Need help with getting started on homework

1

4

Healthy people, 2020 is a state government initiative that aims to create a healthier nation-state. It is designed as a national health method to stave off threats to the health sector and accomplish a nation-state goal that aims to reduce these threats. The program strives to identify improvements in health, create public health awareness, bring insight into determinants of health, disabilities, and diseases, and enhance chances for progress. It aims at achieving the ten-year nation-state objective that attempts to improve the health status of all American citizens (Yaemsiri, 2019). For the past decade, communities have established convection and track progress over time to measure the impacts of the prevention activities, encourage individuals to create awareness of health decisions, and encourage participation across sectors and communities.

The introduction of this program continues in the culture with its launching on December 2010, date 2, with a ten-year scheme to improve the state's health (Finney Rutten, 2019). Healthy people, 2020 is an outcome of long-term progress that displays inputs from various groups of institutions and individuals. One of the program’s missions is to carry out a critical study and evaluate and collect data. It enhances the development of specific questions that will address evolution. The questions prioritize the importance of evolution that is intended to use the outcome, needs of stakeholders, and circumstances around real-world health influencing the success of healthy people 2020. To improve healthcare systems improving data collection and providing information about challenges and opportunities creates insight into the context of healthy people 2020 concerning current practice. Another mission involves many sectors to step up improved practices and strengthen policies motivated by apprehension and the best available evidence. Besides that, the program also has its mission of providing measurable goals and objectives that can be implemented at local levels, the state, and the nation at large.

Healthy people 2020 traces an estimated objective of around 1200 that are organized into 41 subject matter, representing a critical public health area. Healthy people, 2020 involves a background of therapeutic measures that address the population's health and global. The cross-cutting summary has been an estimate and a pillar because they forecast the effects of interventions and actions to attain healthy people 2020 goals and objectives. One of the overarching goals is to promote living standards and develop health and healthy behaviors at all stages of life. The programs also create physical and social surroundings that enhance good health in all populations (Greenberg-Worisek, 2019).

Over the past years, the program has successfully established its outcomes of the program. The program has achieved great strides over the past years by increasing life expectancy at birth. It has been attributed to a rise in living standards, improved lifestyle, and better public awareness, leading to grand access to a better quality health service (Fulton, 2018). The program has also led to a decrease in the percentage of death resulting from stroke and coronary heart diseases. The program has renewed the emphasis on challenges resulting from public health by using indicators that access the state's health, promote actions, and collaborate with different sectors and society levels to improve the population's health.

One of the vehicles for healthy people 2020 is the office of disease prevention and health promotion. It entails agencies from federal departments and HHS. The national health statistics center secures information support groups for healthy people and funds state information sources to monitor the objectives. The collaborations of efforts range from the public, generally, the secretary advisory committee, and federal agencies to guide and support. Different methods include forecasting trends, modeling, and knowledge from current interventions and research findings. Healthy people 2020 achievements are set using ten percent, a percentage attained, therefore being a driving force in this program.

The leading cause of death in South Carolina has been heart disease. Approximately 10,000 people have died from heart disease, 50,000 have been hospitalized because of heart disease, and more than 3.1 billion is the total cost of hospitalizations resulting from heart diseases. One of the several types of heart disease in South Carolina is coronary artery disease which mostly leads to heart failure, heart attack, and angina. For more years, ' healthy people initiative has implemented objectives that have helped improve coronary heart disease results. The leading cause of this disease is diabetes, specifically type 2 and obesity.

The program provides a wide range of measures through regular exercise activities that improve blood circulation and the heart. This has been more efficient because the program has received a positive response from the public. It has helped maintain healthy levels in maintaining blood pressure levels, therefore reducing the risks resulting from diabetes and obesity. Though providing analysis on trends and death rates, the Healthy People 2020 initiative has implemented policies and interventions at state levels to support cardiovascular disease treatment and prevention in south California (Pierce, 2021). The program can therefore help communicate and assess lifetime risk factors associated with obesity and diabetes, measure and define heart diseases generally, encounter depression as an effect resulting from heart disease, and examine intelligible impairment resulting from heart disease. This research and findings of healthy people 2020 in South Carolina have been used to change heart diseases that are vastly growing. Therefore, other methods are still being invested in fighting this issue.

The Assessment Protocol for Excellence in Public Health (APEXPH) was created and implemented by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in collaboration with the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO). The handbook for using the APEXPH technique was not produced until 1999, despite the fact that development of APEXPH started in 1987 (Sharma, 2022).

Increased understanding of the community's actual and perceived health concerns; stronger ties with government and community partners; and community acknowledgment of the LHD as a key player in maintaining the public's health are all advantages of APEXPH. Despite APEXPH's lack of focus on environmental health and strategic planning, Local Health Departments (LHDs) who are familiar with or have experience with APEXPH have a great foundation for completing PACE EH, MAPP, or a combination of the two (Sharma, 2022).

Assessment, assurance, and policy development are three basic responsibilities of public health that the APEXPH approach addresses. These key responsibilities were outlined in the Institute of Medicine's report on the future of public health, and they have since become critical when considering population health (Issel et al., 2022).

APEXPH differs from The Planning Approach to Community Health (PATCH) in that it includes a framework for evaluating the organization and management of health departments, as well as a framework for collaborating with community people to analyze community health. The APEXPH workbook, which can be found on the NACCHO website, divides planning into three sections: evaluating internal organizational capability, identifying and prioritizing community health problems, and implementing the plans. In one study, 24 Washington county health departments used the APEXPH model to evaluate their strengths and shortcomings in each of these evaluation and implementation functional areas. The findings might then be used to pinpoint areas that needed to be improved. APEXPH borrows Nutt's strategic planning perspective and foreshadows Bryson's work to the extent that it addresses organizational capacity (Issel et al., 2022).

APEXPH is a voluntary method for self-assessment, planned improvements, and ongoing review and reassessment for organizations and communities. It is not designed as a methodology for an outside reviewer, such as a state or federal agency, to evaluate a municipal health department. It will be most useful when it is tailored to local circumstances and needs and integrated into the health department's ongoing operations (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

One of the most important characteristics of the APEXPH method is its adaptability. APEXPH differs from previous assessment and evaluation procedures in the following ways: it is a true self-assessment that users can complete in a form and manner that best suits their needs. It leads to a concrete action plan. Rather than technical success in specific programs or compliance with a set of objective requirements, it focuses on a health department's administrative capacity, basic structure and function in its community, as well as the community's actual and perceived concerns. It gives a local health department the chance to evaluate its partnerships with local government agencies, as well as community, state, and federal health authorities. It can help you figure out how to improve these connections and get the help you need. It lays out a process through which a health department can be recognized as a major player in the community's health by working with residents to assess health needs, determine priorities, and develop policy, as well as ensuring that those requirements are addressed. It is easily adaptable to local circumstances and resources (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

The APEXPH process frequently results in recommendations for service changes and improvements. Other organizations' funds and/or participation may be required to implement these proposals (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

The annual budget process is a simple approach to keep track of the APEXPH process and make use of the outcomes. Key stakeholders meet during the budget process to discuss objectives, options, and strategies for the future year. This is true for health departments as well as other governmental, non-profit, and private organizations whose cooperation may be required to implement APEXPH recommendations. Approaching these other agencies at the right time in their budget process will help you secure their cooperation on mutually beneficial programs (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

The results of APEXPH can also be used by the director of a local health department to build the relationship with the state health department. The APEXPH method can help identify opportunities to increase communication and engage on mutually beneficial initiatives (Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2022).

Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health (MATCH) creates and implements programs and services, as well as forges collaborative relationships, to ensure that all people have a fair chance to be healthy in their homes, schools, workplaces, and neighborhoods. MATCH strives to transform practice, prioritize priorities, and move power in order to facilitate shared action on health and equity's core causes. MATCH accomplishes this through offering training, providing technical assistance, and leading learning and action networks involved in essential practices such as health equality, systems, and collaborative leadership perspectives. Developing and sharing literature, theories, and tools for change alignment – assembling and strengthening partnerships for shared action (Population Health Institute, 2022).

The difference between APEXPH and MATCH is that APEXPH works primarily with the LHDs and the government whereas; MATCH works with everyone from the people in community to educators and professionals. Working with each model gives you the benefit of including everyone from top government official to the community itself and everyone in between.

To ensure the best results for my health education program, I will use the MATCH model. I chose this program because it’s more of hands on for the community oppose to someone telling them what to do. They can engage in different activities and lectures. The community will be able to practice the concepts anywhere. MATCH also trains educators and professional on how to better serve their perspective community.

Public Health Program Evaluation Matrix Guide

Name of the Public Health Program Evaluation	Cardiovascular Health in African American Adults.
Author	NCBI
Objectives and Goals	The goals and objectives of this program are the prevention of risk factors, the detection and treatment of these risk factors, early identification and treatment of heart attacks, and the prevention of recurrent cardiovascular events.
Purpose of the program (Summarize)	In addition to being the first and fifth causes of death, heart diseases in South Carolina among African Americans result in serious illnesses and disability, decreased quality of life and economic losses each year (Jones et al.). The burden of this disease is disproportionately distributed across the population. The purpose of the program is to find a solution.
Method/ Research Data Collective Process (If applicable)	Clinical information, automated follow up system.
Framework (explain the framework and address why it was selected), how does the framework connect to the program?	The IOM framework was selected because it provides the ability to measure and compare health system functions and make better, more meaningful decisions. The framework connects to the program by identifying gaps, sharing information and making comparisons of the findings.
Funding Options (e.g. county, state, federal, frequency, amount, data analysis, etc.)	State
Summarize the findings of this program (In 100 words) Address strategies expected, outcomes, short or long-term outcomes, and evaluation process.	Summary findings from 2008 concluded that on average, African Americans were up to 30% more likely to die of a heart attack than the rest of the population. Whereas African American adults were 40% likely to have high blood pressure, they are less likely to have their blood pressure under control (Jones et al.). The strategies expected are needed to promote equity in the cardiovascular health of this population. These strategies will be largely centered on changing the health and lifestyles of African Americans, reduce alcohol intake and smoking, as well as promoting healthy eating. A combination of framing of policies and interventions will ensure long-term success in minimizing these numbers.
Personal Summary (evaluate the program) What was your opinion of this program (e.g. by using a SWOT analysis?)	The goal of his program was to reduce the prevalence of heart diseases among African Americans. Population wide reductions in cardiovascular disease incidences and mortality have not been equally shared by African Americans. Considering its prevalence, a 50% reduction is can be achieved by promoting healthy lifestyles and access to effective care and medication.

Income Sources

Income Source	Annual budget	Budgeted Jan to June	Actual Jan to June	Variance	%variance
Grants	600000	300000	250000	-50000	-20.00%
Bank interest	24000	20000	45000	25000	55.56%
Fund raise	400000	350000	400000	50000	12.50%
Others	200000	150000	120000	-30000	-25.00%
Total	1224000

Expenses

Salaries	$ 250,000.00
Recruitment costs	$ 100,000.00
Medical supplies	$ 550,000.00
Rent	$ 50,000.00
Insurance	$ 30,000.00
Fuel	$ 45,000.00
Office costs	$ 17,000.00
Miscellaneous costs	$ 150,000.00
Total Cumulative Expenses	$ 1,192,000.00

Final Overal Budget

Total Budget	1224000
Cumulative Expenses	1000000
Dollar Variance	224000
Amount Left to Spend	300000
Percent of Unspent	24.51%
Percent of Variance	18.30%

Budget Analysis

The project will entail a diverse team of professionals including physicians, therapists, drug addiction rehabilitation specialists, celebrities and management team among others. This pushes the wage bill high as well as the medical supplies. The budget needed should be sufficient to cover the operating costs. The total budget is $1,460,000 and the accumulated expenses are $1,192,000. The project seeks to raise income from grants, bank interest, funds drive, and other sources such as well-wishers. Most of the fundings is expected to come from grants and fundsdrive.

Hear failure risk is high among African Americans in South Carolina and there are a number of risk factors such as high blood pressure, smoking, diabetes, poor diet and sedentary lifestyle (Safford et al., 2021). The goal is to use tried-and-true methods to eliminate inequities and generate chances for health. Funding is also required to collaborate with other sectors, such as faith and community organizations, education, businesses, transportation, and housing, in order to establish social and economic conditions that support health beginning in childhood (DeSalvo et al., 2021). More people need to be connected to doctors, nurses, or community health facilities in order to encourage frequent and follow-up medical visits. There is a need to develop and give training for healthcare practitioners to recognize cultural differences in how patients engage with physicians and the healthcare system in order to raise awareness among locals. With the multidisciplinary team at work, cases of heart diseases will reduce in South Carolina.

References

DeSalvo, K., Hughes, B., Bassett, M., Benjamin, G., Fraser, M., Galea, S., & Gracia, J. N. (2021). Public health COVID-19 impact assessment: lessons learned and compelling needs. NAM perspectives, 2021. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406505/

Safford, M. M., Reshetnyak, E., Sterling, M. R., Richman, J. S., Muntner, P. M., Durant, R. W., ... & Pinheiro, L. C. (2021). Number of social determinants of health and fatal and nonfatal incident coronary heart disease in the REGARDS study. Circulation, 143(3), 244-253. https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/abs/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.120.048026

Work Cited

Jones, Daniel W., et al. "Risk factors for coronary heart disease in African Americans: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study, 1987-1997." Archives of internal medicine 162.22 (2002): 2565-2571.

Reference

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2022). APEXPH:assesment protocol for excellence in public health. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from https://wonder.cdc.gov/wonder/prevguid/p0000089/p0000089.asp#head005002000000000

Issel, L. M., Wells, R., & Williams, M. (2022). Planning for Health Programs and Services. In Health Program Planning and Evaluation: A practical, systematic approach for Community Health (3rd ed., pp. 82–83). essay, Jones et Bartlett Learning. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from https://digitalbookshelf.southuniversity.edu/books/9781284032949.

Sharma, M. (2022). Chapter 2: Planning Models In Health Education and Health Promotion. In Theoretical Foundations of Health Education and health promotion (4th ed., p. 47). essay, Jones et Bartlett Learning. Retrieved May 11, 2022, from http://samples.jblearning.com/9781284208627/9781284510027_CH02_SECURED.pdf.

UNIVERSITY of WISCONSIN–MADISON. (2022). Mobilizing Action Toward Community Health (match). Population Health Institute. Retrieved May 10, 2022, from https://uwphi.pophealth.wisc.edu/match/

REFERENCE.

Yaemsiri, S., Alfier, J. M., Moy, E., Rossen, L. M., Bastian, B., Bolin, J., ... & Heron, M. (2019). Healthy People 2020: rural areas lag in achieving targets for significant causes of death. Health Affairs, 38(12), 2027-2031.

Finney Rutten, L. J., Blake, K. D., Greenberg-Worisek, A. J., Allen, S. V., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2019). Online health information seeking among US adults: measuring progress toward a healthy people 2020 objective. Public Health Reports, 134(6), 617-625.

Greenberg-Worisek, A. J., Kurani, S., Rutten, L. J. F., Blake, K. D., Moser, R. P., & Hesse, B. W. (2019). Tracking healthy people 2020 internet, broadband, and mobile device access goals: an update using the health information national trends survey data—Journal of medical Internet research, 21(6), e13300.

Fulton, J. E., Buchner, D. M., Carlson, S. A., Borbely, D., Rose, K. M., O’Connor, A. E., ... & Petersen, R. (2018). CDC’s Active People, Healthy NationSM: creating an active America, together. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 15(7), 469-473.

Pierce, J. P., & Kealey, S. (2021). Socio-ecological model and health promotion in the healthy people initiative.