| Course | MPH 505 Public Health Education and Program Oversight |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation plan |
| Length | About 1,044 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 505 Module 7
Did It Work, for Whom and Why? An Evaluation Plan for a Community Diabetes Prevention Program
Student Name
Master of Public Health Program, Aspen University
MPH 505: Public Health Education and Program Oversight
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Did It Work, for Whom and Why? An Evaluation Plan for a Community Diabetes Prevention Program
Evaluation tells a program whether it is reaching the right people, being delivered as planned and producing the changes it promised. It also tells funders and communities whether their investment is paying off. This paper presents the evaluation plan for the county's lifestyle program for Spanish-speaking residents whose A1C results fall short of diabetes but above normal, built on CDC's updated program evaluation framework.
The Framework
CDC's 2024 framework updates its 1999 predecessor. It keeps six steps for planning and conducting an evaluation, now beginning with assessing context, and adds three cross-cutting actions to apply at every step: working collaboratively, advancing equity, and learning from insights and putting them to use. It also adopts the five federal evaluation standards (Kidder et al., 2024).
Assessing Context
The evaluation team considered who needs results and why: the health department wants to know whether to continue funding, health centers want to know whether referrals help their patients, the community advisory board wants to know whether residents benefit and the funder requires annual reports. Resources for evaluation total about 7% of the budget, which shapes what is feasible.
Describing the Program
The program's logic model links inputs such as coaches and church halls to activities such as screening and 26 lifestyle sessions, outputs such as participants enrolled, and outcomes such as weight loss and lower diabetes incidence. The evaluation tests each link in that chain.
Evaluation Questions
Process questions ask whether the program reached eligible adults, how many sessions participants attended and whether sessions followed the curriculum. Impact questions ask whether participants lost weight, increased activity and gained knowledge. The outcome question asks whether participants developed diabetes at a lower rate than similar adults who did not take part.
Indicators and Data
The table lists key indicators.
| Question | Indicator | Data source | Timing |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reach | Participants as share of eligible adults; demographics | Enrollment forms; census estimates | Each cohort |
| Attendance | Sessions attended; share with 14 or more | Attendance logs | Monthly |
| Fidelity | Share of observed sessions meeting checklist | Observation checklists | Monthly |
| Weight | Share reaching 5% loss; mean % change | Session weigh-ins | 6 and 12 months |
| Activity | Share reporting 150+ minutes weekly | Activity logs | Monthly |
| Diabetes | New diagnoses among participants vs comparison | Health center records | Years 1-3 |
Benchmarks
Results will be compared with national figures from the national lifestyle program's early rollout between 2012 and 2016, in which participants attended a median of 14 sessions and 35.5% reached the 5% weight loss goal (Ely et al., 2017). Matching or exceeding these benchmarks in a population with lower income and less access to care would indicate strong performance.
Design
For the outcome question, the evaluation will compare participants with health center patients who had prediabetes during the same period but did not enroll, matched on age, sex, starting A1C and body mass index. Because participants choose to enroll, they may differ in motivation, so results will be interpreted as associations, not proof of cause. A randomized design was rejected as unacceptable to the community advisory board.
Reach and Maintenance
The RE-AIM framework reminds evaluators that effects on individuals matter only in proportion to how many people a program reaches and how long it lasts (Glasgow et al., 1999). The evaluation therefore reports reach as a share of eligible adults and tracks whether churches and clinics continue participating.
Equity Analysis
All indicators will be reported by sex, age group, insurance status and neighborhood. If men or uninsured adults attend less or lose less weight, the program will explore reasons through brief interviews and adjust. Advancing equity, one of the framework's cross-cutting actions, requires looking for gaps rather than reporting only averages.
Ethics and Privacy
Participants will consent to the use of their data for evaluation. Health center data will be shared under an agreement limiting use to the evaluation, and published tables will combine participants so that no group smaller than ten can be seen. The county's institutional review process will review the plan.
Using and Sharing Findings
Findings will be shared quarterly with coaches for quick improvements, twice a year with the advisory board and annually in a public report in Spanish and English. A community meeting each year will present results and invite residents to interpret them, reflecting the framework's emphasis on collaboration and learning.
Gathering Credible Evidence
The evidence must be trustworthy to those who will use it. Weights will be measured on calibrated scales by trained coaches, not self-reported. Attendance will be recorded at each session. Activity minutes are self-reported and therefore less certain, which the evaluation will acknowledge. Health center records will be extracted by clinic staff using a standard form.
Qualitative Methods
Numbers alone will not explain why some participants thrive and others drop out. The evaluation will include brief interviews with 20 participants each year, half who completed the program and half who left early, and a focus group with coaches. These conversations will help interpret the numbers and suggest improvements.
Analysis Plan
Process data will be summarized with counts and percentages each month. Weight change will be reported as the share of participants reaching 5% loss and the mean percent change, with 95% confidence intervals. The outcome comparison will use a statistical model adjusting for age, sex, starting A1C and body mass index. An external evaluator from a local university will review the analysis.
Cost Analysis
The evaluation will also track costs per participant enrolled and per participant reaching the 5% weight loss goal. Cost data will help the county compare this program with other uses of its funds and will support requests for insurer coverage. Staff time, supplies and in-kind contributions from partners will all be counted.
Evaluation Standards
Throughout, the team will apply the five federal evaluation standards the framework adopts. For this program they translate into focusing on questions partners need answered, using sound methods, involving an outside reviewer, publishing methods and results, and protecting participants.
Conclusion
The evaluation plan follows CDC's 2024 framework, asks process, impact and outcome questions, uses clear indicators and data sources, compares results with national benchmarks, examines equity and shares findings with the people the program serves. It will tell the county not only whether the program worked, but for whom and why.
References
Ely, E. K., Gruss, S. M., Luman, E. T., Gregg, E. W., Ali, M. K., Nhim, K., Rolka, D. B., & Albright, A. L. (2017). A national effort to prevent type 2 diabetes: Participant-level evaluation of CDC's National Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care, 40(10), 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2099
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
Kidder, D. P., Fierro, L. A., Luna, E., Salvaggio, H., McWhorter, A., Bowen, S.-A., Murphy-Hoefer, R., Thigpen, S., Alexander, D., Armstead, T. L., August, E., Bruce, D., Clarke, S. N., Davis, C., Downes, A., Gill, S., House, L. D., Kerzner, M., Kun, K., ... Young, K. (2024). CDC program evaluation framework, 2024. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 73(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7306a1
MPH 505 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
Evaluation is one of the three tasks MPH 505's catalog description names, and with the module's exact prompt held in the classroom, this sample builds a full evaluation plan for the program developed across the course. Evaluation assignments usually ask for evaluation questions, indicators, data sources, a design and a plan for using results. Check whether your instructor prefers a particular framework, and use the current CDC framework if none is named. Write questions at process, impact and outcome levels. Choose a design you can realistically carry out, and explain its limits. Plan to report results by subgroup so gaps are visible. Describe who will receive findings and how. Budget time and money for evaluation as well; about 5-10% of the program budget is a common range.
Inside the MPH 505 Module 7 example
This example reaches about 1,000 words and includes a four-column indicator table. It introduces the 2024 framework, assesses context, describes the program and states evaluation questions before the table. Sections on benchmarks, design, reach and maintenance, equity analysis, ethics and privacy, and using and sharing findings follow, together with credible evidence, qualitative methods, an analysis plan, cost analysis and evaluation standards. The note in the margin by the framework section explains that naming the cross-cutting actions shows the plan reflects the 2024 update. The conclusion states that the evaluation will show whether the program worked, for whom and why. Every indicator in the table is tied back to a question stated earlier.
Where the marks sit in the MPH 505 Module 7 rubric
Evaluation plans tend to be graded on clear questions, appropriate indicators and data sources, a feasible design with acknowledged limits, attention to fairness and privacy, and a route from findings to action. CDC's 2024 framework, the RE-AIM commentary and national lifestyle program data are the sources, each formatted in APA. The indicator table links each question to a measure, source and timing. The matched comparison design is described with its main weakness, self-selection. Qualitative methods and subgroup analysis show depth. Privacy and aggregate reporting rules show ethical care. Top plans make clear who will act on the findings and when. Clear, consistent timing for each measure also matters, because a plan with no dates cannot be carried out.
MPH 505 Module 7 help from the desk
Evaluation plans often list outcomes without data sources, or propose designs, such as randomized trials, that are not feasible or acceptable in the setting. Another gap is measuring only averages, which can hide unequal results. Match every question to an indicator, a source and a time. State plainly the limits of your comparison. If statistics are a worry, our tutors can explain in plain terms which comparisons suit your data. Close with how findings will return to the community, since sharing results is part of evaluation, not an extra. A one-page summary table of questions, indicators, sources and timing is a useful appendix even when not required. Instructors often read it first.
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 Aspen University 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.
More MPH 505 and Master of Public Health sample papers
- MPH 505 Module 1: Community Needs Assessment
- MPH 505 Module 2: Planning Models and Behavior Theory
- MPH 505 Module 3: Goals, Objectives and Logic Model
- MPH 505 Module 4: Selecting an Evidence-Based Intervention
- MPH 505 Module 5: Developing Health Education Materials
- MPH 505 Module 6: Program Implementation Plan
- MPH 505 Module 8: Final Program Proposal
- MPH 560 Module 8: Appraising Published Statistics
- MPH 590 Module 1: Capstone Introduction
- MPH 503 Module 7: Health Equity and Tobacco Policy
- MPH 570 Module 2: Searching the Evidence
MPH 505 Module 7 questions, answered
What does MPH 505 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's MPH 505 asks students to plan how a program will be evaluated, so an evaluation plan is a typical assignment. Check the prompt in your classroom.
What changed in CDC's 2024 program evaluation framework?
Its first step is now called assessing context, it uses five federal evaluation standards, and it asks evaluators to collaborate, pursue equity and put what they learn to use at every step.
What is the difference between process and outcome evaluation?
Process evaluation examines how a program is delivered and whom it reaches; outcome evaluation examines whether it changed health.
Where can I find a free MPH 505 Module 7 sample paper?
Every section of the evaluation plan is reproduced here, including a table linking each evaluation question to its measure, data source and timing.
What framework is used for the evaluation in MPH 505 Module 7?
CDC's 2024 program evaluation framework, with six steps starting from assessing context, three cross-cutting actions and five evaluation standards, supported by the RE-AIM framework for reach and maintenance.