Program Planning and Evaluation in Public Health

This critical discussion focuses on program planning and evaluation in public health, specifically in the context of sex education in Greenland. It examines various questions, indicators, and data sources related to the program, and compares them with the Greenland logic model. The discussion highlights the need for curriculum changes, additional funding for media campaigns, and the assessment of outcomes such as knowledge improvement and reduction in teen pregnancies and STIs.

Running head: PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Program Planning and evaluation in Public Health
Name of the Student:
Name of the University:
Author Note:

1PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH
Critical discussion
The critical discussion on the table presents several aspects like the questions, indicators,
data sources and the justification attached to each and every question. Due to this the critical
discussion will be broken into several smaller parts. The entire table will be compared with the
Greenland logic model for critical discussion.
Questions- First and the foremost comes the questions. The first question is vital and it
asks that whether traditional education is replaced with the sex education curriculum or there is a
need to add more time in to the curriculum. This question has a direct link with the main goal of
improving the sexual health of the Greenlandic teens by 20 percent by the year 2025. However,
in the activity section of the logic model there is a mention about the introduction of sex
education by the young adults trained in sexual health or by the peers in the school. The second
question focuses on the need for additional funding for the social media or the media campaigns.
However, there is also a mention of the media or social media campaigns by the celebrities in the
logic model. There is still information lacking with respect to the funding of the media or social
media campaigns. Although, funding has been provided for the education materials and for the
training processes. The third question emphasises on the question that are the teens at risk who
are not enrolled in schools. It is important to mention that the although sex education will be
provided in school. Along with this a monthly community counselling sessions will also be
provided to the teenagers. This is a valid question regarding the fact that the sex education in
given in schools as well as in communities. The fourth question emphasises on whether the
social media campaigns and the education information are able to target the teen audiences. This
is also a valid question because the sex education will be given to the teenagers and whether the
social media or the media campaigns will be able to target the teenagers. It is also important to

2PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH
mention that teenagers can be targeted by the media or the social media campaigns. The fifth
question emphasizes on the number of the youths that have been reached through the education
materials. This question needs to change because there is no such data about the number of
youths that have been reached. Whereas, the objectives talk about the reduction of the pregnancy
and STI by 25 percent by the year 2025. However, the objectives have an explicit mention that
85 percent of the teenagers will be enrolled into the sex education program. The seventh question
focuses on the whether there has been any increase in the usage of contraceptive. This is valid
question because the objective is to reduce the number of pregnancy cases and the usage of the
contraceptive will play a role in finding out the trend in usage. The seventh question emphasises
on the fact that whether there was any improvement in the knowledge of the teen after the
completion of the sex education. This question is an obvious question because of the fact that
main objective is that by the ned of the year there will an increase in knowledge by 75 percent.
The final question emphasizes on whether there has been any decrease in the teen pregnancies,
STI or abortions. This is also a valid question since it directly emphasizes on the objective of the
logic model.
Indicators- The indicator of the first question is not a valid indicator because the chnage
will be brought into the curriculum will be brought by the step itself. The second indicator is a
valid considering the focus groups are the direct stakeholders. The sources are proper and
appropriate. The indicator of the second question is a better indicator and the data source will
also provide a right assessment. While the second indicator is not feasible considering the large
number of teenager and their parents. The indicator of the third question present a proper
indicator for the assessment and the data sources will provide correct values. The indicator of the
fourth question is proper considering the 85 percent of the teens that will be enrolling in the

3PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH
school for sex education program. While second indicator is not of much use. The indicator of
the fifth question also in accordance with the objective of the logic model and data sources are
also feasible. The indicator of the sixth question must have been a reduction 2 to 3 percent will
be sufficient. While the secondary and the primary data sources are appropriate for the
assessment. While teenager survey is not necessary. The indicator of the 7th question is very less
and this must have been over 10 percent of increase. While the data sources are considered to be
appropriate. The indicator of the 8th question is wrong and it must have been 20 percent. While
the data sources are appropriate.
Question-
1.Have all the schools in the region been able to replace the traditional education with the
sex education?
2. Are there negative impact on health due to the increased usage of contraceptives?
3. Are the funding appropriate enough for the entire program?

4PROGRAM PLANNING AND EVALUATION IN PUBLIC HEALTH
References
Flowers, J., Hall, P. and Pencheon, D, 2005 Public health indicators. Public Health, 119(4),
pp.239-245 [Online] Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15733682
(Accessed: 10 April 2019).
Harris M.J., 2010 Title: ‘Evaluating public and community health programs’ [Online] Available
at: https://elearninguol.vitalsource.com/#/books/9781118117163/cfi/76!/4/4@0.00:29.0
Accessed: (March 30, 2019)
Harris, M.J., 2010 Evaluating public and community health programs. San Francisco: Jossey-
Bass.
Maret-Ouda, J., Tao, W., Wahlin, K. and Lagergren, J., 2017 Nordic registry-based cohort
studies: Possibilities and pitfalls when combining Nordic registry data. Scandinavian Journal of
Public Health, 45(17), pp.14-19,
Ministry of Health, 2018 Health Targets [Online] Available from:
https://www.health.govt.nz/new-zealand-health-system/health-targets (Accessed: 10 April 2019).
Napper, M. and Newland, J., 2016 Health economics information resources: A self-study course:
Module 4: An introduction to the principles of critical appraisal of health economic evaluation
studies [Onlne] Available from: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/edu/healthecon/04_he_06.html
(Accessed: 3 April 2018).
WHO, 2000 title: Outcome Evaluations [Online] Available at
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/66584/WHO_MSD_MSB_00.2h.pdf?
sequence=8 Accessed: (March 30, 2019)