Discussion: Healthcare Program Analysis

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

Discussion Questions (DQ)

• Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
• Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
• One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
• I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.

Weekly Participation

• Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
• In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
• Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
• Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.

APA Format and Writing Quality

• Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
• Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
• I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.

Use of Direct Quotes

• I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
• As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
• It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.

LopesWrite Policy

• For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
• Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
• Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
• Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.

Late Policy

• The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
• Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
• If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
• I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
• As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.

Communication

• Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
  • Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
  • Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.

Evaluation of health policies and programs is critical as it assists in improving the outcomes and effectiveness of such initiatives on target population. Evaluation entails collections and analysis of information concerning policy features activities and results so that stakeholders can enhance the initiative. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate a program on HIV/AIDS aimed at reducing the spread of the disease by the International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (AIPAC) to ascertain its effectiveness

Healthcare Program/Policy Evaluation	International Association of Physicians in AIDS Care (IAPAC) Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) as a health issue has different aspects that include social, political and economic impacts. IAPAC is an association of physicians established in 1995 with the aim of representing HIV-treating doctors and allied healthcare providers across the world.
Description	The IAPAC program focuses on a host of components on HIV, right from treatment and prevention to developing a heterogeneous response to HIV. The aim of the IAPAC program and institution is to development of normative guidance, carrying out capacity building activities and engagement in advocacy to support efforts to control the HIV epidemic at all levels.
How was the success of the program or policy measured?	IAPAC program utilizes its annual Adherence Conference to evaluate or assess the success of its initiatives. The objectives of the conference include assessing effectiveness of self-reports, evaluating the use of clinical trials in relation to objective adherence and use of other evidence-based interventions. Therefore, measuring the success of the program is critical to its overall effectiveness on the target population.
How many people were reached by the program or policy selected? How much of an impact was realized with the program or policy selected?	The IAPAC program has reached millions of individuals in different parts of the world living with HIV/AIDS. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) close to 40 million people were living with HIV/AIDS. Further, about 1.7 million get infected each year. All these people are potential beneficiaries of the program (IAPAC, 2021). The IAPAC has services in five regions across the world. These include Africa, which is the most affected, Asia/Pacific, Latin America, North America, and Europe. The program’s impacts include reducing AIDS-related deaths by close to 35% between 2010 and 2017, and preventing new child infections by close to 1.5 million incidents (Brazier et al., 2019). The program has allowed countries to develop effective interventions to prevent further spread of the condition among vulnerable population through resource provision.
At what point in program implementation was the program or policy evaluation conducted?	Evaluation of the IAPAC program is done annually through its Adherence Conference where new objectives are set for the coming year. This implies that each year, the stakeholders review the program and seek better ways to enhance its effectiveness to the targeted population (IAPAC, 2021b).
What data was used to conduct the program or policy evaluation?	Program evaluation focuses on various aspects that include processes, resource allocation, feedback and overall impact on target population. Program implementers attain this data through surveys where they collect both qualitative and quantitative information. IAPAC program has used all these approaches to evaluate the impact of this initiative. For instance, it has conducted surveys by contracting firms to evaluate the effects of its interventions in five different regions around the world. These surveys were critical as they revealed significant information on various components like health status, adherence and tolerance to present regime and side effects of different HIV/AIDS medications, and resistance in HIV/AIDS medications.
What specific information on unintended consequences were identified?	The program’s unintended consequences included increased stigmatization and discrimination of individuals with HIV/AIDS that reduce the use of services rolled out through the initiative. IAPAC also observes that the program’s rollout also increased isolation and marginalization of individuals with the condition. The program’s rollout also affected the ability of HIV/AIDS patients to lead healthy lives. A core aspect of the unintended effects of the program was the passage of legislations in over 32 states and two territories in the U.S. that criminalize the failure to disclose an individual’s HIV status (HIV.GOV, n.d). Before the program, many states did not have these laws.
What stakeholders were identified in the evaluation of the program or policy? Who would benefit most from the results and reporting of the program or policy evaluation? Be specific and provide examples.	HIV/AIDS affects different types of stakeholders and it is essential to engage, coordinate with, and mobilize them to encounter the disease. Stakeholders in such programs play different roles. Therefore, it is essential to develop, maintain, and leverage both formal and informal interactions among the different stakeholders; right from government agencies to civil society (IAPAC, 2021). The program’s stakeholders include individuals living with HIV/AIDS, healthcare workers, governments and their agencies, local community leaders, medical associations, nursing association and faith-based organizations as well as nongovernmental bodies. Individuals living with HIV/AIDS and their families, healthcare workers, and government would benefit the most from effective outcomes of this program. People living with HIV/AIDS benefit through access to better treatment regimes, healthy living information, and increased evidence on the best way to manage the condition (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2019). Healthcare workers attain benefits as they understand new treatment trends and how to deal with patients. Healthcare workers benefit from more knowledge on attainment of safety measures to counter the problem.
Did the program or policy meet the original intent and objectives? Why or why not?	The program’s ambitious but achievable targets require more resources and involvement of more stakeholders. Basing on targets by the UNAIDS, the program hoped to reduce infections, increase access to antiretroviral therapy and more suppression of the virus. The program hoped to attain all these by close to 90% by 2020 (IAPAC, 2021). However, this has not happened since not close to 90% of individuals with HIV/AIDS across the world have access to quality antiretroviral treatment. For instance, the success in saving lives does not align with the overall goal of reducing new HIV infections. Further, stigma and discrimination are still a significant concern with women and girls being disproportionately impacted by the disease in different parts of the world, especially in developing countries. The program may have attained close to 75% of its original intent and requires more efforts to achieve the set objectives (IAPAC, 2021).
Would you recommend implementing this program or policy in your place of work? Why or why not?	The program continues to register success in different countries and regions across the world because of its benefits and efforts to reduce HIV/AIDS and its effects to populations. The IAPAC developed this program for an international perspective and not for institutional implementation. Therefore, while I would recommend the program for the workplace, it is not feasibility because of its overall scope. I would not recommend it because it requires more resources and involvement of different stakeholders, which the organization lacks the capacity to rollout.
Identify at least two ways that you, as a nurse advocate, could become involved in evaluating a program or policy after one year of implementation.	Nurses can apply similar principles in assessing the impact and effectiveness of the program just like the evaluate clinical interventions, processes and procedures (Milstead & Short, 2019). Nurses are critical players in policy planning and evaluation with the aims of promoting and illustrating leadership among professional nurses and meeting the quadruple aims of healthcare. Nurses possess knowledge, experience and skills that allow them to participate in policy evaluation in different ways that include developing interventions to assess the effectiveness of the set policies (Milstead & Short, 2019). Nurses can also leverage their skills to develop better ways of engaging stakeholders like legislators to establish policies that align with the healthcare needs of their respective populations.
General Notes/Comments	The IAPAC program is an initiative whose mission is to enhance access to and improve the quality of life of individuals living with HIV/AIDS in different parts of the world. The program’s focus includes improving the quality of prevention, care, and intervention regimens offered to individuals living with and impacted by HIV and the associated comorbidities. The program is an initiative where the U.S. plays a critical role in providing resources from human expertise to material input to reduce the rate of infections and other components of HIV/AIDS around the world.

Conclusion

Policy evaluation allows stakeholders to assess the effectiveness of a health care program to enhance quality and delivery of care. The evaluation of this policy shows that significant strides have been made and achieved in controlling the prevalence of HIV/AIDS across the world. The implication is that health care policies should focus on communities and individuals that require interventions to improve access to health services. The policy has played a critical role in reducing the effects of HIV/AIDS in the world, especially the worst hit areas in developing world.

References

Brazier, E., Maruri, F., Duda, S. N., Tymejczyk, O., Wester, C. W., Somi, G., … & Wools‐Kaloustian, K. (2019). Implementation of

“Treat‐all” at adult HIV care and treatment sites in the Global Ie DEA Consortium: results from the Site Assessment Survey. Journal of the International AIDS Society, 22(7), e25331. doi: 10.1002/jia2.25331

HIV.GOV (n.d). U.S. Government Global HIV/AIDS Activities.

https://www.hiv.gov/federal-response/pepfar-global-aids/us-government-global-aids-activities

International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) (2021). About: History.

The U.S. Government and Global Health

International Association of Providers of AIDS Care (IAPAC) (2021b). Adherence 2021.

https://web.cvent.com/event/43ce2fde-9727-4b0a-81a4-6353bd5a08c6/summary

Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) (2019). The U.S. Government and Global Health.

The U.S. Government and Global Health

Milstead, J.A., & Short, N.M. (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed). A. Derouin (Ed.). Health policy and Social

program evaluation (pp. 116-1214). Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.