 3, sharing: six in ten enrollees reporting that a clinician has seen their log by the end of May.

Objective 4, blood pressure: a July home systolic average 5 or more points under each enrollee's opening two-week average.

The first three objectives describe what the program does and who takes part; they are process claims. The fourth describes a change in health; it is an outcome claim. The plan keeps them separate. A program can enroll, train and engage residents well and still not lower anyone's blood pressure, and a plan that counts attendance and then reports that health improved has confused the two (Saunders et al., 2005).

Process Measures

A process evaluation checks delivery against the plan and checks whether the intended people took part (Saunders et al., 2005). The RE-AIM framework adds a useful question for a small program: of the residents eligible, what share took part, and were they representative of the building (Glasgow et al., 1999)?

The checklist's eight items come from the American Heart Association statement on measurement (Muntner et al., 2019): a cuff that fits the arm, five quiet minutes seated first, the back resting against the chair, feet resting flat, the arm supported at heart height, no talking, the cuff on bare skin and a second reading after a one-minute pause. Technique is measured twice because errors that are corrected at training can return over time.

Table 1

Process Measures

Measure	Instrument	Source	Timing \|
Reach: residents enrolled as a share of residents with diagnosed high blood pressure	Enrollment form; building-wide one-question survey	CHW; resident services coordinator	Survey in week 1; enrollment counted weekly through week 8 \|
Correct technique	Eight-item technique checklist based on American Heart Association guidance	CHW observation at training and at week 12	Weeks 3-8 and week 12 \|
Monitoring adherence	Count of readings recorded each month	Resident paper logs, copied at drop-in	Monthly, April to July \|
Sharing with clinician	Yes or no question: "Did you show your readings to your doctor or nurse this month?"	Resident report at drop-in	Monthly, March to July \|
Dose received	Drop-in visits and group sessions attended	Sign-in sheets	Weekly \|

Every measure uses a record the program already creates, so collection does not add a new burden for residents.

Outcome Measures

The American Heart Association statement lists a home average of 135/85 mm Hg as corresponding to the traditional office threshold of 140/90 (Muntner et al., 2019), so the program uses it as a conservative marker of control for older residents.

Table 2

Outcome Measures

Measure	Instrument	Source	Timing \|
Average home systolic and diastolic blood pressure	Validated upper-arm home monitor, two readings morning and evening	Resident logs	Baseline: first 14 days of monitoring; follow-up: all July readings \|
Share of residents with home average below 135/85 mm Hg	Same readings	Resident logs	Baseline and July \|
Confidence in managing blood pressure	Three-item questionnaire written for the program, scored 1 to 5	Resident, read aloud if preferred	Enrollment and week 26 \|

Home readings averaged over many days are used rather than single readings, which vary from one measurement to the next.

Baseline

The baseline for blood pressure is the average of each resident's readings during their first 14 days of monitoring, after training and the technique check. Taking the baseline after training, rather than at the first reading, means that improvements later on reflect changes in blood pressure rather than changes in technique. The baseline for reach is the number of residents who report a high blood pressure diagnosis on the building-wide survey in week 1.

What Would Count as Falling Short

Each objective has a failure condition, stated now so the program cannot redefine success after the results are in.

Objective 1 falls short if fewer than 30 residents are enrolled by March 31, or if fewer than half of residents with diagnosed high blood pressure enroll. Low reach would mean the program served only the residents who were already most engaged.

Objective 2 falls short if fewer than 70% of enrolled residents record 12 or more readings in at least three of the four months.

Objective 3 falls short if fewer than 60% report sharing readings by May 31.

Objective 4 falls short if the average July systolic reading is less than 5 mm Hg below baseline. It also falls short, in a different sense, if the average drops by 5 mm Hg only because residents with the highest readings left the program; for that reason, the analysis will report the change for all enrolled residents, counting those who left at their last recorded average, alongside the change for those who completed the program.

Data Collection and Storage

The CHW collects all data, except the week 1 survey, which the resident services coordinator distributes. Logs are copied at each drop-in and the originals returned to residents. Data go into a spreadsheet, locked with a password, kept on the health organization's computer, identified by a study number rather than by name, with the key kept separately.

Ethics

Residents give written consent before enrolling, after an explanation in plain language of what will be collected and who will see it. Participation records identify the people in them, so the resident services coordinator and building management see only totals, never individual readings. Residents can leave at any time and keep using the program's drop-in hour. Readings at or above 180 mm Hg systolic prompt advice to contact a clinician the same day, whatever the evaluation needs.

Limitations

The plan has no comparison group, so a fall in blood pressure could reflect other causes, such as medication changes made by clinicians or the season. Blood pressure readings are self-recorded, and residents may skip or misrecord readings. The confidence questionnaire has not been tested. These limits mean the results can show whether the program was delivered and whether readings changed, but not that the program caused the change.

References

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322

Muntner, P., Shimbo, D., Carey, R. M., Charleston, J. B., Gaillard, T., Misra, S., Myers, M. G., Ogedegbe, G., Schwartz, J. E., Townsend, R. R., Urbina, E. M., Viera, A. J., White, W. B., & Wright, J. T. (2019). Measurement of blood pressure in humans: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension, 73(5), e35-e66. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000087

Saunders, R. P., Evans, M. H., & Joshi, P. (2005). Developing a process-evaluation plan for assessing health promotion program implementation: A how-to guide. Health Promotion Practice, 6(2), 134-147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839904273387

HLTH 1000 Week 10 instructions, in plain terms

Evaluation plans ask you to promise evidence in advance. Restate the program's objectives so each measure connects to one. Separate process measures, which show whether the program was delivered and reached people, from outcome measures, which show whether anything changed. For each measure, name the instrument, the source and the timing, ideally in a table. Explain when and how the baseline is taken. State, for each objective, what result would count as falling short. Describe who collects data, where it is stored and who can see it. Include a brief ethics paragraph and a limitations section that says honestly what the design cannot show.

Inside the HLTH 1000 Week 10 example

To begin, the plan lists the program's four objectives again, classifying three as process claims and one as an outcome claim, with Saunders and colleagues on keeping them apart. Table 1 lists process measures, including reach drawn from RE-AIM, technique, adherence, sharing with clinicians and dose. Table 2 lists outcome measures: home averages, the share below a home threshold drawn from Muntner and colleagues and a confidence questionnaire. A baseline section explains timing. A section gives a failure condition for each objective. Data handling, ethics and limitations sections close the plan. The failure condition for blood pressure includes a check on dropouts, so the average cannot improve simply because residents with high readings stopped taking part.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 1000 Week 10 rubric

Faculty judge an evaluation plan on whether someone could carry it out. Separating process from outcome measures earns credit, since mixing them is a common error. Each measure should have an instrument, source and timing. A clearly defined baseline matters. Stated failure conditions are often the most valued element, because they show the student understands that evaluation can produce disappointing results. Faculty look for attention to data privacy and consent. A limitations section that names the real constraints, for instance having nobody to compare against, shows honesty about what the design can support. Plans that measure only attendance and then claim health effects earn less.

HLTH 1000 Week 10 help: mistakes that cost marks

Students often write evaluation plans that list what they hope to see. Turn that around: ask how you would know if the program did not work. For each objective, write what you would count, how and when. Keep process and outcome measures in separate places. Decide when your baseline is taken and why. Then write down, before any results exist, what would count as falling short. Think about who will handle the data and how it will be protected. We can help you build an evaluation plan for your program. Share your failure conditions with a classmate and ask whether they seem fair. Keep the tables simple enough that someone else could collect the data from them alone.

Get a HLTH 1000 Week 10 example written to your instructions

The program being evaluated goes in alongside the prompt and the rubric. What ships back is a plan with measures, instruments, timing, and limits laid out in tables a section can follow. First custom sample is free, 24 to 48 hours. Where objectives already exist from an earlier week, measures are built straight onto them.

More HLTH 1000 papers and BS in Public Health samples

HLTH 1000 Week 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 1000 Week 10 sample paper?

The evaluation plan for the home blood pressure program, with process and outcome tables and a failure condition for each objective, is free to read here.

Why does the HLTH 1000 Week 10 example separate process and outcome measures?

So that attendance and engagement are not mistaken for evidence that health improved.

When is the blood pressure baseline taken?

During each resident's first 14 days of monitoring, after training, so later change reflects blood pressure rather than technique.

What counts as falling short for blood pressure?

An average July systolic reading less than 5 mm Hg below baseline, or a drop that appears only because residents with high readings left.

What can the plan not show?

That the program caused any change, because there is no comparison group.