PU605 Unit 5 Intervention Design Example

Every Activity in a Cell of the Grid: A Unit 5 Intervention Design Placing a Composite City's Window Guard Program Into Haddon's Phases and Factors, and Showing Which Cells It Leaves Empty

[Student Name]

Purdue University Global

PU605: Public Health Programming

Unit 5 Intervention Design

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

Welbourne and its program are composite; the Haddon Matrix, the injury mechanics and the research cited are real.

The Grid Being Used

Three phases, pre-event, event and post-event, crossed with four factors, the host meaning the child, the agent or vehicle of energy meaning the window and the fall itself, the physical environment, and the social environment. The framework was developed to stop injury programs from clustering all their effort on the person, which is where this city's brochure sat (Haddon, 1972).

Pre-Event Row

1. Host: the doorstep conversation, delivered at installation to whichever adults are present, explaining what an insect screen will and will not hold. Low expected effect, included because it is true and free.

2. Agent: install window guards that stop a double-hung window opening more than 10 centimeters at the bottom while releasing from inside without a tool. This is the program's central activity, and the evidence for it at city scale comes from the campaign that first demonstrated a decline in fall deaths (Spiegel & Lindaman, 1977).

3. Physical environment: identify and prioritize second and third floor units with children under six in pre-1940 stock, and record every window by unit.

4. Social environment: obtain landlord consent through association agreements; pursue the code amendment that would require guards at turnover; place a guard clause in the two associations' standard lease addendum.

Event Row

1. Host: nothing. A program cannot change how a two-year-old falls, and the design says so rather than inventing an activity.

2. Agent: the guard itself acts in this row too, since it prevents the energy transfer rather than mitigating it.

3. Physical environment: ground surface under windows. Empty in this design. Softening a surface below a third-floor window does not meaningfully change the outcome, and the program declines to spend on landscaping.

4. Social environment: nothing deliverable.

The event row is almost empty, and that is the honest shape of a program whose whole logic is to prevent the event rather than to soften it.

Post-Event Row

1. Host: nothing within this program's scope; trauma care belongs to the hospital.

2. Agent: nothing.

3. Physical environment: ensure building addresses and apartment numbers are visible from the street, which shortens ambulance location time. Included because the fire department raised it and it costs a sign.

4. Social environment: a referral pathway so that any child treated for a fall at the trauma center triggers a guard installation in that building within ten days, and an offer to every other unit in it. This is the design's second strongest activity and the one most likely to be cut.

The Cells Left Empty, With Reasons

1. Pre-event host beyond the conversation: no supervision campaign, because the assessment found no evidence that inattention explains the pattern and because the city has already tried it.

2. Event host: not changeable.

3. Post-event host and agent: outside scope, and duplicating the trauma system would spend the grant on something already funded.

4. Event physical environment: possible and rejected on effect per dollar.

An empty cell is a decision, and a design that fills every cell to look complete will spend money in the cells that do least.

Why the Guard Specification Is Part of the Design

Three specification details carry most of the program's risk. The release mechanism must open from inside without a tool, or the fire marshal will not sign and tenants will refuse. The guard must mount into the window frame rather than the sash, which is why installation is done by people with the right drill rather than handed to tenants, a failure the assessment documented directly. And the 10-centimeter limit is what makes the guard a guard rather than a screen. A program that distributes unspecified hardware is not delivering this intervention.

Dose, Reach and Adoption

2,400 guards across 800 units is the planned dose: every window above the first floor in a participating unit with a child under six, because a single unguarded window in an apartment is the one the child will use. Reach is defined as the share of eligible units in the four tracts that receive installation, with a target of 35 percent in two years. Adoption is the landlord-level measure, which is where the program will succeed or fail, and both are tracked as dimensions of the program's public health impact rather than as administrative counts (Glasgow et al., 1999).

What This Design Would Need to Become Permanent

The code amendment, which moves the intervention from a program into a requirement applied at every change of occupancy. Everything else here expires with the grant: the coordinator, the free hardware and the fire department's donated hours. A design that does not say which of its parts can outlive its funding has not finished, and the honest answer here is one part out of four.

References

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

Haddon, W. (1972). A logical framework for categorizing highway safety phenomena and activity. The Journal of Trauma, 12(3), 193-207. https://doi.org/10.1097/00005373-197203000-00002

Spiegel, C. N., & Lindaman, F. C. (1977). Children can't fly: A program to prevent childhood morbidity and mortality from window falls. American Journal of Public Health, 67(12), 1143-1147. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.67.12.1143