PUBH 6641 Week 9 Evaluation Plan Example

Measuring What Was Promised: An Evaluation Plan Deriving Questions, Indicators and Data Sources From Each Objective of a Cream-Testing Program in Two Neighborhoods, Built on the Six Steps of a Public Health Evaluation Framework

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 6641: Applied Project in Public Health

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Measuring What Was Promised: An Evaluation Plan Deriving Questions, Indicators and Data Sources From Each Objective of a Cream-Testing Program in Two Neighborhoods, Built on the Six Steps of a Public Health Evaluation Framework

Why Derive the Evaluation From Objectives

An evaluation designed around a project tends to measure what is convenient: events held, flyers handed out, people who stopped by. An evaluation derived from the project's objectives measures what was promised. This plan takes the five approved objectives of Marlow County's cream-testing program, an invented one, and turns it into an evaluation question, an indicator, a data source, a person responsible and a date. Its sections follow the six-step evaluation framework common in public health practice, which starts with the people who hold a stake and ends with making sure the findings are acted on (Milstein & Wetterhall, 2000).

Step 1: Who Shapes and Uses the Findings

Three groups will help shape and use the evaluation. Community association leaders will review the follow-up questions to make sure they are respectful and understandable. The state laboratory and state health department will receive the contamination data, since they need it for regulatory decisions. The county health officer will decide whether the project continues. Each will see a draft of the evaluation report before it is final.

Step 2: What the Program Is

The logic model approved in Week 5 describes the program: resources, activities, outputs and outcomes, with clear lines between what the department controls and what it seeks to influence (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The evaluation uses that model's terms so that findings map onto it.

Step 3: What the Evaluation Will and Will Not Examine

The evaluation is descriptive. It does not compare the two neighborhoods with others or test whether the project caused changes in exposure. With one year, a part-time specialist and two health workers, a comparison design is not feasible. The focus is on whether the project delivered what it promised and whether women with contaminated creams stopped using them.

Table 1

Evaluation Questions, Indicators and Sources by Objective

Note. Objectives as approved in the objectives memo; county and staff are composite.

Step 4: Where the Evidence Comes From

Screening data come from the portable analyzer, which estimates mercury content on the spot; confirmatory testing at the state laboratory provides more precise results for positives. The contamination rate in Objective 2 will be reported for screening results, with confirmed results listed separately, since only some positives can be confirmed. Follow-up data rely on women's own reports of whether they stopped using a cream. Self-report may overstate stopping, because women may say what they think staff want to hear; the follow-up script will ask neutral questions and assure women there is no wrong answer.

Step 5: How Results Will Be Judged

Each indicator will be compared with its target. If the project screens fewer than 300 creams, the report will explain why, using attendance records. If the contamination rate differs greatly from international findings, such as the share of very high readings in the 549-product study (Hamann et al., 2014), the report will discuss possible reasons, including the mix of products sold locally. Conclusions will be stated in terms of what the project did and what women reported, not in terms of exposure reduction, which was not measured.

Step 6: Getting the Findings Acted On

The contamination rate goes to the state within a month of the last event, so regulators can act on reported brands during the same year. The final report goes to the health officer with a recommendation on whether to continue and expand. Community leaders receive a plain-language summary in each language, presenting findings as product safety information rather than as a judgment on women's choices.

Data Management and Privacy

Every cream is logged under a study number, not a name. The screening log records the product name as printed on the package, where it was bought if the woman is willing to say, the analyzer reading and the date. A separate contact sheet, kept only by the community health workers, links study numbers to phone numbers for follow-up and is destroyed after the three-month calls. Women may decline to give a phone number and still have their cream screened; they receive their result and advice on the spot. Because the project deals with products many women value and some communities feel judged for using, privacy is not only a legal duty but a condition for participation. Results shared with the state and the health officer contain no names, and the community summaries report only totals.

Reporting Schedule

The evaluation produces three reports. A short interim note in mid-July, after about half the events, tells the health officer and partners how many creams have been screened and whether the 300 target is on track. The data summary in October answers the second objective and goes to the state so regulators can act on reported brands during the same year. The final report in April covers all five objectives, compares each with its target and recommends whether to continue, expand or end the project. Each report uses the same table structure so partners can see change over time.

Who Reviews the Findings

Before the final report is released, a draft goes to two community association leaders and the community health center's medical director. Their task is not to approve conclusions but to flag wording that could stigmatize women or misstate what was found. This step reflects the framework's emphasis on involving the people with a stake in an evaluation from start to finish (Milstein & Wetterhall, 2000).

Limits of the Plan

The evaluation cannot show whether women's mercury exposure fell, since no biological testing is planned. It cannot show whether women who did not attend events use contaminated creams. And it relies on self-report for its most important outcome. These limits will be stated at the start of the report. The case of a California woman whose poisoning followed years of daily use (Mudan et al., 2019) is a reminder of why stopping use matters even when it can only be measured by asking.

References

Hamann, C. R., Boonchai, W., Wen, L., Sakanashi, E. N., Chu, C.-Y., Hamann, K., Hamann, C. P., Sinniah, K., & Hamann, D. (2014). Spectrometric analysis of mercury content in 549 skin-lightening products: Is mercury toxicity a hidden global health hazard? Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 70(2), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.050

Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. (2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1(3), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483990000100304

Mudan, A., Copan, L., Wang, R., Pugh, A., Lebin, J., Barreau, T., Jones, R. L., Ghosal, S., Lee, M., Albertson, T., Jarrett, J. M., Lee, J., Betting, D., Ward, C. D., De Leon Salazar, A., Smollin, C. G., & Blanc, P. D. (2019). Notes from the field: Methylmercury toxicity from a skin lightening cream obtained from Mexico, California, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(50), 1166-1167. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6850a4

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. https://wkkf.issuelab.org/resource/logic-model-development-guide.html