1

Evaluation Questions for The Screening Against Chronic Diseases Health Program

Students' Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course Code
Instructors' Name
Date
 2

Evaluation Questions for The Screening Against Chronic Diseases Health Program
1. How effective was the program at reaching its target population?

The question meets the criterion because the main aim is on the main variable/stakeholder.
There is no doubt that reaching the target population is the perfect form of evaluation on the
success of the Screening Against Chronic Diseases Health Program. By reaching out to all individuals
who are eligible for screening, it becomes easier to determine how many people have actually been
screened and whether or not the program is having a positive impact on the population.

2. Was the program able to improve health outcomes for those with chronic diseases?

The question meets the criterion because it focuses on the program's goal because improving
health outcomes for those affected by chronic diseases is the main focus, and thus it is a perfect
evaluation of the program's success. The Screening Against Chronic Diseases Health Program aims to
improve the early detection and treatment of chronic diseases and thereby reduce the number of
people affected by them.

3. Was the program affordable and sustainable?

The question does not meet the criterion, but it is essential in the evaluation to explain some
trends. There are a few reasons why program affordability and sustainability cannot be used as
perfect indicators of the success of the Screening Against Chronic Diseases Health Program. First,
just because a program is affordable and sustainable does not mean that it effectively achieves its
goals (Centre’s for Disease Control and Prevention, 2013). Second, even if a program is not
affordable or sustainable, that does not mean that it is not effective. Finally, program affordability
and sustainability are not always easy to measure, leading to inaccurate assessments of a program's
success. A program might be affordable and sustainable but not effective.

4. What were the positive and negative impacts of the program?

The question does not meet the criterion mainly because there is no focus on the program's core
goal of delivering services. Despite the positive and negative impacts of the Screening Against
Chronic Diseases Health Program, it is not a perfect evaluation of the program's success. While the
program has undoubtedly had some positive effects, such as increased awareness of chronic
diseases and increased screenings for those diseases, there have also been negative consequences,
such as people's fear of getting screened and the increased burden on the healthcare system
(Stufflebeam, 2000). Thus, while it is clear that the program has had some impact, it is difficult to
determine whether that impact has been positive or negative overall. This lack of a definitive answer
speaks to the complex nature of chronic diseases and their screening programs. Any such evaluation
would likely be inconclusive.

5. How well did the program meet its objectives?

The question meets the criterion because it is positive and can measure what is not achieved to
come up with strategies for meeting them. The program's sole purpose is to meet the objectives to
screen against chronic diseases.

The questions that met the criterion can help in improving the short- and long-term outcomes
for the patients affected by chronic illnesses. Additionally, tracking the target population's progress
can help identify areas where improvements are needed and allow for targeted interventions Taylor-
(Powel et al., 2003). Ultimately, this type of evaluation will help to ensure that the health program is
 3

effective and meeting its objectives. The questions determine the progress and also the way forward
for the benefit of any victim.

References

Centre’s for Disease Control and Prevention. (2013). Developing an effective evaluation report:
Setting the course for effective program evaluation. National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion. Atlanta, Georgia.

Stufflebeam, D. L. (2000). The methodology of metaevaluation as reflected in metaevaluations by the

Western Michigan University Evaluation Center. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 14(1),
95-125.

Taylor-Powell, E., Jones, L., & Henert, E. (2003). Enhancing Program Performance with Logic
Models, University of Wisconsin-Extension, Feb. 2003. Image credit, 23.