Healthcare Program

Description
It should be noted, from the onset, that amongst many persons, behavioral, emotional, as well as mental problems happen to be rather commonplace. This is more so the case given the various challenges that people – both young and old - group tend to encounter in their daily living. RAND undertook an “evaluation of California’s state-wide mental health prevention and early intervention programs” (Eberhart et al., 2015, p. 1). It is important to note that the three initiatives that RAND sought to evaluate were inclusive of; the reduction of discrimination as well as stigma, prevention of suicide, and the mental health of students.
How was the success of the program or policy measured?
Essentially, the RAND undertook a baseline survey that covered the entire state. It should be noted that the said survey took into consideration various groups with an intention of evaluating findings for the various schemes or initiatives as has been highlighted elsewhere in this text.
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?
The program was state-wide and diverse groups were sampled across all three initiatives. It is important to note that in the final analysis, it was found out that “the CalMHSA PEI initiatives are successfully launched and are already showing positive outcomes in stigma and discrimination reduction, suicide prevention, and improvement of student mental health” (Eberhart et al., 2015, p. 1). As it has further been pointed out, the relevance of these constructive/optimistic outcomes cannot be overstated given that it would be largely impossible to immediately identify PEI programming primary effects.
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?
In the conduction of the policy evaluation, various data sources came in handy. With regard to the discrimination and stigma education initiative, prevention and early intervention were inclusive of online resources, trainings, and social marketing campaign. On the other hand, when it came to the initiative leaning on suicide prevention, there was crisis lines, training, as well as social marketing campaign. Lastly, on the metal health of students initiative, there was collaboration/networking undertakings, online resources, as well as trainings.
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?
It should be noted that the program evaluation did not in this case identify specific information in relation to consequences that were largely unintended.
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.
There were primarily three stakeholder categories highlighted in the program evaluation. These include mental health experts, public health leaders and related agencies (specifically the California Mental Health Services Authority), and those grappling with mental, emotional as well as behavioral problems. In basic terms, the California Mental Health Services Authority would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program. This is more so the case given that it would be able to, amongst other things, assess the success of the launch of PEV initiative’s and chart outcomes with an intention of making the relevant adjustments so as to better outcomes. Also, this could be used as a blueprint for the launch and implementation of future programs.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?
The program in this case did indeed meet the original objectives as well as intent. This is more so the case given that it was able to comprehensively evaluate all three initiatives with an intention of indicating whether their launch was successful and whether they had brought about desirable outcomes. It is, however, important to note that although not an original intent, program short-term outcomes as well as reach were not properly evaluated. It, therefore, follows that these are areas that future evaluation efforts should focus on.
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?
I would most likely implement this particular program in my place of work. This is more so the case given that in this case, the method or survey approaches embraced would come in handy in laying the groundwork for future assessments of related undertakings. In the present scenario, the state-wide surveys provide a rather strong basis for the assessment of what impact the three PEI initiatives would have in the longer term.
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.
There are various ways that I, as a nurse advocate, could be actively involved in the evaluation of a policy or program one year following implementation. To begin with, I could provide meaningful feedback on program success and perceived improvement realms. This would be on the basis of my observation of the outcomes and the entre process of implementation. Next, I would also actively evaluate the policy to ensure that it matches evidence-based standards. This is more so the case given that “the most critical part of evaluating a clinical policy is examining the evidence that supports it” (Gilbert and Taylor, 1999).
General Notes/Comments
In the final analysis, it should be noted that as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention – CDC (2017) observes, program evaluation is of great essence in the further improvement of public health undertakings. This is more so the case given that in most cases, the said evaluation makes use of processes that are accurate. It is for this reason that the World Health Organization – WHO (2018) points out that “monitoring and evaluation of any programme or intervention is vital to determine whether it works, to help refine programme delivery, and to provide evidence for continuing support of the programme.”
References
Eberhart, N.K., Burnam, M.A., Berry, S.H., Collins, R.L., Ebener, P.A., Ramchand, R., Stein, B.D. & Woodbridge, M.W. (2015). Evaluation of California's Statewide Mental Health Prevention and Early Intervention Programs: Summary of Key Year 2 Findings. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.