A composite design for evaluating one neighborhood lifestyle program, naming each measure, its collector and its schedule under RE-AIM, as NU505 Unit 9 commonly expects. Searches like "nu 505 unit 9 assignment example", "nu505 unit 9 sample" and "nu505 unit 9 example" land here.
What Is Counted, Who Counts It, How Often: A Program Evaluation Design for the Stillwell Crossing Lifestyle Program Using CDC's Framework and RE-AIM
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
NU505: Clinical Epidemiology and Population Health Promotion
Unit 9 Assignment
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The program, stakeholders and comparison tracts are composite; the frameworks cited are published.
Two Frameworks, Layered
The design takes the six steps of CDC's public health evaluation framework in order, from involving the people with a stake in the program through to making sure the findings are used, and the sections below are named for those steps (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 1999). RE-AIM operates inside the fourth step. Its dimensions, which ask who is reached, whether the program works, where it is taken up, how faithfully it is delivered and whether it lasts, were developed to judge the public health impact of an intervention rather than its efficacy alone (Glasgow et al., 1999). CDC's framework orders the evaluation; RE-AIM decides what the evidence step measures, and the paper states that layering once so a reader knows why two frameworks appear.
Step 1: Engage Stakeholders
Four groups have a stake in the evaluation, listed by role. Health center leadership, who fund the lifestyle coaches and need to know whether to continue. The lifestyle and peer coaches, who deliver the program and need feedback on attendance and what participants find hard. The community advisory board, residents who shaped the program and will judge whether it serves the neighborhood. And the city parks department, whose lighting decision affects the walking component. Each group reviewed the evaluation questions below before they were fixed.
Step 2: Describe the Program
A bilingual lifestyle change program for adults with prediabetes in two census tracts, following the national curriculum: 16 weekly sessions, then monthly sessions to month 12, offered twice weekly at the community center and a church hall, led by a lifestyle coach and a peer coach. Inputs: two coaches, two peer coaches, space, step counters and a data clerk at the health center. Intended outcomes: 150 minutes of weekly activity, 5 to 7 percent weight loss and lower A1c, and, over time, fewer new cases of diabetes.
Step 3: Focus the Design
One evaluation question per RE-AIM dimension.
1. Reach: what share of eligible adults enroll, and do enrollees resemble the eligible population in age, sex, language and shift work?
2. Effectiveness: do participants lose weight, increase activity and lower their A1c by month 12?
3. Adoption: how many planned sites and trained coaches deliver the program as intended?
4. Implementation: are sessions delivered as scheduled, and what share of participants attend enough to benefit?
5. Maintenance: are outcomes sustained at 24 months, and does the program continue after its first two years of funding?
Step 4: Gather Credible Evidence
The measurement matrix gives, for each indicator, its data source, who collects it and how often.
1. Reach. Indicator: enrolled adults divided by registry adults in the two tracts whose latest A1c is in the prediabetes range. Source: enrollment log and health center registry. Collector: data clerk. Frequency: quarterly.
2. Reach. Indicator: enrollees compared with the eligible registry on age, sex, preferred language and shift work. Source: enrollment form and registry. Collector: data clerk. Frequency: quarterly.
3. Effectiveness. Indicator: mean percent weight loss at months 6 and 12. Source: session weigh-ins on one calibrated scale. Collector: lifestyle coach. Frequency: each session, summarized at 6 and 12 months.
4. Effectiveness. Indicator: share of participants reaching 5 percent weight loss. Source and collector as above. Frequency: at 6 and 12 months.
5. Effectiveness. Indicator: change in A1c from baseline. Source: health center laboratory. Collector: data clerk from the record. Frequency: baseline, 6 and 12 months.
6. Effectiveness. Indicator: weekly minutes of moderate activity. Source: activity logs and step counter downloads. Collector: lifestyle coach. Frequency: weekly.
7. Adoption. Indicator: sites delivering sessions and coaches trained and active. Source: program records. Collector: program manager. Frequency: quarterly.
8. Implementation. Indicator: sessions delivered as scheduled, out of those planned. Source: session log. Collector: lifestyle coach. Frequency: monthly.
9. Implementation. Indicator: share of participants present at no fewer than nine of the sixteen core sessions. Source: attendance log. Collector: lifestyle coach. Frequency: at week 16.
10. Implementation. Indicator: fidelity to the curriculum on a short checklist. Source: observation of one session a month. Collector: program manager. Frequency: monthly.
11. Maintenance, individual. Indicator: weight and A1c at 24 months. Source: weigh-in and laboratory. Collector: data clerk. Frequency: once, at 24 months.
12. Maintenance, organizational. Indicator: whether the program is funded and running at 24 months. Source: health center budget. Collector: program manager. Frequency: annually.
Comparison Design
Effectiveness within the program is measured by change from baseline, which cannot separate the program's effect from what would have happened anyway. To strengthen the evidence, A1c trends among registry adults with prediabetes in the two Stillwell Crossing tracts will be compared with those in two similar tracts served by the same health center, matched on income, age mix and baseline diabetes prevalence, where the program is not offered. The tracts are not randomized, and residents may differ in ways the matching misses, so a difference in trends between program and comparison tracts will be reported as evidence of effect, not proof. Because enrollment is voluntary, the analysis will compare whole tracts, all eligible adults whether or not they enrolled, as well as enrollees, so that the healthiest volunteers do not produce the result by themselves.
Step 5: Justify Conclusions
Thresholds are set now, before any data arrive, and they are anchored to what trials have shown is achievable: in the Diabetes Prevention Program, the lifestyle group's weight loss and activity goals were set at 7 percent and 150 minutes a week, and the reduction in new diabetes followed from reaching them (Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group, 2002). The program will be judged effective if at least 35 percent of participants who attend 9 or more sessions reach 5 percent weight loss at 12 months and mean A1c falls by at least 0.2 percentage points among completers. It will be judged to have adequate reach if enrollment reaches 20 percent of the eligible registry and enrollees do not differ markedly from the eligible population in language or shift work. Where results fall short, the advisory board will review them with the coaches before any decision about the program's future.
Step 6: Ensure Use and Share Lessons
Each quarter, the evaluation team will give the community advisory board a two-page summary in English and Spanish, in plain language, with one chart for reach and one for weight change. The health center leadership will receive the same summary plus cost per participant. At 24 months, the full evaluation will be shared with the parks department and with the health center's regional network, including what did not work.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1999). Framework for program evaluation in public health. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 48(RR-11), 1-40.
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(6), 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012512
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
How this NU505 Unit 9 example is structured
The six framework steps give the document its order, from engaging stakeholders through describing the program, focusing the design, gathering evidence, justifying conclusions and ensuring use. RE-AIM operates inside the fourth step, supplying the dimensions that the matrix fills. That layering is stated once so a reader sees why two frameworks appear. The matrix leads the evidence section because the prompt asks for each measure's content, collector and schedule, and a table answers all three at a glance. The comparison design follows, and the document is candid that tracts are not randomized, so a difference in A1c trends between the program tracts and comparison tracts is evidence of effect, not proof. Justifying conclusions sets thresholds in advance, such as the share reaching 5 percent weight loss that would count as success. The use section commits to reporting results to the advisory board in plain language each quarter.
Get an NU505 Unit 9 example written to your instructions
If your Unit 9 evaluation builds on a plan you wrote earlier, send it with the prompt and your rubric. The design is drafted around that program, following those instructions, each measure given a source, an owner and a schedule. Your first custom sample carries no charge and comes back in 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
NU505 Unit 9 questions, answered
Is it acceptable to combine CDC's evaluation framework with RE-AIM?
Yes, and many evaluations do. CDC's framework describes the process of planning and carrying out an evaluation, while RE-AIM describes dimensions of impact to measure. The example uses the framework's steps for the document's structure and RE-AIM to fill the evidence step. Saying explicitly how they fit together is what earns credit.
Why does reach need a denominator?
Because enrolling 120 adults means something very different if 200 were eligible than if 2,000 were. Reach is the proportion of the intended population that participates, so the design has to name who was eligible and where that count comes from. The example uses the health center's registry of patients with prediabetes living in the tracts.
How can an evaluation claim an effect without randomization?
It can offer evidence of effect, with caution. Comparing trends in program tracts with similar tracts that did not receive the program controls for changes affecting both, such as a new clinic policy. It cannot rule out differences that arose only in the program area. The example states that limit and still treats a clear difference as meaningful.