| Course | N489 Community Health Nursing I |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Program evaluation paper |
| Length | About 1,020 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Pre-licensure BSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for N489 Module 8
Did Caminemos Move Pueblo County? Evaluating a Walking Group Program With the RE-AIM Framework
Student Name
Pre-licensure BSN Program, Aspen University
N489: Community Health Nursing I
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Did Caminemos Move Pueblo County? Evaluating a Walking Group Program With the RE-AIM Framework
A program is only as useful as the evidence that it works for the people it was meant to serve. This paper evaluates Caminemos, the composite walking group program planned in Module 6 for Pueblo County, Colorado, using the RE-AIM framework. It defines each dimension, sets measures and data sources, explains why county-level data cannot show a small program's effect, reports composite first-year results labeled as such and draws decisions from them.
Why RE-AIM
RE-AIM was developed to evaluate the public health impact of health promotion programs, which depends not only on whether a program works under ideal conditions but on how many people it reaches, whether organizations adopt it, whether it is delivered as planned and whether it lasts. Its five dimensions are reach, efficacy or effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance (Glasgow et al., 1999). A walking group that improves blood pressure for 30 enthusiastic walkers but never reaches inactive older adults would score well on effectiveness and poorly on reach, and RE-AIM makes that visible.
Measures, Sources and Targets
The table sets out the evaluation plan.
| Dimension | Measure | Data source | Target at 12 months |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reach | Adults enrolled; share inactive at enrollment; share aged 65 or older; share Hispanic or Latino | Enrollment forms | 300 enrolled; at least half inactive |
| Effectiveness | Change in weekly activity minutes; blood pressure change among those with high readings | Short activity question at enrollment and months 6 and 12; monthly nurse checks | Average gain of 90 minutes a week among the previously inactive |
| Adoption | Sites that start groups out of those invited; sites in high-inactivity tracts | Partnership records | Four of five invited sites |
| Implementation | Walks held as scheduled; trained leaders present; safety incidents | Leader logs | 90% of walks held; no serious incidents |
| Maintenance | Participants still walking at 12 months; sites continuing without nurse leadership | Sign-in sheets; site survey | 50% of participants; three sites |
Why County Data Cannot Show the Effect
It is tempting to judge the program by whether Pueblo County's PLACES inactivity estimate falls. That would be a mistake. The county has about 132,000 adults, so even 300 newly active participants would change the county rate by about a fifth of a percentage point, far smaller than the estimate's confidence interval of 22.6% to 31.6% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025). County estimates are useful for choosing where to work and for long-term tracking against Healthy People 2030, but program evaluation needs program data. County trends over many years may still reflect the combined effect of many programs and policy changes, which is a different question from whether this program worked.
Composite First-Year Results
The following results are composite figures for this course, not real data. Caminemos enrolled 262 adults, 87% of the target. Of these, 58% reported no leisure-time activity at enrollment, 61% were aged 65 or older and 49% were Hispanic or Latino. Among previously inactive participants who completed the 12-month question, activity rose by an average of 74 minutes a week. Among 71 participants with high blood pressure readings at enrollment, average systolic pressure fell by 5 mm Hg. Four of five invited sites started groups, 88% of scheduled walks took place, and there was one minor fall without injury. At 12 months, 44% of participants were still walking at least once a week, and two sites continued without the nurse leading walks.
Interpreting the Results
Reach was strong where it mattered, with most participants previously inactive and many older adults and Hispanic residents, although enrollment fell short of target. Effectiveness was encouraging but below target, and without a comparison group, some of the change could reflect seasons or people who would have become active anyway. Adoption and implementation were good. Maintenance was the weakest dimension: fewer than half of participants were still walking, and only two sites continued independently. These patterns are consistent with walking group evidence showing health benefits among people who keep walking (Hanson & Jones, 2015), which makes keeping people in the program the central challenge. The gap between enrollment and ongoing attendance is common in community programs and suggests that the first months after joining deserve the most support.
Equity in Evaluation
An evaluation should ask not only whether a program worked but for whom. The composite results show good reach among older and Hispanic adults, but men made up only 22% of participants, and no participants came from the most inactive tract, where the meal site declined to host a group. Healthy People 2030 frames reducing such gaps as part of its goals (Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion [ODPHP], n.d.). The next year should target men and the most inactive tract. Breaking results down by sex, age, ethnicity and tract should be built into every future report rather than added afterward.
Decisions the Evaluation Informs
The results support continuing Caminemos with three changes: recruiting men through workplaces and sports groups, trying a new host site in the most inactive tract such as a church there, and strengthening maintenance by training a second leader at each site and holding quarterly walking events to re-engage lapsed walkers. The partnership should review these results at its next meeting and decide together, as the partnership agreement requires.
Limits of This Evaluation
The evaluation relies on self-reported activity, which people tend to overestimate, lacks a comparison group and follows participants for only one year. A stronger design in the second year could compare participants with similar adults at sites that start later, a waiting-list approach that would also be fair to sites waiting to join. Sharing these limits with partners is part of honest evaluation, since decisions made on overstated results tend to disappoint.
Conclusion
Evaluated with RE-AIM, the composite first year of Caminemos reached the right people, was adopted and delivered well, produced encouraging but modest gains and struggled with maintenance. County estimates cannot measure such a program, so program data must. The evaluation points to specific changes, and it returns the decisions to the partnership that owns the program. That is how evaluation keeps a community program honest and improving.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). PLACES: Local data for better health, county data, 2025 release [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/swc5-untb
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
Hanson, S., & Jones, A. (2015). Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(11), 710-715. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094157
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. (n.d.). Social determinants of health. Healthy People 2030. https://odphp.health.gov/healthypeople/priority-areas/social-determinants-health
What the N489 Module 8 instructions ask for
The N489 course in Aspen's catalog asks students to develop evidence-based strategies for populations, and this sample follows that aim, since the module wording is released only to the class. An evaluation assignment typically asks you to choose a framework, define measures and data sources, explain how you would judge success, and discuss limits. Some instructors want planned measures only; others accept illustrative results if they are clearly labeled. Check whether RE-AIM, the CDC evaluation framework or another model is required, whether equity must be addressed, whether a table is expected, and whether results may be composite. Never present invented results as real outcomes. Some instructors also want a logic model.
How this N489 Module 8 example is built
About 1,010 words fill eleven sections with one evaluation table. The introduction states the purpose. A section explains why RE-AIM fits a community program. The table sets measures, sources and targets for all five dimensions. A section explains why county estimates cannot measure a small program. Composite first-year results are reported and then interpreted dimension by dimension. Equity in who the program reached is examined next, followed by the decisions the evaluation informs, the evaluation's limits and a conclusion that returns decisions to the partnership that owns the program. Composite figures are labeled wherever they appear. Targets appear beside every measure in the table.
N489 Module 8 rubric: what earns full marks
Evaluation papers are usually graded on use of a recognized framework, clear measures, sound interpretation, attention to equity and honest limits. The framework is justified, not just named, which a margin note credits. Measures are specific, with sources and targets for every dimension. The arithmetic on county data prevents a common error, as a second note explains. Interpretation weighs each dimension and links weak maintenance to the evidence on walking groups. Equity is examined by sex and tract. Decisions are returned to the partnership, which a third note highlights. Clearly labeled composite figures and properly cited sources for the framework and the data sets take the last marks. The proposed stronger design for year two also shows forward thinking. Clear labels on every composite number also protect credibility.
N489 Module 8 help from the desk
The most common weakness is judging a small program by a county or state statistic that it could never move. Measure participants directly. Students also report only whether a program worked on average, not for whom. Break results down by group. Another frequent mistake is presenting invented results as real; if your program is hypothetical, label results as composite or report planned measures only. Some papers ignore maintenance, although many community programs fade after the first year. Measure who is still taking part. Finally, state limits such as self-report and the lack of a comparison group, and suggest a stronger design for next time. Share findings with partners before deciding what to change. Plan the evaluation before the program starts.
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 N489 and Pre-licensure BSN sample papers
- N489 Module 1: Population-Focused Nursing in Pueblo County
- N489 Module 2: Epidemiology Basics With County Data
- N489 Module 3: Windshield Survey and Community Assessment
- N489 Module 4: Older Adults Living Alone in Pueblo County
- N489 Module 5: Levels of Prevention for Inactivity
- N489 Module 6: Health Promotion Plan Aligned With PA-01
- N489 Module 7: Building a Community Partnership
- N455B Module 4: Patterns in Missed Items on the Second Exam
- N437 Module 5: Privacy, Security and the Law
- N410 Module 6: Care and Teaching After Radical Prostatectomy
- N455A Module 6: Delegation and Assignment Questions
N489 Module 8 questions, answered
What does N489 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's N489 description includes evidence-based strategies to promote health, so evaluating a population health intervention with a named framework is a typical closing assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
What are the five dimensions of RE-AIM?
Reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance, which together describe a program's public health impact.
Can county health data show whether my program worked?
Usually not. A small program changes a county rate by far less than the estimate's uncertainty, so evaluation needs data collected from program participants.
Where can I find a free N489 Module 8 sample paper?
The RE-AIM evaluation of the walking groups is posted above in full, evaluation table and commentary included, at no charge. It closes the eight-part N489 series on this site.
What does RE-AIM stand for in N489 Module 8?
It asks how many of the intended people a program reached, whether it worked, whether sites took it up, whether it ran as planned and whether it lasted.