HLTH 8048 Week 10 RE-AIM Evaluation Plan Example

Course	HLTH 8048 Research Application of Public Health and Behavior
Week	Week 10
Paper type	Evaluation plan
Length	About 730 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 8048 Week 10

Evaluation Plan: Failure Conditions Stated First for an Adapted Cessation Program in a Building Trades Council, Organized by RE-AIM, With the Data That Would Reveal Each One

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 8048: Research Application of Public Health and Behavior

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title puts failure ahead of success, which is the order this assignment expects an evaluation of a transferred program to follow.

Evaluation Plan: Failure Conditions Stated First for an Adapted Cessation Program in a Building Trades Council, Organized by RE-AIM, With the Data That Would Reveal Each One

What the Transfer Claimed

The adaptation rested on one claim: that the core content of worksite cessation counseling, delivered by phone outside working hours, and nicotine replacement routed through the health fund would reproduce the original programs' effect in a workforce that changes sites and employers. An evaluation of a transferred program should be able to show that claim failing. This plan therefore states, for each RE-AIM dimension, the pattern that would count as failure before describing measures. RE-AIM, set out by Glasgow et al. (1999), asks about reach and effectiveness but also about adoption, implementation and maintenance, so a program is never judged on efficacy alone.

What this page is doingStating the transfer claim first gives every failure condition something definite to test.

Logic Model in Brief

Inputs: fund health educator, quitline contract, mail pharmacy, training center, peer champions. Activities: enrollment in winter classes, phone counseling, medication shipping, champion check-ins, toolbox segments. Outputs: members enrolled, calls completed, medication shipped, segments held. Outcomes: quit attempts, then sustained abstinence at six months, among all enrolled members, including those who change contractors.

Measures and Failure Conditions

Table 1

RE-AIM Dimensions, Measures, Data Sources and Failure Conditions

Dimension	Measure	Data source	Failure would look like \|
Reach	Enrolled members as a share of tobacco-using fund members, by apprentice and veteran status	Fund enrollment records; health risk survey for the denominator	Enrollment concentrated among apprentices, missing veterans who have used tobacco longest \|
Effectiveness	Sustained abstinence at six months, all enrollees counted	Follow-up calls; biochemical verification in a subsample	Abstinence no higher than members who declined, or gains confined to members who stayed with one contractor \|
Adoption	Contractors allowing the toolbox segment	Contractor agreements	Few contractors agree; program runs only on union-friendly sites \|
Implementation	Calls completed; fidelity to core counseling content	Quitline logs; recorded call audits	Fewer than half of scheduled calls completed, or core steps skipped \|
Maintenance	Enrollment retained after layoffs; program continuing after year one	Fund eligibility files; budget decisions	Members who lose eligibility drop out of counseling and medication \|

Each failure condition is written so that fund records can show it, not only researcher judgment.

Reach

Reach is measured against fund membership rather than against volunteers, broken out by apprentices and veteran members. The split matters because enrollment through apprenticeship classes is convenient and could produce high numbers while leaving the members who have smoked longest untouched. If veterans enroll at less than half the rate of apprentices, the program will have reached the easiest group and missed the most important one.

Effectiveness

The primary outcome is sustained abstinence at six months, chosen because a trial among union apprentices found a one-month quitting advantage that had disappeared by six months (Okechukwu et al., 2009). Self-report is the main measure, which is a weakness, since members may report quitting to please a counselor. A subsample will provide saliva or breath samples for biochemical verification, following current guidance on cutoffs and methods (Benowitz et al., 2020). Every enrollee is counted, including those who changed contractors or were laid off, because the original trials' habit of counting only those still employed would hide the very failure this transfer most risks. Failure is an abstinence rate no better than that of members who declined, or a benefit appearing only among members who stayed with one employer.

Adoption and Implementation

Adoption counts contractors who allow the toolbox segment, recognizing that the core program can run without it. Implementation tracks whether calls happen and whether they deliver the core content. A random sample of recorded calls will be audited against the counseling protocol, since a phone program that drifts into general encouragement would no longer be the program whose evidence justified it.

Maintenance

Maintenance has two parts. For members, it asks whether those laid off mid-program stayed in counseling and kept receiving medication; if most drop out at the eligibility lapse, the continuation rule has failed. For the fund, it asks whether the program continues after the first year's budget review.

Assessing the Untested Element

Peer champions are new, so their contribution is measured separately: the share of enrollees who report contact with a champion and abstinence among those with and without contact. The comparison cannot establish effect, since members who seek out champions may differ, but it will show whether the element is used at all.

References

Benowitz, N. L., Bernert, J. T., Foulds, J., Hecht, S. S., Jacob, P., Jarvis, M. J., Joseph, A., Oncken, C., & Piper, M. E. (2020). Biochemical verification of tobacco use and abstinence: 2019 update. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 22(7), 1086-1097. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntz132

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

Okechukwu, C. A., Krieger, N., Sorensen, G., Li, Y., & Barbeau, E. M. (2009). MassBuilt: Effectiveness of an apprenticeship site-based smoking cessation intervention for unionized building trades workers. Cancer Causes & Control, 20(6), 887-894. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10552-009-9324-0

What the HLTH 8048 Week 10 instructions ask for

The Week 10 assignment asks students to design an evaluation of their adapted program. Faculty look for a plan that states what the program is expected to achieve, how each outcome will be measured, which records supply the data and what the results would mean. Many sections name RE-AIM or ask for a logic model. A distinctive expectation in this course is that the plan should be capable of showing the transfer failed, not just that it worked. Measures should match the outcomes that matter for the population. A table linking dimensions, measures and data sources is common. The plan is usually four to five pages with APA citations.

How the HLTH 8048 Week 10 example is put together

The plan opens by restating the transfer claim in one paragraph and citing Glasgow and colleagues for RE-AIM. A logic model in brief lists inputs, activities, outputs and outcomes. Table 1 pairs every dimension with what is measured, where the data sit and what failure would look like in fund records. The reach section compares apprentice and veteran enrollment and sets a half-rate comparison as a warning sign. The effectiveness section chooses six-month sustained abstinence because of MassBuilt's fading effect, adds biochemical verification following Benowitz and colleagues, and counts every enrollee. Adoption and implementation sections cover contractor agreements and audits of recorded calls. Maintenance follows members through eligibility lapses and the fund through its first budget review. The last section explains how peer champion contact will be measured and why the comparison cannot establish effect.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8048 Week 10 rubric

Evaluation plans are graded on whether they could actually reveal a problem. A plan built only around success indicators usually scores below one that states failure conditions in advance. The rubric looks for measures that match the outcomes the population needs, data sources that exist or could be created, and a framework that organizes the plan rather than decorating it. Faculty read the effectiveness section closely: who is counted, at what time point and with what verification. Separating new or untested elements from the evidence-based core shows careful thinking. Each section should explain why its measure was chosen. A readable table and APA style earn the final share.

Common HLTH 8048 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Evaluation plans often pile up indicators without ever saying what result would count as failure. Another is copying the outcome measures of the original trials, which may have excluded the very people a transfer is most likely to lose. Students also forget to say where the data will come from or rely on surveys the program could never field. To strengthen your plan, begin with the claim your adaptation makes, then write one failure condition per dimension in terms your data could show. Count everyone who enrolled. Treat any new element separately. If you would like an evaluation plan drafted around your own adapted program, a sample can be produced for you to study before submitting.

Get a HLTH 8048 Week 10 example written to your instructions

An evaluation plan needs the claim it tests, so send the prompt, the rubric and your adapted program or its rationale. What returns is an HLTH 8048 Week 10 plan organized by RE-AIM, or by whatever framework your section names, with a failure condition for each dimension. Allow 24 to 48 hours; a first sample is free of charge.

More HLTH 8048 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

HLTH 8048 Week 10 questions, answered

Why define failure rather than success?

Because success conditions tend to be set so they will be met. Stating in advance which result would show the transfer did not work forces the plan to commit to an interpretation before the data arrive. It also answers the question faculty in this course keep asking: what would convince you that your adaptation was wrong?

Does the plan have to use RE-AIM?

Only if your section assigns it, and many allow alternatives such as a plan built on a logic model alone. RE-AIM suits transfer questions because it looks past effectiveness to reach, adoption and maintenance, the dimensions where a relocated program is most exposed. The sample adopts it and justifies the choice in two sentences.

Can the plan include thresholds like a target quit rate?

It can, if each threshold is tied to a baseline the program would actually collect or to a figure a cited source reports. A target picked because it sounds reasonable invites the obvious question of where it came from. The sample describes thresholds relative to baseline enrollment and quitting data and leaves the numbers for the program to set.

Where can I find a free HLTH 8048 Week 10 sample paper?

You can read the full Week 10 evaluation plan on this page, including the RE-AIM table of measures, data sources and failure conditions for an adapted cessation program, with three references.

Why does the plan count every enrollee in the effectiveness measure?

Because the original trials often counted only people still employed, and a transfer to a workforce that changes contractors would hide its most likely failure if members who moved or were laid off dropped out of the results.