I turned in a paper and the "TURNITIN" similarity was too high, I just need it tweaked a bit so that my similarity percentage is at least 25% and under. I will attach the original paper and also the t

Running Head: MODULE 1

Module 1 Assignment

Health Planning Policy Management

May 10,2020

Question 1

After reading the required material, I realized that much of the information was quite similar. Honestly, I was expecting to read two totally different perspectives being as though public health is such a broad topic that covers much information. However, while the perspectives were similar in many ways, I did find it interesting that the document provided by the CDC went more in dept about certain topics that the text book did not. In the text book, we are given a full layout of the “history of health program planning and evaluation” (Issle, 2018). The text books sequence of information was really informative, but I think we could have done without certain aspects of it. On the other hand, the information provided by the CDC pointed out the actual steps in program evaluation. Some may think the history of evaluation is more important than explaining what the actual steps are, but I believe otherwise. Before moving on, I’d like to provide what the steps are: “engaging stakeholders, describing the program, focusing the evaluation design, gathering credible evidence and lastly, justifying conclusions” (Milstein, 1999). In the textbook on page eight, it states that the field of evaluation and the amount of approaches to guide the development have both evolved. Given this information, I assume that is why Issle did not provide a specific set of steps. Although Issle did not include a set of steps, there was one more similarity that I find to be imperative in the process of evaluation, that is the standards for assessing the quality of evaluation activities (Milstein, 1999). There are 30 standards that are organized in groups of four: utility, feasibility, propriety, and accuracy. After much consideration, I think both sources are equally relevant and informative.

Question 2

Linguistic delivery is a crucial aspect in attempts to enhance cultural competency. Effective communication between patients and health care providers, may depend upon (dis)similarities in their linguistic and cultural backgrounds (Baugh, 2016). However, the communication does not start and stop with the actual doctors, proper linguistic delivery should be practiced across the board. The National Center for Cultural Competency developed a simple checklist used by program planners that in turn can be utilized to determine which areas need attention. One topic on the checklist that stood out to me the most was the second to last one. It required “policies and resources to support community outreach initiatives to persons with limited English proficiencies” (Issle, 2018). This is a factor that effects and influence the planning and evaluation of the health program. Therefore, it falls within the purview of the infrastructure level of the public health pyramid (Issle, 2018).

Reference:

Issel, L. M., & Wells, R. (2018). Health program planning and evaluation: A practical, systematic approach for community health. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Baugh, J., & Bush, M. (2016, February 10). Linguistic Diversity and Disparate Health Outcomes. Retrieved May 11, 2020, from https://publichealth.wustl.edu/linguistic-diversity-and-disparate-health-outcomes/

Milstein, R. L., & Wetterhall, S. F. (1999, September 17). Framework for Program Evaluation in Public Health. Retrieved May 11, 2020, from https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr4811a1.htm