| Course | NURS 6720 Population-Based Public Health Nursing Interventions |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,050 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6720 Week 9
Measured by RE-AIM, Halted by a Rule Written in Advance: Evaluation Plan for the Catch-Up Outreach Program
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6720: Population-Based Public Health Nursing Interventions
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Measured by RE-AIM, Halted by a Rule Written in Advance: Evaluation Plan for the Catch-Up Outreach Program
Approach
This plan follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention evaluation framework for public health programs. Its six steps move from engaging partners and describing the work, through choosing the design and collecting evidence people will find believable, to reaching conclusions and making sure the findings are used (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999). Stakeholders and the program description come first below. The measures are organized by RE-AIM, which judges a program's public health impact on five counts, beginning with reach and effectiveness, then adoption by settings, implementation as intended and maintenance over time (Glasgow et al., 1999). RE-AIM was chosen because two of its dimensions matter more than usual here. Reach matters because the aggregate is easy to miss, and maintenance matters because the program must outlast its grant.
The Program and Its Logic
The program serves refugee children under 12 who arrived in the composite city within the last three years and whose registry records still show an unfinished catch-up series. Its logic runs in a chain. Inputs are the registry list after duplicate review, two community health workers, a half-time public health nurse, the interpreter line and evening and Saturday appointment times. Activities are reminder and recall contact in families' languages, appointment booking, and home visits for families contact does not reach. Outputs are families contacted, appointments booked and visits completed. Short-term outcomes are catch-up doses given and recorded. The long-term outcome is complete series, reached sooner. A logic model makes these links explicit so that each can be tested (W.K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004), and each link corresponds to one of the Week 5 objectives.
Who Will Use the Findings
Four groups will use the evaluation, and each needs something different. The health department needs to know whether to keep funding the nurse's time. The resettlement agency needs to know whether sharing contact details is worth the effort. The mutual assistance association needs evidence of what its outreach achieves, since it will seek funding to lead outreach after the grant. Families need to know whether the program is working for children like theirs. Representatives of all four, including two advisory families, will review the plan before data collection begins and the results each quarter.
Measures
Table 1
RE-AIM Measures, Sources and Reading Schedule
| Dimension | Measure | Source | Read |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reach | Share of children on the open-series list whose families were contacted in their preferred language (Process Objective 1) | Contact log linked to the quarterly list | Monthly for six months, then quarterly |
| Effectiveness | Share of contacted children with a complete series within six months of first contact (Outcome Objective 1); median time from screening to final dose (Outcome Objective 2) | Registry report linked by registry identifier | Quarterly; median annually |
| Adoption | Number of partner sites offering program appointments or contact: health center, agency office, association | Program records | Quarterly |
| Implementation | Fidelity to the contact protocol: three attempts before referral, referral within six weeks, visit completed (Process Objective 2); duplicate review completed (Process Objective 3) | Contact log, referral list, nurse visit log, analyst's worksheet | Monthly |
| Maintenance | Whether the association leads outreach in year two and continues after the grant; completion rate in the two quarters after the grant ends | Partner agreement; registry report | End of year two and six months after |
Every measure names a report or log that exists or will exist; none depends on a survey the program has not planned.
Credible Evidence and Its Limits
The effectiveness measure compares contacted children with a baseline drawn from the year before the program, not with a randomized control group. That comparison is vulnerable to other changes over time, such as a new clinic opening or a change in screening practice. The plan addresses this in two ways: it reports completion among children on the list who were not reached as a rough comparison, recognizing they may differ from those reached, and it records any outside change the partners notice each quarter. Duplicate records are a second threat. If duplicates remain, completion will be understated, so every effectiveness report states how many records were merged during the period.
The Decision Rule
An evaluation that no result could halt is closer to reporting than to judgment. This plan therefore sets a stopping rule in advance. The rule has four parts: a measure, a threshold, a time point and a decision-maker. The measure is the share of contacted children with at least one new catch-up dose recorded within three months of first contact. The threshold is 15%. The time point is the end of the second full quarter of contact. If the share is below 15% at that point, the program pauses new contact for one month while the partners review the contact log, the referral pattern and the registry list to find where the chain is breaking, and then either redesign the contact approach or confirm that it should continue.
The threshold is set from the program's own logic. The Week 5 target is 45% completion within six months of contact. A program on track for that target should see well over 15% of children with at least one new dose within three months, since most catch-up series need only one or two further doses. A result below 15% would mean the design is not reaching families or not leading to appointments, and continuing unchanged would spend the grant without helping children. The decision is made by the steering group, with one representative each from the health department, the resettlement agency and the association, chaired by the program's nurse lead. The families on the advisory group are consulted before the decision is final.
Returning Results to Families
Results will be shared with families in their own languages through the association, in a short spoken summary at its regular community meetings, and on a single page with pictures. The summary will say how many children in the program finished their series, what the program changed during the year and what families told the program that led to changes. Returning results is part of the CDC framework's final step, and for this aggregate it is also a matter of trust: families who see what their participation achieved are more likely to take part in the next round.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
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
W.K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide.
NURS 6720 Week 9 instructions, in plain terms
Evaluation plan prompts in Week 9 ask you to describe how you will judge whether your program was implemented and whether it worked, usually with a named framework, measures, data sources and a timeline. Plans commonly run four to six pages with a table. Describe the program's logic briefly, name who will use the findings and what each needs, and organize measures by your framework's dimensions. For every measure, give its source and when it will be read. Discuss threats to credible conclusions. State in advance what result would change the program, and describe how results return to the community.
How the NURS 6720 Week 9 example is put together
The approach section introduces the CDC framework's six steps and explains why RE-AIM suits an aggregate that is easy to miss. The logic section traces inputs to long-term outcomes and cites the Kellogg Foundation guide. A users section names four groups and what each needs. Table 1 gives each RE-AIM dimension its measures, sources and schedules, citing Glasgow and colleagues. A credible evidence section discusses comparison and duplicate records. The decision rule section states the rule and justifies its threshold from the Week 5 target, and a final section explains how results reach families.
NURS 6720 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Evaluation rubrics generally score use of a framework, alignment with objectives, appropriate measures and data sources, attention to validity and use of findings. Framework credit rewards dimensions applied to this program. Alignment asks whether each objective has a measure. Measure criteria reward named sources and schedules over surveys never planned. Validity rows reward naming threats honestly. Use criteria reward plans that say who acts on results and how, and many instructors give specific credit for a decision rule stated in advance. Clear tables and APA format round out the score. Some instructors also check whether each measure can actually be collected with the staff and systems the implementation plan describes. A plan that names threats to its own conclusions tends to earn more credit than one that claims certainty.
Common NURS 6720 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Evaluation plans lose marks when they list measures with no source, or rely on surveys the program never planned to run. Another loss is a plan that could never lead to a decision, only a report. Some papers ignore the weaknesses of their comparison. Others forget to say who will use the findings. Tie each measure to a real report, schedule its reading, name the threats, write a decision rule with all its parts and plan how results return to participants. If you have objectives from earlier weeks, the desk can draft a plan that aligns with them. Also make sure the decision rule has all four parts, a measure, a threshold, a time point and a decision-maker, and justify the threshold from your own objectives. Plan how families will hear results in a form they can use.
Get a NURS 6720 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Your objectives and intervention design are the inputs to add to the Week 9 prompt and rubric. Each objective receives a measure, a source and a reading date, and the plan names a result that would halt the program before more effort goes into a design that is not working. The first sample carries no charge and arrives within 24-48 hours.
More NURS 6720 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6720 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6720 Week 2: Aggregate profile
- NURS 6720 Week 3: Evidence review
- NURS 6720 Week 4: Intervention selection paper
- NURS 6720 Week 5: Goals and objectives
- NURS 6720 Week 6: Implementation plan
- NURS 6720 Week 7: Cultural adaptation memo
- NURS 6720 Week 8: Discussion post
- NURS 6720 Week 10: Program proposal
- NURS 6720 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6710 Week 9: Priority setting paper
- NURS 6630 Week 9: Substance use case
- NURS 6521 Week 9: Antimicrobial stewardship rationale
- NURS 6512 Week 9: Pediatric SOAP Note
NURS 6720 Week 9 questions, answered
Why does the plan include a condition for stopping the program?
Because an evaluation that no result could halt is closer to reporting than to judgment. Stating in advance what would pause the program, and who decides, commits the team before data arrive and protects families from a design that is not reaching them. Your prompt may call it a decision rule or a threshold, and custom work uses the term your rubric uses.
Is RE-AIM required, or could a logic model serve alone?
A logic model can organize an evaluation, and the example includes one in its program description. RE-AIM adds dimensions a logic model often underplays, especially reach and maintenance, which matter for an aggregate that is easy to miss and a program that must outlast its grant. If your course names another framework, measures stay tied to sources under that one too.
Does the plan specify the actual threshold?
The finished plan does, and it justifies the number from the baseline and program capacity. This page describes the condition's structure, a measure, a threshold, a time point and a decision-maker, without stating a figure invented for a program that does not exist. For your program, the threshold comes from your own baseline data with the reasoning written out.
Where can I find a free NURS 6720 Week 9 sample paper?
The full plan, logic, users, measures table and decision rule, is posted free on this page. A plan aligned to your own objectives can be requested.
Who decides whether to pause the NURS 6720 program?
A steering group with one representative each from the health department, the resettlement agency and the association, chaired by the nurse lead, after consulting the advisory families.