| Course | DNP 740 Clinical Prevention and Population Health (DNP/740) |
|---|---|
| Week | 8 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation plan |
| Length | about 1,135 words, 4 double-spaced pages plus title page and references |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | University of Phoenix |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 740 Week 8
Did the Gap Close? An Equity-Focused Evaluation Plan for the Strong and Steady Fall Prevention Program Using RE-AIM, Absolute and Relative Gap Measures and Resident Voices
[Student Name]
University of Phoenix
DNP/740: Clinical Prevention and Population Health
Week 8 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The county, program and figures are composites written for a model paper.
The Strong and Steady program planned last week will offer Tai Ji Quan classes, nurse-delivered Otago home exercise, home repairs and medication review to older adults in our county, with most effort aimed at two remote townships where fall-related ambulance calls run at 127 per 1,000 older residents compared with about 58 in the rest of the county. This paper sets out how the program will be evaluated. Its central question is not only whether falls decline but whether the gap between the townships and the county seat narrows, because a program that improves the average while the gap persists would repeat the pattern it was built to change.
Evaluation Framework
The plan follows the six-step CDC framework for program evaluation (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1999), which begins with the people who will use the findings and ends with making sure they are used, passing through a description of the program, a focused design, evidence that partners will find credible and conclusions that can be defended. Its standards of utility, feasibility, propriety and accuracy guide choices throughout. Within that structure, evaluation questions are organized under RE-AIM, which Glasgow et al. (1999) proposed so that public health programs would be judged across five dimensions, from how many people they reach to whether they last, instead of on efficacy under ideal conditions.
Stakeholders and Their Questions
The county health board wants to know whether the grant reduced ambulance calls and emergency visits. The state injury prevention office wants reach and cost figures it can compare across counties. The churches and the fire department want to know whether residents valued the classes and repairs. Township residents on the steering group asked a question the others did not: whether people who live farthest out were reached at all. Each question below is tied to the stakeholder who raised it.
Evaluation Questions and Measures
Reach: What share of older residents in each township and in the county seat took part in any program component, and how did participants compare with nonparticipants by age, sex and living alone? The denominator is the census estimate for each area; the numerators come from attendance logs, nurse visit records and repair work orders, linked through the program registry with consent.
Effectiveness: Did participants improve on the timed up and go test and on a short fear of falling scale between entry and six months? Did ambulance calls and emergency visits for falls decline in each area over two years, counted per 1,000 residents aged 65 and older? Balance and fear scores come from program assessments; call and visit rates come from county emergency medical services data and the regional hospital.
Adoption: Did all three planned sites, both churches and the senior center, open and sustain classes, and did the fire department complete the planned 150 home repairs?
Implementation: Were classes delivered at the intended frequency, and did instructors follow the Tai Ji Quan protocol? Did Otago participants receive at least four visits? What did the program cost per participant reached?
Maintenance: Twelve months after the grant ends, are classes still running and are residents still practicing at home?
Measuring the Gap
Braveman (2006) defined a health disparity as a difference in which socially disadvantaged groups systematically experience worse health or greater risks than more advantaged groups. The township residents in our county fit that definition through lower incomes, older housing and distance from services. The evaluation will therefore report the township rate, the county seat rate and the gap between them each quarter.
Harper et al. (2010) showed that the choice between absolute and relative measures of inequality involves value judgments and that the two can lead to opposite conclusions. If township calls drop to 104 per 1,000 from 127 and county seat calls fall from 58 to 44, the absolute difference shrinks from 69 to 60, while the ratio rises from about 2.2 to about 2.4. Reporting only one would let the program claim success or failure depending on which it chose. This plan reports both, states in advance that the program's equity objective is a smaller absolute gap with no widening of the ratio, and presents the figures with the arithmetic shown so partners can judge for themselves.
Design
The design is a before and after comparison of rates in the townships and the county seat, with a neighboring rural county without the program as a comparison for secular trends such as a mild winter. Baseline is the two years before the program. Because randomization is not possible, the evaluation will describe change and its plausibility rather than claim that the program caused it.
Qualitative Evidence
Numbers cannot say why a resident stopped attending or refused a repair. Two evaluators, one a township resident trained by the health department, will interview 20 participants and 10 nonparticipants in each township, selected to include men, adults over 85 and people living alone. Questions will cover access, trust, the program's name and messages, and what would make participation easier.
Data Timeline
Registry and attendance data will be reviewed monthly, balance and fear scores at entry and six months, ambulance and emergency rates quarterly, and interviews in months 9 and 21. A full report comes in month 24 and a maintenance check at month 36.
Ethics and Data Protection
Participation in the registry and interviews will be voluntary, with written consent and the option to receive services without joining the evaluation. Data will be stored on the health department's secure server, and reports will suppress any count under 11 to protect residents in small townships.
Limitations
Small numbers are the main limitation. With about 250 township fall calls a year, random variation can mask or mimic real change, so results will use two-year averages and confidence intervals. Ambulance calls may also shift with crew practice rather than falls, which the evaluation will check by reviewing coding each quarter.
Sharing the Findings
The health board will receive a two-page quarterly summary with the gap chart. The state office will receive the RE-AIM tables. Township residents will hear results at church suppers and on county radio, in plain language, before any public report is released.
Conclusion
This evaluation asks whether Strong and Steady reached the residents it was built for, whether their balance and falls improved and whether the township gap narrowed in absolute terms without widening in relative terms. The CDC framework keeps stakeholders and use at the center, RE-AIM covers reach and maintenance, and interviews explain the numbers. Together they close the population health project begun in Week 1 by measuring success the way population health is defined: by the distribution of outcomes as well as their average.
References
Braveman, P. (2006). Health disparities and health equity: Concepts and measurement. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 167-194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102103
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4811a1.htm
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
Harper, S., King, N. B., Meersman, S. C., Reichman, M. E., Breen, N., & Lynch, J. (2010). Implicit value judgments in the measurement of health inequalities. The Milbank Quarterly, 88(1), 4-29. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0009.2010.00587.x
What the DNP 740 Week 8 instructions ask
The final assignment in DNP 740 normally asks students to design an evaluation for the population health program they planned in Week 7. Instructions commonly call for evaluation questions, the design, process and outcome measures tied to the program's objectives, data sources and collection methods, an analysis approach and a plan for sharing findings with stakeholders. Because the course treats equity as part of population health, many prompts ask students to state how the evaluation will show whether disparities narrowed, not only whether averages improved. Some sections require a named evaluation framework and a discussion of ethics and limitations. The paper usually runs five to seven pages. Faculty expect the measures to match the logic model exactly, so the evaluation reads as the end of one project rather than a new topic.
How this DNP 740 Week 8 example is built
The sample follows the six steps of the CDC evaluation framework, starting with the stakeholders who will use the findings and a restatement of the program's logic. Evaluation questions are then grouped under RE-AIM so reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance each get their own measures and data sources. The equity section explains why the plan reports both the difference and the ratio between township and county seat call rates, drawing on Braveman's definition of a disparity and Harper and colleagues' work on value judgments in inequality measures. The design is a comparison of rates before and after the program with a nearby county as a check. Qualitative interviews, a data timeline, ethics, limitations and a dissemination plan for each audience complete the paper.
DNP 740 Week 8 grading rubric: where the points go
The grading rubric for this final week usually weights the evaluation design and measures most heavily. Faculty check that each objective from the program plan has a matching measure, that data sources are realistic and that the design can support the conclusions the student wants to draw. Points for equity focus reward plans that measure outcomes by subgroup and state how a narrowing or widening gap will be judged. A framework, applied rather than simply named, earns additional credit, as do honest limitations such as small numbers or the lack of a randomized comparison. Dissemination to stakeholders is often a separate line on the rubric. Organization and APA format take the remaining points, and the strongest papers read as the closing chapter of the course project.
DNP 740 Week 8 help: mistakes to avoid
A common problem in Week 8 papers is an evaluation that only counts activities, such as classes held, and never tests whether the population's health changed. Include outcome measures from the logic model. The opposite mistake is promising to prove the program caused a drop in falls when the design cannot rule out other explanations; describe what your design can and cannot show. Equity is often reduced to a sentence, but the rubric asks for measures: report results by subgroup and say whether you will judge the gap by difference, ratio or both. Small rural numbers need careful handling, so plan to pool years or report counts beside rates. Finally, name who receives the findings and in what form, since a report no partner reads changes nothing.
Related DNP 740 sample papers
Other DNP 740 week samples
- DNP 740 Week 1: Defining a Population
- DNP 740 Week 2: Assessing Health Status With Data
- DNP 740 Week 3: Social Determinants and Disparities
- DNP 740 Week 4: Screening and Surveillance Programs
- DNP 740 Week 5: Levels of Prevention
- DNP 740 Week 6: Evidence-Based Interventions
- DNP 740 Week 7: Program Plan and Logic Model
More DNP sample papers
- DNP 710 Week 8: Integrated Evidence-Based Practice Proposal
- DNP 715 Week 8: Evaluating a Technology for Adoption
- DNP 725 Week 8: Advocacy and Implementation Plan
- DNP 730 Week 8: A Leadership Plan for a Practice Change
DNP 740 Week 8 questions, answered
What does DNP/740 Week 8 usually ask for?
Many sections ask for an evaluation plan for the population health program, with evaluation questions, design, process and outcome measures, data sources, an equity focus and a plan for sharing results.
Where can I find a free DNP 740 Week 8 sample paper?
The equity-focused evaluation plan on this page is the free Week 8 sample, complete with references. Students who want one written around their own program and objectives can ask for a first custom sample at no charge.
Why measure a health gap in both absolute and relative terms?
Absolute and relative measures can point in different directions; if both groups improve, the difference in rates may shrink while the ratio grows, so reporting both avoids a misleading conclusion.
What are the steps of the CDC framework for program evaluation?
The framework's six steps are engaging stakeholders, describing the program, focusing the evaluation design, gathering credible evidence, justifying conclusions and ensuring use and sharing of lessons learned.
Can a DNP evaluation prove that a program reduced falls?
Most community evaluations cannot prove cause because there is no randomized comparison, but a before and after design with a comparison county and consistent data can show whether change is plausibly linked to the program.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official University of Phoenix document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
Request this one custom, free · All DNP 740 week samples · All courses