Evaluation Forms and their Application - Report Example

Introduction The continuous changes in the healthcare field have completely changed the status of hospitals and health care organizations and they are now acted more like a business venture than a social service organization (Shortell, Morrison & Robbins, 1985). In this report we will be shedding light on Impact Evaluation Form and Monitoring Evaluation Form of Healthcare Sector of United States. Healthcare quality Evaluation is an ongoing process that needs attention and great effort. The idea behind evaluating the healthcare system is to gather all the useful information regarding the project, analyzing the functions and evaluating the system. All these efforts lead towards betterment and helps in achieving the desired goals. Impact Evaluation Form Impact Evaluation Forms are used to assess the outcomes of a particular policy or program (Gertler et al., 2011). Nevertheless, impact evaluation form is different from outcome monitoring form because the outcome monitoring tries to find out whether the goal of a particular intervention is achieved or not while the Impact Evaluation assesses how does the particular intervention impact and affect the participants (Baker, 2000)? This impact can be assessed by analyzing “a comparison between what actually happened and what would have happened in the absence of the intervention” (White, 2006; p. 3). In other words, impact evaluation is the performance evaluation of a particular intervention. The impact evaluation form helps the policy makers and the intervention initiators to provide evidence-based knowledge of whether the intervention works for the participants or not and if it works what changes it brings to the lives of the participants (Rossi, Lipsey & Freeman, 2004). Due to its usefulness impact evaluation has gained enormous popularity in all the developed and developing countries (Briceno & Gaarder, 2009). It is particularly helpful to assess the impact of government aid and spending for the uplifting of citizen’s living standards (Bamberger & White, 2007). Impact Evaluation, not only estimates the impact of a particular intervention but it also discusses the reasons of effectiveness of a particular intervention. The Theory-Based Impact Evaluation is the technique that assess the whole process from input to results and the impact by testing the underneath assumptions (Leeuw & Vaessen, 2009; White, 2009). In the given scenario we are trying to assess the impact evaluation of Cancer & Bowel Research Trust’s Colorectal Cancer (CRC) awareness and prevention program (Cancer & Bowel Research Trust, 2011). The impact Evaluation form of Cancer & Bowel Research Trust’s Colorectal Cancer awareness and prevention program reveals that terms such as awareness beliefs, understanding, consequences, cure perception, and knowledge are often mentioned in the literature (Hamner & Wilder, 2008). These are all vital terms that pertain to patient’s understanding of Colorectal Cancer. To focus on the perception of illness and identify the knowledge of the illness requires the understanding of symptoms and diagnosis (Hamner & Wilder, 2008). This helps to discover the level of understanding of Colorectal Cancer risk factors among the patients. Everyone’s health behavior and individuals experience and knowledge differs; but in developing a tool the individual characteristics has the importance of developing a health promotion behavior. With the lack of knowledge of risk factors among the subjects there is still support that shows improvement in knowledge over the years. There is no doubt that medical intervention has greatly improved over the years (Savedoff, Levine & Birdsall, 2006). Nonetheless, according to the literature there is still room for improvement in knowledge and understanding of cardiovascular disease risk factors. Analysis The Impact Evaluation form depicts that Cancer & Bowel Research Trust’s Colorectal Cancer (CRC) awareness and prevention program is the best way to impart knowledge and awareness about CRC. The problem being investigated is that Colorectal Cancer is one of the significant injurious diseases within the United States. The assessment of the knowledge of the general public will improve their ability to identify risk factors for Colorectal Cancer. Determining their knowledge in identifying Colorectal Cancer risk will be used to identify the relationship with the questioning to perceive what percent of the general public in United States can identify the risk factors that can lead to the development of Colorectal Cancer disease. The need to know and assess knowledge will help to prevent further deaths from Colorectal Cancer. In medical profession, it has been a well-established fact that the key to health and cure is to prevent disease process from occurring. Reducing deaths from Colorectal Cancer is the modification of risk factors to prevent the process of Cancer. That is why it is important for the general population to have the knowledge to identify risk factors. The Impact Evaluation form has shown that Cancer & Bowel Research Trust’s Colorectal Cancer (CRC) awareness and prevention program has performed well to achieve its goal. This program has also explored the factors that influence CRC knowledge in the general public. It is felt, through Impact Evaluation Form, that improvement on the general population has occurred due to the proper knowledge and understanding of Colorectal Cancer risk factors. Monitoring evaluation Before moving towards exploring further details of the monitoring evaluation process it is important that we get a proper idea as to the way we can define the phenomenon of monitoring evaluation. The process of monitoring evaluation is primarily concerned with the fact as to whether targets set for a particular task have been achieved or not. It focuses and is designed for the fulfillment of tasks and assignments which are directly related with inputs and outcomes. In contrast to this impact evaluation form is primarily concerned with the assessment of the changes that can be attributed to a particular process or project with the intervention that it makes which may either be intended or unintended. Hence both of them have a very strong correlation between each other. (Hawe, 1997) Cancer Bowel Research Trust and Monitoring evaluation However during this particular phase of our discussion we would be discussing the different ways in which the process of monitoring evaluation can be applied to the situation presented regarding the activities and services of Cancer and Bowel Research Trust. (Francisco and Paine, 1993) We would specifically be focusing upon the ways in which the features of monitoring evaluation can be applied in the different tasks that have been carried and conducted by the research trust in increasing the level of awareness regarding the different types of cancer on community grounds at various levels and since our chosen sector is also related to health promotion in Australia, it is therefore important to have a look at these things in detail. (Smith, 1990) Efforts of Cancer and Bowel Research Trust When assessing the efforts and works of Cancer and Bowel Research Trust there are a number of different benchmarks and evaluation criterions that need to be provided special significance. First and foremost being the nature of researches that have been conducted by the research centre along with the respective effectiveness of the conducted researches. Secondly, the awareness campaigns that have been launched by the research trust and the ways in which these campaigns have been successful in achieving their prospective target. In addition to this it is also important to have a look at the various medical awareness programs that have been initiated by the research trust which are not conducted under the banner of any campaign but have been self-initiated by the trust themselves must also be considered. (Wimbush, 2000) Since all the different types of activities that will be considered are based on the targets that have been achieved, all of them can be encompassed within the monitoring evaluation category. Analysis of efforts One of the researches that were conducted by the Research Trust found considerable difference in the ways of incidence and prevalence of cancer in different situations. In addition to this the target achieved by the research and upon subsequent monitoring evaluation it was found that as a matter of fact the level of awareness regarding different types of cancer have increased substantially primarily due to the level of public awareness. (Dehar and Caswell, 1993) Similar nature researches have also been conducted by the Research Trust on community levels and when they were evaluated on monitory grounds, it was found that they did prove successful in achieving their decided targets. Researches were conducted by the trust in the year 2003 and 2008 respectively and were based on the level of awareness a particular community has regarding the different types of cancer. (Rozen, 2006) In 2003 the report that was released by the Research Trust revealed that the lack of awareness was prominent among the different members of the community whereas when similar nature research was conducted in 2008 facts did change. At that time due to different launching and work of campaign work awareness regarding cancer had increased. In addition to this the Research Trust has also been engaged in a lot of campaign work which occurs in the month of June. Under the different features that are arranged by the campaign a major target set by the Trust is to increase the level of awareness among Australians living in different cities about bowel cancer and the same time also recommend suitable treatments for people to prevent themselves from this cancer. (Petersen, 2004) An important area that needs to be highlighted here is by looking at the reasons due to which the incidence and prevalence of this type of cancer underwent alleviation in Australia. It has been estimated that 1 out of every 12 Australians is susceptible to suffering from bowel cancer at the age of 85. With such facts this disease has emerged as the second largest cause of death in Australia. However with the passage of time the reported cases have decreased. There are a number of reasons for it. (Oldenberg and Sallis, 1999) First and foremost being the medical services and awareness programs that were initiated not just by Cancer and Bowel Research Trust but also by other research and medical institutes such as Health Professional Online Services (HPOS) and their programs of National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCP). The efforts made by these research institutes helped in achieving the targets that were set regarding the monitoring of bowel cancer in the country. (Nutbeam, 1998) The nature of facilities that were offered by these programs also testified for their success. For example the NPCP has started to provide online services to patients who may fall within the category of suffering from bowel cancer. They are provided with online appointments after which their screening is conducted. Even though a lot of efforts have been taken but there is still an exceptionally long way to go for achieving the goals set and eyed. (Rootman, 2001) Cancer still remains a dominant life threatening cause to Australians with a diagnostic rate of 114,000 cases in the year 2010. It has further been estimated that up to 43,000 people will die from cancer in time to come. Hence so far monitoring assessment has been successful but not completely. (Cancer, 2011) References Baker, Judy (2000). Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners. Directions in Development, World Bank, Washington, D.C. Bamberger, M. & White, H. (2007). Using Strong Evaluation Designs in Developing Countries: Experience and Challenges. Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation, Volume 4, Number 8, 58-73 Briceno, B. & Gaarder, M. (2009). Institutionalizing Evaluation: A review of international experience. DFID/3ie, New Delhi Cancer & Bowel Research Trust (2011). Awareness & Prevention. Retrieved on 15th September 2011 from Gertler, Martinez, Premand, Rawlings and Vermeersch (2011). Impact Evaluation in Practice. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Hamner, J., & Wilder, B. (2008). Knowledge and risk of disease in women. Journal of the American Academy of Nurse Practitioners, 20(6), 333-38. Leeuw, F. and Vaessen, J. (2009). Impact Evaluations and Development: NONIE Guidance on Impact Evaluation. World Bank, Washington, D.C. Rossi, P. H., Lipsey, M. W., & Freeman, H. E. (2004). Evaluation: A systematic approach (7th Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Savedoff, W., Levine, R. and Birdsall, N. (2006). When will we ever learn: Improving lives through impact evaluation. Report of the Evaluation Gap Working Group, May, Center for Global Development, Washington, D.C. Shortell, S. M., Morrison, E. M., & Robbins, S. (1985). Strategy making in health care organizations: A framework and agenda for research. Medical Care Review, 42(2), 219-266. White, H. (2006). Impact Evaluation: The Experience of the Independent Evaluation Group of the World Bank. World Bank, Washington, D.C., p. 3 White, H. (2009). Theory-based impact evaluation: Principles and practice. Working Paper 3, International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, New Delhi Cancer (2011). Cancer in Australia: Facts and figures, retrieved on September 14, 2011 from: Dehar, MA, Caswell, Sally (1993). Formative and Process Evaluation of Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Programs. Sage Journals online Francisco, VT Paine, AL (1993). A methodology for monitoring and evaluating community health coalitions. Oxford Journals Hawe, P King, L (1997). Multiplying Health Gains: the critical role of capacity-building within health promotion programs, Science Direct Nutbeam, D (1998). Evaluating Health Promotion—Progress, Problems and solutions. Oxford University Press Oldenburg, BF Sallis, JF (1999). Health promotion research and the diffusion and institutionalization of interventions, Oxford Journals Petersen, PE (2004). Evaluation of community-based oral health promotion and oral disease prevention-WHO recommendations for improved evidence in public health practice, Community Dental Health Rootman, I (2001). Evaluation in health promotion: principles and perspectives. WHO Regional Office Europe Rozen, Paul Levin, Bernard (2006). Colorectal cancer in clinical practice: prevention, early detection and management’ Taylor and Francis Smith, C (1990). , J Epidemiol Community Health Wimbush, E (2000). An Evaluation Framework for Health Promotion: Theory, Quality and Effectiveness. Sage Journals Online Read More