Fill This Form To Receive Instant Help

Help in Homework
trustpilot ratings
google ratings


Homework answers / question archive / I am starting on the second part of my proposal draft and need major revisions from the first draft that was written

I am starting on the second part of my proposal draft and need major revisions from the first draft that was written

Health Science

I am starting on the second part of my proposal draft and need major revisions from the first draft that was written. The first draft had major paraphrasing issues! That is where the bulk of my points were deducted. Also, the paper was missing subheadings and explanations of the subheadings that were needed. I have attached:

- the comments my professor left on the Grant Proposal First draft

- the new rubric/components needed for this assignment

- a sample final Grant proposal for reference (Todrick)

- a powerpoint on the subheadings for the paper that are needed.

- the Harvard outline I provided for first draft.

These are the other criteria for the project.

  • Read the comments on your draft and revise your plan accordingly.
    • Ask for clarification if you're confused!
  • Be sure to watch and read the Writing Grant Proposals, Part 3 for explanations of the Project Summary, Budget, etc.!
  • Required sections are bolded and sections to be revised are underlined:
    1. Revision letter
    2. Cover letter
    3. Grant Application Form
    4. Organization Information
    5. Project Summary & Public Health Significance
    6. Statement of Need
    7. Project Description
    8. Conclusion
    9. Bibliography (in APA!)
    10. Budget justification
    11. Human subjects form

Hey, this is a decent start, but will need some work. You had some major paraphrasing issues throughout your paper which is where most of the deductions came from, but also make sure to include all of the sections that are required. Also please use subheadings for your project narrative as it is extremely dif cult to determine which paragraph is which section without these Grant Proposal - 1st Draf Criteria Ratings Pts Grant Proposal - 1st Draft Criteria Ratings Pts Organizatio n Information 2 / 2 pts view longer description Statement of Need/ Objective Comments 3 / 3 pts Needs some revisions, please see my comments view longer description Comments -3pts. Very sloppy paraphrasing issues. You need to put things in your own words. Please correct this for the next draft or there will be larger deduction Project Description/ Narrative fi . -1.5pts. Missing ethics, data sharing, and timeline sections t s view longer description 1.5 / 6 pts Conclusion 2 / 2 pts view longer description Bibliography /APA view longer description Comments -0.5pts. Minor APA errors: Capitalization issues and every reference is missing a DOI Total Points: 10 1.5 / 2 pts 1 Organizational Information The Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA) was established in 1997 with the aim of doing research, advocating for change, and educating the public about health problems affecting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs). This non-profit agency had grown to cover legislative education and activism, as well as youth, performing arts, and curriculum advancement, by 1999. Since then, OCAPICA has expanded its services to include mental health and wellbeing for children and families, political involvement and voter empowerment, youth opportunities, and student mentoring and college preparation, in order to meet the needs of other underserved populations. My specific branch at OCAPICA is called RISE. RISE is the name of my division at OCAPICA. With the Rapid Re-housing and Homelessness Prevention program at OCAPICA, the Rapid Re-housing and Homelessness Prevention program seeks to decrease homelessness rates in the cities of Garden Grove and Irvine. The program uses funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV2), OCAPICA, and a variety of other non-profits in the cities of Garden Grove and Irvine to help people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. RISE seeks to help those who fall into the low-income category. The program, which is financed by Covid-related funds, has expanded its scope to include rental aid and landlord disputes for those that have been most impacted by the pandemic. Participants depend on RISE to gain living and financial security for themselves and their families. 2 Statement of Need/Objective Homelessness is a major public health concern that strains the healthcare and criminal justice systems. Chronically displaced people face conditions that are often regarded as insurmountable obstacles to conventional housing programs. Housing First models seek to reach this population more rapidly, and the Downtown Emergency Service Center's single-site housing first approach is an evolving version of this (Malone et al., 2015). Single-site House First is a program that provides chronically homeless individuals with immediate, permanent, low-barrier affordable housing in a single building. Housing First applies to supplying chronically homeless people with urgent, permanent, low-barrier, affordable housing, with all of them having co-occurring social, physical, and substance-use issues. The Housing First model's low-barrier nature has sparked debate because, unlike the continuum-of-care or longitudinal suburban models, it does not enable residents to meet any specific milestones in order to access or retain housing. The aim of this study is to look at how people with severe alcohol problems keep their homes (Collins et al., 2013). The study is important because it will assess the housing retention rate of the single-site Housing First initiative. Furthermore, the research would show that it is advantageous in terms of housing and other issues that affect this population. As a result, it will be an important part of efforts to end homelessness for chronically homeless people with co-occurring emotional, medical, and substance-use disorders. The authors studied and published two types of housing First schemes, which vary mainly in how housing units are differentiated (scattered-site Housing First) or clustered (single- 3 site or project-based Housing First). The scattered-site housing first model has been used to support chronically homeless people with primary mental illnesses since the early 1990s (Malone et al., 2015). Residents are given multiple housing units spread around a larger neighborhood, and an assertive community care model makes social services accessible. The single-site solution provides residents with separate units within a single building and the option of providing onsite social services. Despite these differences, both models show the elements of the "Housing First Checklist" established by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness. In 2005 and 2008, the Downtown Emergency Service Center initiated a Housing First program, which has since developed into a well-known single-site Housing First network. According to the study, the Housing First Model is critical for engaging and housing chronically homeless people. The Downtown Emergency Service Center will be used as an example to demonstrate single-site Housing First, enumerate its underlying concepts, and provide a solid reference base for replication in this report. Information on the components of a successful single-site Housing First project, as well as how it operates, are included in the report. One example of a single-site Housing First model is the Downtown Emergency Care Center, which focuses on chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism, who are the most frequent recipients of governmentfunded services. The aim of this study is to put to the test the commonly held belief that people who are chronically homeless actually do not want to be housed. In addition, the study would examine the hypothesis that people who regularly use alcohol and other medications have more serious psychological issues, are sicker, and have a longer history of chronic homelessness are less likely to sustain housing. Since single-site 4 Housing First uses a low-barrier model with strong social service elements to adequately meet the needs of this demographic, the study hypotheses that these factors will not impede housing retention (Malone et al., 2015) . In addition, the study will determine the percentage of people who return to homelessness after leaving a housing project and test predictors of this reversion to homelessness. Project description In the form of a single-sight, housing retention and related factors a place to live. The first solution will be investigated for chronically homeless people with serious alcohol issues. The first goal would be to put to the test the commonly held belief that chronically homeless people actually do not want to be housed. The majority of participants who will demonstrate an interest in accessing housing would be hypothesized based on the results of a previous study in this community. The second goal would be to test the hypothesis that people who regularly use alcohol and other drugs, have more serious psychological issues, are sicker, and have a longer history of chronic homelessness are less likely to keep their housing. Since single-site Housing First uses a low-barrier model with strong social service elements to adequately meet the needs of this community, it would be hypothesized if such factors will prevent housing retention. The third target would be to determine the number of people who return to homelessness after leaving a housing project and to look for predictors. These secondary studies will be conducted as part of a nonrandomized controlled trial comparing the impact of a single-site Housing First intervention and a wait-list control condition 5 on public service use and costs. Chronically homeless people with serious alcohol issues who entered a Housing First program in Seattle between December 2005 and August 2008 will be the participants. The broader parent sample will be taken from two sources: a rank-ordered list of persons who experienced the largest public expenses in 2004 for alcohol-related use in emergency services, hospitals, sobering centres, and county jail, and a list of eligible individuals recommended by service practitioners familiar with the target demographic. Single items may be used to assess demographic factors such as age, gender, racial/ethnic origin, and history of homelessness during the baseline interviews. Single items would be used to gauge participants' views about abstinence-based accommodation at the onset. These elements would be used in descriptive reviews. Inferential statistical models may use variables with demographic characteristics to classify samples and as predictors. The Addiction Severity Index's substance-use prevalence portion, which is an accurate and true predictor of various substanceuse outcomes, will be used to measure alcohol and other drug use in the previous 30 days. Following that, data on alcohol and other drug consumption will be dichotomized to represent baseline use over the preceding 30 days, and these data will be used as predictors in inferential statistical models. Participants' experience of clinical symptoms will be assessed using six scales from the well-validated 53-item Brief Symptom Inventory: interpersonal sensitivity, such as feelings of inadequacy or distress during interpersonal encounters, depression, anxiety, aggression, delusional ideation, and psychoticism. Inferential statistical models can use the baseline means of 6 the six 5-point subscales as predictors. The Physical Health Form will have 20 dichotomous items that will measure participants' illness burden, based on a 30-day self-reported history of health conditions common to this population, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatitis, frostbite, and broken bones. To build the illness burden indicator for inferential statistical analyses, the baseline number of positive responses for each of the 20 symptoms or illnesses will be added together. Housing information for each participant would be retrieved from housing department documents. The number of days continuously housed for each person will be estimated for the two years after their transfer into this particular housing project, and this variable will be used as an outcome in informative analyses and as a censoring variable in survival analyses. Retention in this housing project over the 2-year follow-up will be an outcome predictor in generalized estimating equation (GEE) experiments. Finally, in logistic regression analyses, a return to homelessness would be used as an outcome variable. Since they are in the neighborhood, people on the priority list will be given single-site Housing First units in the parent report. Until the Housing First initiative is completed, more participants may be added to a waiting list. The parent summary may be approved verbally by housing program staff. And, regardless of whether or not they partake in the project, participating parties will consult with research personnel for an educational session for which they will be paid. Participants either completed the baseline assessment right away or were scheduled for follow-up appointments after providing written, informed consent. Participants were paid $20 for 7 participating in self-report data collection interviews, which took place at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. In this analysis, only baseline self-report data were used to describe the sample and as predictors in the primary outcome analyses. Participants (n = 111) who moved into the Housing First project during the study were analyzed; the start of the 2-year study period was determined by the participants' individual move-in dates. The SPSS version will be used to calculate descriptive statistics. Preliminary descriptive analyses will be carried out to determine the shapes of the outcome variable distributions and the presence of outliers, as well as to provide descriptive statistics on the sample demographic variables, housing attitudes, housing retention outcomes, and reasons for leaving housing. STATA version 11.2 can be used for inferential analysis. The value will be set to.05, and 95 percent confidence intervals will be used. The Housing First project will use an exponential survival model with time before initial move-out as the censoring or offset portion to evaluate sex, race/ethnicity, history of homelessness, disease burden, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological symptoms as predictors of survival. As a result, it would be crucial to see how risk factors will predict not only "survival," but also overall time spent in housing over a period of transition. Over the course of the 2-year analysis, a logistic GEE model would be used to test the same set of explanatory variables as predictors of presence in the Housing First project. Finally, a logistic regression would be used to see whether the same set of explanatory variables might determine whether or not a housing discontinuity meant a return to homelessness. 8 These data will enable the first longitudinal study of housing retention in single-site Housing First units, adding a unique and important contribution to the literature on homelessness and housing. The researchers would collect data from both sides, the Housing First project and housing episodes in other living arrangements, to provide enough information to draw fair conclusions. Researchers' inability to define how to evaluate the effectiveness of the Downtown Emergency Service Center Model may have created differences in findings between the data collection instruments, as shown by qualitative and quantitative analyses. In this scenario, the quantitative measure would better cover the results that the researchers need, lowering material validity and preventing researchers from incorrectly assessing the effectiveness of Housing First for chronically homeless people (Malone et al., 2015). As a result, the researchers will use the requisite data collection techniques to determine housing preservation in single-site Housing First programs for chronically homeless individuals with serious alcohol issues. Due to the complexity and uniqueness of the research and setting, the findings may not be generalizable to other populations or housing environments. Although providers and policymakers offered external explanations, it may become increasingly necessary to understand the factors at play in this context. As a consequence, in a randomized controlled trial, using simple random selection eliminates potential explanations for the outcomes, reduces bias, and allows for causation inference by showing findings exclusively attributable to the intervention. Conclusion 9 The study examines the components of a competitive single-site Housing First program, as well as how it functions in practice. One example of a single-site Housing First model is the Downtown Emergency Care Center, which focuses on chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism, who are the most frequent recipients of government-funded services (Clifasefi et al., 2016). Because of the population's particular features, the findings presented could not be generalized. As a result, researchers should look at the impact of single-site Housing First approaches on drug use, mental health, and quality of life for all populations that use single-site Housing First. Housing First is crucial for engaging and housing chronically homeless individuals, according to accumulating scientific and clinical evidence. Since deciding that accommodation must come first, the question of what should come second has remained unanswered. At the Downtown Emergency Service Center, this issue is being resolved by focusing on assisting residents in living a full life in the community. Members of the crew, for example, assist with job searches and outreach programs. Although further research is required to determine the viability of Housing First for chronically homeless people with extreme alcoholism, it has the potential to reduce the number of people who are homeless. Despite this, the study's weaknesses preclude researchers from assessing the Housing First initiative's viability. Data from the Housing First initiative as well as housing episodes in other living situations will be examined to help fill in the study's gaps. A randomized design and random sampling can help to minimize the issue of selection bias. 10 Finally, weak data collection measures can be strengthened by using strong and consistent quantitative and qualitative measures. When contemplating these changes, the study will confidently use the Downtown Emergency Service Center to show the effectiveness of a single-site Housing First program. 11 Bibliography Appel, P. W., Tsemberis, S., Joseph, H., Stefancic, A., & Lambert-Wacey, D. (2012). Housing First for severely mentally ill homeless methadone patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 31(3), 270-277. Collins, S. E., Malone, D. K., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2013). Housing retention in single-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems. American journal of public health, 103(S2), S269-S274. Clifasefi, S. L., Collins, S. E., Torres, N. I., Grazioli, V. S., & Mackelprang, J. L. (2016). Housing first, but what comes second? A qualitative study of resident, staff and management perspectives on single-site housing first program enhancement. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(7), 845-855. Henwood, B. F., Dichter, H., Tynan, R., Simiriglia, C., Boermer, K., & Fussaro, A. (2015). Service use before and after the provision of scatter-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol use disorders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 883-886. Kirst, M., Zerger, S., Misir, V., Hwang, S., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2015). The impact of a Housing First randomized controlled trial on substance use problems among homeless individuals with mental illness. Drug and alcohol dependence, 146, 24-29. Malone, D. K., Collins, S. E., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2015). Single-site housing first for chronically homeless people. Housing, care and Support. 12 Mackelprang, J. L., Collins, S. E., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2014). Housing First is associated with reduced use of emergency medical services. Prehospital Emergency Care, 18(4), 476-482. Stahl, N., Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., & Hagopian, A. (2016). When Housing First lasts: Exploring the lived experience of single-site Housing First residents. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(4), 484-498. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse For your grant writing assignment © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? You will improve upon the project described in your ROA ? You understand the subject, you have written it up, you have a bibliography ? You have thought about multiple limitations and made several suggestions. ? You will propose a new project very similar to the project described in the lead article from the ROA ? The main difference will be one improvement based upon your analysis of the project’s limitations. Components of a Grant Proposal ? Each grant has its own format and requirements. ? The grant must describe what you want to do, how you propose to do it, and why you need funding. ? General components of any grant from any agency include… 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse 8. 9. 10. Cover letter Grant Application Form Organization Information Project Abstract & Public Health Significance (1 page) Statement of Need Project Description Conclusions Bibliography Budget justification Human subjects form COMPONENT LENGTH Due Week 6 Due Week 7 Due Week 8 ? ? Revision Guide 1 page Cover Letter 1 page ? (prelim) ? ? 2-page PDF form ? ? ? ? ? Grant Application Form Organization Information 200-250 words Project Abstract 350-400 words ? ? Public Health Significance 75-125 words ? ? Statement of Need 450-500 words ? ? ? Project Description 900-1000 words ? ? ? Conclusion 200-250 words ? ? ? Depends ? ? ? Bibliography © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Due Week 5 ? ? (outline) Budget & Justification 1-page PDF & 1 page ? ? Human Subjects Form 1-page PDF form ? ? 16 16 ? = New ? = Revised APPROX. TOTAL PAGES 5 9 © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse 3. Organization Information © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? ? This section is about the history and governing structure of the organization/nonprofit as well as its primary activities, audiences, and services. ? This is your practicum site. ? Or it is UCI. ? It should not sound like ad copy. 200-250 words 5. Statement of Need ? ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? This section describes why this project is necessary – i.e. the objective of the study. Meant to persuade readers ? Why they should care ? What you’re doing differently ? Why they should give you money Citations from last ten years. ? Your lit review and discussion of limitations and fixes should be well cited. An outline: I. Introduce public health problem. ? II. HINT: This is the same problem described in the original article. Describe the prior research of this problem. ? HINT: Use the literature review from the original article as a guide. ? HINT: The original article is also part of that prior research. 5. Statement of Need III. Highlight “gap” in knowledge your proposal will address ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse IV. HINT: The gap is in the data that the original study couldn’t collect because of its limitations. Explain how your proposal is new or innovative compared to prior research studies and interventions ? V. HINT: Fixing one of those limitations fix is “new.” Describe the impact your proposed study will make on the specific health problem. ? ? HINT: What will be changed once we know what you plan to find? 450-500 words © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse 6. Project Description ? ? This section is the nuts and bolts of how you will be implementing and evaluating your proposal 900-1000 words ? Project Description (head) Hypothesis and Specific Aims (subhead) ? Methods (subhead) ? For this assignment. ? Real proposals are much longer. ? ? ? ? Organize the PD with the following headings … ? ? Ethics (subhead) ? Data sharing (subhead) ? Timeline (subhead) ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Study design (sub-subhead) Sample selection/description of primary data source (sub-subhead) Data collection (sub-subhead) Data analysis (sub-subhead) 6. Project Description ? Hypothesis and Specific Aims (subhead) © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Re-introduce your proposal by stating the research question and/or project intervention objective in the language of “Aims.” ? Specific Aims refer to the detailed objectives for each step of your research project. ? Each specific aim has a corresponding hypothesis. All research proposals have at least 2-3, if not more specific aims. Aims & Hypotheses ? ? ? An aim is what you intend to achieve or aspire to learn in your study. The hypothesis is what you expect – an educated guess – to find with your study. Very important: Some reviewers only see your aims and hypotheses. ? ? Should not be too ambitious but not too narrow either Both must be clearly stated ? ? Aims are usually obsessed over for months, if not years ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Hypotheses can be basic, as you cannot predict everything For the assignment: Obsess less, but still keep care to be specific and clear Example #1 ? Specific Aim #1: Evaluate the impact of a lifestyle intervention on postpartum weight loss among Hispanic women with a history of abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Hypothesis #1: Participants randomized to the lifestyle intervention will have greater adherence with IOM postpartum weight-loss guidelines at 6 and 12 months postpartum as compared to participants randomized to the comparison health and wellness intervention ? Specific Aim #2: Evaluate the impact of a lifestyle intervention on postpartum biomarkers of insulin resistance among Hispanic women with a history of abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy. ? Hypothesis #2: Participants randomized to the lifestyle intervention will have lower fasting concentrations of glucose, insulin, HbA1c, leptin, and TNF-α and higher concentrations of adiponectin as compared to participants randomized to the comparison health and wellness intervention. Example #2 ? Aim #1: Evaluate the impact of a 12-week individually targeted exercise intervention on risk of recurrent GDM among prenatal care patients with a history of GDM. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Hypothesis #1: Compared to subjects in the comparison health and wellness intervention, women in the individually targeted exercise intervention will have a lower risk of recurrent GDM. ? Aim #2: Evaluate the impact of a 12-week individually targeted exercise intervention on biochemical factors associated with insulin resistance among prenatal care patients with a history of GDM. ? Hypothesis #2: Compared to subjects in the comparison health and wellness intervention, women in the individually targeted exercise intervention will have lower fasting concentrations of glucose, insulin, leptin, TNF-α, CRP, and higher concentrations of adiponectin. Example #3 © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Original Version ? Specific Aim #1: We propose to evaluate the association between light-intensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. ? Specific Aim #2: We propose to evaluate the association between moderateintensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. ? Specific Aim #3: We propose to evaluate the association between vigorousintensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. ? Improved Example ? Specific Aim #1: We propose to evaluate the association between light-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. 6. Project Description ? METHODS (subhead): ? Study Design (sub-subhead): ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Briefly describe the specific study design you will be using. This will provide an introduction to the sample selection, data collection, and analysis. ? Sample selection (sub-subhead): ? Or: description of primary data source (if your project involves secondary data analysis) ? Include the size of sample, how you will recruit your sample, if you will offer incentives to participate, the geographic location you will draw your sample population from. ? Include the recruitment and training of your research assistants, if applicable. 6. Project Description ? Data Collection (sub-subhead): ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? If primary research, describe how you will collect the data (surveys, interviews, etc). For both primary and secondary research, describe how you will be measuring your independent and dependent variables (e.g. if you want to measure the variable obesity, you can collect data on an individual's BMI, waist circumference, etc.). ? How often and for how long will your collect the data? ? How will you evaluate if you have met your objectives for the proposal? (e.g. collected data from a certain amount of people) 6. Project Description ? Data Analysis (sub-subhead): ? Describe how you will analyze the data once collected. This will involve descriptions of the statistical tests (drawn from your lead article) ? ETHICS (subheading): ? ? ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Include whether your project is going to use human subjects or not. If so, describe the protections you will provide to your subjects (consent, confidentiality, etc.) Say that IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval is pending – unless you are using animals, in which case will need approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). 6. Project Description ? DATA SHARING (subhead): Describe if and how you will be sharing your raw data with other researchers. ? This is NOT the same as publishing your research in a journal or sharing your results. ? Data sharing would be sharing the spreadsheets of your survey data, for example. ? Read the slides “Data Sharing” in the Grant Resources module. ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? TIMELINE (subheading): ? ? Describe timeline in paragraph form. Table or graphic is optional. 900-1000 words ? Around four pages. 7. Conclusion ? ? ? ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Summary of the proposal's main points. Overview statement of your project, how you will do it and why Who will benefit if the proposal is completed successfully? Future research directions? 200-250 words 8. Bibliography ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? All declarative statements must be supported by references to original research publications (journal articles) Use APA in-text citations within parentheses (Smith, 2017) in your paper ? ? ? At least 8 scholarly references in APA format for Bibliography page From the last ten years Must cite all references in-text COMPONENT LENGTH Due Week 6 Due Week 7 Due Week 8 ? ? Revision Guide 1 page Cover Letter 1 page ? (prelim) ? ? 2-page PDF form ? ? ? ? ? Grant Application Form Organization Information 200-250 words Project Abstract 350-400 words ? ? Public Health Significance 75-125 words ? ? Statement of Need 450-500 words ? ? ? Project Description 900-1000 words ? ? ? Conclusion 200-250 words ? ? ? Depends ? ? ? Bibliography © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Due Week 5 ? ? (outline) Budget & Justification 1-page PDF & 1 page ? ? Human Subjects Form 1-page PDF form ? ? 16 16 ? = New ? = Revised APPROX. TOTAL PAGES 5 9 COMPONENT LENGTH Due Week 6 Due Week 7 Due Week 8 ? ? Revision Guide 1 page Cover Letter 1 page ? (prelim) ? ? 2-page PDF form ? ? ? ? ? Grant Application Form Organization Information 200-250 words Project Abstract 350-400 words ? ? Public Health Significance 75-125 words ? ? Statement of Need 450-500 words ? ? ? Project Description 900-1000 words ? ? ? Conclusion 200-250 words ? ? ? Depends ? ? ? Bibliography © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Due Week 5 ? ? (outline) Budget & Justification 1-page PDF & 1 page ? ? Human Subjects Form 1-page PDF form ? ? 16 16 ? = New ? = Revised APPROX. TOTAL PAGES 5 9 Outline of Project Description/Narrative “Housing Retention in Single-Site Housing First for Chronically Homeless Individuals with Severe Alcohol Problems” I. Hypothesis and Specific Aims A. Aim #1, Hypothesis #1 1. Can we generalize this study to a larger population by focusing on the limitations that inadequate data collection measures had on the study? The aim is to implement a new study design that will remove possible reasons for the outcomes, decrease prejudice, and allow for inference of causation by demonstrating results solely due to the intervention. The expected result is that the new study design will give the proposal credibility and be able to generalize the findings to a larger subset of the homeless population. B. Aim #2, Hypothesis #2 1. The aim is to evaluate the significance of the assumption that society members with chronic homelessness are needless on a housing basis. Most society members with chronic homelessness will show concern about getting reliable housing facilities. C. Aim #3, Hypothesis #3 1. The second aim is to test the theory stating that people with active alcohol consumption habits suffer more significant illness burden, psychiatric problems, and histories of chronic homelessness and are unlikely to maintain housing. The hypothesis states that more significant illness burden, psychiatric problems, and histories of chronic homelessness do not hinder individuals from house-retention. II. Methods A. Study Design 1. A randomized controlled trial, using simple random selection will be used to test the study’s hypothesis. The trails will involve the comparison between housing first intervention and public services utilization in the community. 2. The old study design of a nonrandomized controlled trial will be used to compare to the new study design. B. Sample Selection 1. The study will be conducted in California, USA. 112 participants will be recruited based on people who are chronically homeless and who test positive for severe alcohol-related issues. Participants will be given a compensation of $5 to facilitate the research progress. 2. The study’s participants (n=111) were chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems who got into a Housing First program in Seattle between December 2005 and August 2008. They also received $5 for their participation. C. Data Collection 1. Data will be collected from two primary sources: a) A list of people that had faced the highest public costs on challenges accruing from the alcohol-related challenges b) List of eligible people that are familiar with the target population. 2. The data will be collected through surveys and interviews with participants over the course of 2-years. D. Data Analysis 1. The research utilizes a quantitative research design to quantify the data and various calculations necessary for the study. The research uses the Statistical package for social sciences software and inferential analyses will be conducted using STATA to analyze the data. III. Ethics A. Protection of Human subjects 1. Subjects will be given $5 for their involvement. Institutional review board approval for the study procedures was obtained from the University of Washington and King County Mental Health, Chemical Abuse and Dependency Services Division. B. Consent and Confidentiality 1. Proper consent was asked from each participant before the study began. 2. IRB approval pending IV. Data Sharing A. The data would be shared with the other researchers via the best data sharing option available for this study, through email services. V. Timeline A. The project would take two years (24 months). B. It will begin with baseline interviews and include consecutive follow-ups at 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse For your grant writing assignment © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? You will improve upon the project described in your ROA ? You understand the subject, you have written it up, you have a bibliography ? You have thought about multiple limitations and made several suggestions. ? You will propose a new project very similar to the project described in the lead article from the ROA ? The main difference will be one improvement based upon your analysis of the project’s limitations. Components of a Grant Proposal ? Each grant has its own format and requirements. ? The grant must describe what you want to do, how you propose to do it, and why you need funding. ? General components of any grant from any agency include… 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse 8. 9. 10. Cover letter Grant Application Form Organization Information Project Abstract & Public Health Significance (1 page) Statement of Need Project Description Conclusions Bibliography Budget justification Human subjects form COMPONENT LENGTH Due Week 6 Due Week 7 Due Week 8 ? ? Revision Guide 1 page Cover Letter 1 page ? (prelim) ? ? 2-page PDF form ? ? ? ? ? Grant Application Form Organization Information 200-250 words Project Abstract 350-400 words ? ? Public Health Significance 75-125 words ? ? Statement of Need 450-500 words ? ? ? Project Description 900-1000 words ? ? ? Conclusion 200-250 words ? ? ? Depends ? ? ? Bibliography © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Due Week 5 ? ? (outline) Budget & Justification 1-page PDF & 1 page ? ? Human Subjects Form 1-page PDF form ? ? 16 16 ? = New ? = Revised APPROX. TOTAL PAGES 5 9 © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse 3. Organization Information © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? ? This section is about the history and governing structure of the organization/nonprofit as well as its primary activities, audiences, and services. ? This is your practicum site. ? Or it is UCI. ? It should not sound like ad copy. 200-250 words 5. Statement of Need ? ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? This section describes why this project is necessary – i.e. the objective of the study. Meant to persuade readers ? Why they should care ? What you’re doing differently ? Why they should give you money Citations from last ten years. ? Your lit review and discussion of limitations and fixes should be well cited. An outline: I. Introduce public health problem. ? II. HINT: This is the same problem described in the original article. Describe the prior research of this problem. ? HINT: Use the literature review from the original article as a guide. ? HINT: The original article is also part of that prior research. 5. Statement of Need III. Highlight “gap” in knowledge your proposal will address ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse IV. HINT: The gap is in the data that the original study couldn’t collect because of its limitations. Explain how your proposal is new or innovative compared to prior research studies and interventions ? V. HINT: Fixing one of those limitations fix is “new.” Describe the impact your proposed study will make on the specific health problem. ? ? HINT: What will be changed once we know what you plan to find? 450-500 words © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse 6. Project Description ? ? This section is the nuts and bolts of how you will be implementing and evaluating your proposal 900-1000 words ? Project Description (head) Hypothesis and Specific Aims (subhead) ? Methods (subhead) ? For this assignment. ? Real proposals are much longer. ? ? ? ? Organize the PD with the following headings … ? ? Ethics (subhead) ? Data sharing (subhead) ? Timeline (subhead) ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Study design (sub-subhead) Sample selection/description of primary data source (sub-subhead) Data collection (sub-subhead) Data analysis (sub-subhead) 6. Project Description ? Hypothesis and Specific Aims (subhead) © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Re-introduce your proposal by stating the research question and/or project intervention objective in the language of “Aims.” ? Specific Aims refer to the detailed objectives for each step of your research project. ? Each specific aim has a corresponding hypothesis. All research proposals have at least 2-3, if not more specific aims. Aims & Hypotheses ? ? ? An aim is what you intend to achieve or aspire to learn in your study. The hypothesis is what you expect – an educated guess – to find with your study. Very important: Some reviewers only see your aims and hypotheses. ? ? Should not be too ambitious but not too narrow either Both must be clearly stated ? ? Aims are usually obsessed over for months, if not years ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Hypotheses can be basic, as you cannot predict everything For the assignment: Obsess less, but still keep care to be specific and clear Example #1 ? Specific Aim #1: Evaluate the impact of a lifestyle intervention on postpartum weight loss among Hispanic women with a history of abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Hypothesis #1: Participants randomized to the lifestyle intervention will have greater adherence with IOM postpartum weight-loss guidelines at 6 and 12 months postpartum as compared to participants randomized to the comparison health and wellness intervention ? Specific Aim #2: Evaluate the impact of a lifestyle intervention on postpartum biomarkers of insulin resistance among Hispanic women with a history of abnormal glucose tolerance in pregnancy. ? Hypothesis #2: Participants randomized to the lifestyle intervention will have lower fasting concentrations of glucose, insulin, HbA1c, leptin, and TNF-α and higher concentrations of adiponectin as compared to participants randomized to the comparison health and wellness intervention. Example #2 ? Aim #1: Evaluate the impact of a 12-week individually targeted exercise intervention on risk of recurrent GDM among prenatal care patients with a history of GDM. © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Hypothesis #1: Compared to subjects in the comparison health and wellness intervention, women in the individually targeted exercise intervention will have a lower risk of recurrent GDM. ? Aim #2: Evaluate the impact of a 12-week individually targeted exercise intervention on biochemical factors associated with insulin resistance among prenatal care patients with a history of GDM. ? Hypothesis #2: Compared to subjects in the comparison health and wellness intervention, women in the individually targeted exercise intervention will have lower fasting concentrations of glucose, insulin, leptin, TNF-α, CRP, and higher concentrations of adiponectin. Example #3 © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Original Version ? Specific Aim #1: We propose to evaluate the association between light-intensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. ? Specific Aim #2: We propose to evaluate the association between moderateintensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. ? Specific Aim #3: We propose to evaluate the association between vigorousintensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. ? Improved Example ? Specific Aim #1: We propose to evaluate the association between light-, moderate-, and vigorous-intensity physical activity and risk of preterm birth. 6. Project Description ? METHODS (subhead): ? Study Design (sub-subhead): ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Briefly describe the specific study design you will be using. This will provide an introduction to the sample selection, data collection, and analysis. ? Sample selection (sub-subhead): ? Or: description of primary data source (if your project involves secondary data analysis) ? Include the size of sample, how you will recruit your sample, if you will offer incentives to participate, the geographic location you will draw your sample population from. ? Include the recruitment and training of your research assistants, if applicable. 6. Project Description ? Data Collection (sub-subhead): ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? If primary research, describe how you will collect the data (surveys, interviews, etc). For both primary and secondary research, describe how you will be measuring your independent and dependent variables (e.g. if you want to measure the variable obesity, you can collect data on an individual's BMI, waist circumference, etc.). ? How often and for how long will your collect the data? ? How will you evaluate if you have met your objectives for the proposal? (e.g. collected data from a certain amount of people) 6. Project Description ? Data Analysis (sub-subhead): ? Describe how you will analyze the data once collected. This will involve descriptions of the statistical tests (drawn from your lead article) ? ETHICS (subheading): ? ? ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Include whether your project is going to use human subjects or not. If so, describe the protections you will provide to your subjects (consent, confidentiality, etc.) Say that IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval is pending – unless you are using animals, in which case will need approval from the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). 6. Project Description ? DATA SHARING (subhead): Describe if and how you will be sharing your raw data with other researchers. ? This is NOT the same as publishing your research in a journal or sharing your results. ? Data sharing would be sharing the spreadsheets of your survey data, for example. ? Read the slides “Data Sharing” in the Grant Resources module. ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? TIMELINE (subheading): ? ? Describe timeline in paragraph form. Table or graphic is optional. 900-1000 words ? Around four pages. 7. Conclusion ? ? ? ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? Summary of the proposal's main points. Overview statement of your project, how you will do it and why Who will benefit if the proposal is completed successfully? Future research directions? 200-250 words 8. Bibliography ? © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse ? All declarative statements must be supported by references to original research publications (journal articles) Use APA in-text citations within parentheses (Smith, 2017) in your paper ? ? ? At least 8 scholarly references in APA format for Bibliography page From the last ten years Must cite all references in-text COMPONENT LENGTH Due Week 6 Due Week 7 Due Week 8 ? ? Revision Guide 1 page Cover Letter 1 page ? (prelim) ? ? 2-page PDF form ? ? ? ? ? Grant Application Form Organization Information 200-250 words Project Abstract 350-400 words ? ? Public Health Significance 75-125 words ? ? Statement of Need 450-500 words ? ? ? Project Description 900-1000 words ? ? ? Conclusion 200-250 words ? ? ? Depends ? ? ? Bibliography © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Due Week 5 ? ? (outline) Budget & Justification 1-page PDF & 1 page ? ? Human Subjects Form 1-page PDF form ? ? 16 16 ? = New ? = Revised APPROX. TOTAL PAGES 5 9 COMPONENT LENGTH Due Week 6 Due Week 7 Due Week 8 ? ? Revision Guide 1 page Cover Letter 1 page ? (prelim) ? ? 2-page PDF form ? ? ? ? ? Grant Application Form Organization Information 200-250 words Project Abstract 350-400 words ? ? Public Health Significance 75-125 words ? ? Statement of Need 450-500 words ? ? ? Project Description 900-1000 words ? ? ? Conclusion 200-250 words ? ? ? Depends ? ? ? Bibliography © 2021 Theodore K. Gideonse Due Week 5 ? ? (outline) Budget & Justification 1-page PDF & 1 page ? ? Human Subjects Form 1-page PDF form ? ? 16 16 ? = New ? = Revised APPROX. TOTAL PAGES 5 9 1 Organizational Information The Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA) was established in 1997 with the aim of doing research, advocating for change, and educating the public about health problems affecting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs). This non-profit agency had grown to cover legislative education and activism, as well as youth, performing arts, and curriculum advancement, by 1999. Since then, OCAPICA has expanded its services to include mental health and wellbeing for children and families, political involvement and voter empowerment, youth opportunities, and student mentoring and college preparation, in order to meet the needs of other underserved populations. My specific branch at OCAPICA is called RISE. RISE is the name of my division at OCAPICA. With the Rapid Re-housing and Homelessness Prevention program at OCAPICA, the Rapid Re-housing and Homelessness Prevention program seeks to decrease homelessness rates in the cities of Garden Grove and Irvine. The program uses funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV2), OCAPICA, and a variety of other non-profits in the cities of Garden Grove and Irvine to help people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. RISE seeks to help those who fall into the low-income category. The program, which is financed by Covid-related funds, has expanded its scope to include rental aid and landlord disputes for those that have been most impacted by the pandemic. Participants depend on RISE to gain living and financial security for themselves and their families. 2 Statement of Need/Objective Homelessness is a major public health concern that strains the healthcare and criminal justice systems. Chronically displaced people face conditions that are often regarded as insurmountable obstacles to conventional housing programs. Housing First models seek to reach this population more rapidly, and the Downtown Emergency Service Center's single-site housing first approach is an evolving version of this (Malone et al., 2015). Single-site House First is a program that provides chronically homeless individuals with immediate, permanent, low-barrier affordable housing in a single building. Housing First applies to supplying chronically homeless people with urgent, permanent, low-barrier, affordable housing, with all of them having co-occurring social, physical, and substance-use issues. The Housing First model's low-barrier nature has sparked debate because, unlike the continuum-of-care or longitudinal suburban models, it does not enable residents to meet any specific milestones in order to access or retain housing. The aim of this study is to look at how people with severe alcohol problems keep their homes (Collins et al., 2013). The study is important because it will assess the housing retention rate of the single-site Housing First initiative. Furthermore, the research would show that it is advantageous in terms of housing and other issues that affect this population. As a result, it will be an important part of efforts to end homelessness for chronically homeless people with co-occurring emotional, medical, and substance-use disorders. The authors studied and published two types of housing First schemes, which vary mainly in how housing units are differentiated (scattered-site Housing First) or clustered (single- 3 site or project-based Housing First). The scattered-site housing first model has been used to support chronically homeless people with primary mental illnesses since the early 1990s (Malone et al., 2015). Residents are given multiple housing units spread around a larger neighborhood, and an assertive community care model makes social services accessible. The single-site solution provides residents with separate units within a single building and the option of providing onsite social services. Despite these differences, both models show the elements of the "Housing First Checklist" established by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness. In 2005 and 2008, the Downtown Emergency Service Center initiated a Housing First program, which has since developed into a well-known single-site Housing First network. According to the study, the Housing First Model is critical for engaging and housing chronically homeless people. The Downtown Emergency Service Center will be used as an example to demonstrate single-site Housing First, enumerate its underlying concepts, and provide a solid reference base for replication in this report. Information on the components of a successful single-site Housing First project, as well as how it operates, are included in the report. One example of a single-site Housing First model is the Downtown Emergency Care Center, which focuses on chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism, who are the most frequent recipients of governmentfunded services. The aim of this study is to put to the test the commonly held belief that people who are chronically homeless actually do not want to be housed. In addition, the study would examine the hypothesis that people who regularly use alcohol and other medications have more serious psychological issues, are sicker, and have a longer history of chronic homelessness are less likely to sustain housing. Since single-site 4 Housing First uses a low-barrier model with strong social service elements to adequately meet the needs of this demographic, the study hypotheses that these factors will not impede housing retention (Malone et al., 2015) . In addition, the study will determine the percentage of people who return to homelessness after leaving a housing project and test predictors of this reversion to homelessness. Project description In the form of a single-sight, housing retention and related factors a place to live. The first solution will be investigated for chronically homeless people with serious alcohol issues. The first goal would be to put to the test the commonly held belief that chronically homeless people actually do not want to be housed. The majority of participants who will demonstrate an interest in accessing housing would be hypothesized based on the results of a previous study in this community. The second goal would be to test the hypothesis that people who regularly use alcohol and other drugs, have more serious psychological issues, are sicker, and have a longer history of chronic homelessness are less likely to keep their housing. Since single-site Housing First uses a low-barrier model with strong social service elements to adequately meet the needs of this community, it would be hypothesized if such factors will prevent housing retention. The third target would be to determine the number of people who return to homelessness after leaving a housing project and to look for predictors. These secondary studies will be conducted as part of a nonrandomized controlled trial comparing the impact of a single-site Housing First intervention and a wait-list control condition 5 on public service use and costs. Chronically homeless people with serious alcohol issues who entered a Housing First program in Seattle between December 2005 and August 2008 will be the participants. The broader parent sample will be taken from two sources: a rank-ordered list of persons who experienced the largest public expenses in 2004 for alcohol-related use in emergency services, hospitals, sobering centres, and county jail, and a list of eligible individuals recommended by service practitioners familiar with the target demographic. Single items may be used to assess demographic factors such as age, gender, racial/ethnic origin, and history of homelessness during the baseline interviews. Single items would be used to gauge participants' views about abstinence-based accommodation at the onset. These elements would be used in descriptive reviews. Inferential statistical models may use variables with demographic characteristics to classify samples and as predictors. The Addiction Severity Index's substance-use prevalence portion, which is an accurate and true predictor of various substanceuse outcomes, will be used to measure alcohol and other drug use in the previous 30 days. Following that, data on alcohol and other drug consumption will be dichotomized to represent baseline use over the preceding 30 days, and these data will be used as predictors in inferential statistical models. Participants' experience of clinical symptoms will be assessed using six scales from the well-validated 53-item Brief Symptom Inventory: interpersonal sensitivity, such as feelings of inadequacy or distress during interpersonal encounters, depression, anxiety, aggression, delusional ideation, and psychoticism. Inferential statistical models can use the baseline means of 6 the six 5-point subscales as predictors. The Physical Health Form will have 20 dichotomous items that will measure participants' illness burden, based on a 30-day self-reported history of health conditions common to this population, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatitis, frostbite, and broken bones. To build the illness burden indicator for inferential statistical analyses, the baseline number of positive responses for each of the 20 symptoms or illnesses will be added together. Housing information for each participant would be retrieved from housing department documents. The number of days continuously housed for each person will be estimated for the two years after their transfer into this particular housing project, and this variable will be used as an outcome in informative analyses and as a censoring variable in survival analyses. Retention in this housing project over the 2-year follow-up will be an outcome predictor in generalized estimating equation (GEE) experiments. Finally, in logistic regression analyses, a return to homelessness would be used as an outcome variable. Since they are in the neighborhood, people on the priority list will be given single-site Housing First units in the parent report. Until the Housing First initiative is completed, more participants may be added to a waiting list. The parent summary may be approved verbally by housing program staff. And, regardless of whether or not they partake in the project, participating parties will consult with research personnel for an educational session for which they will be paid. Participants either completed the baseline assessment right away or were scheduled for follow-up appointments after providing written, informed consent. Participants were paid $20 for 7 participating in self-report data collection interviews, which took place at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. In this analysis, only baseline self-report data were used to describe the sample and as predictors in the primary outcome analyses. Participants (n = 111) who moved into the Housing First project during the study were analyzed; the start of the 2-year study period was determined by the participants' individual move-in dates. The SPSS version will be used to calculate descriptive statistics. Preliminary descriptive analyses will be carried out to determine the shapes of the outcome variable distributions and the presence of outliers, as well as to provide descriptive statistics on the sample demographic variables, housing attitudes, housing retention outcomes, and reasons for leaving housing. STATA version 11.2 can be used for inferential analysis. The value will be set to.05, and 95 percent confidence intervals will be used. The Housing First project will use an exponential survival model with time before initial move-out as the censoring or offset portion to evaluate sex, race/ethnicity, history of homelessness, disease burden, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological symptoms as predictors of survival. As a result, it would be crucial to see how risk factors will predict not only "survival," but also overall time spent in housing over a period of transition. Over the course of the 2-year analysis, a logistic GEE model would be used to test the same set of explanatory variables as predictors of presence in the Housing First project. Finally, a logistic regression would be used to see whether the same set of explanatory variables might determine whether or not a housing discontinuity meant a return to homelessness. 8 These data will enable the first longitudinal study of housing retention in single-site Housing First units, adding a unique and important contribution to the literature on homelessness and housing. The researchers would collect data from both sides, the Housing First project and housing episodes in other living arrangements, to provide enough information to draw fair conclusions. Researchers' inability to define how to evaluate the effectiveness of the Downtown Emergency Service Center Model may have created differences in findings between the data collection instruments, as shown by qualitative and quantitative analyses. In this scenario, the quantitative measure would better cover the results that the researchers need, lowering material validity and preventing researchers from incorrectly assessing the effectiveness of Housing First for chronically homeless people (Malone et al., 2015). As a result, the researchers will use the requisite data collection techniques to determine housing preservation in single-site Housing First programs for chronically homeless individuals with serious alcohol issues. Due to the complexity and uniqueness of the research and setting, the findings may not be generalizable to other populations or housing environments. Although providers and policymakers offered external explanations, it may become increasingly necessary to understand the factors at play in this context. As a consequence, in a randomized controlled trial, using simple random selection eliminates potential explanations for the outcomes, reduces bias, and allows for causation inference by showing findings exclusively attributable to the intervention. Conclusion 9 The study examines the components of a competitive single-site Housing First program, as well as how it functions in practice. One example of a single-site Housing First model is the Downtown Emergency Care Center, which focuses on chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism, who are the most frequent recipients of government-funded services (Clifasefi et al., 2016). Because of the population's particular features, the findings presented could not be generalized. As a result, researchers should look at the impact of single-site Housing First approaches on drug use, mental health, and quality of life for all populations that use single-site Housing First. Housing First is crucial for engaging and housing chronically homeless individuals, according to accumulating scientific and clinical evidence. Since deciding that accommodation must come first, the question of what should come second has remained unanswered. At the Downtown Emergency Service Center, this issue is being resolved by focusing on assisting residents in living a full life in the community. Members of the crew, for example, assist with job searches and outreach programs. Although further research is required to determine the viability of Housing First for chronically homeless people with extreme alcoholism, it has the potential to reduce the number of people who are homeless. Despite this, the study's weaknesses preclude researchers from assessing the Housing First initiative's viability. Data from the Housing First initiative as well as housing episodes in other living situations will be examined to help fill in the study's gaps. A randomized design and random sampling can help to minimize the issue of selection bias. 10 Finally, weak data collection measures can be strengthened by using strong and consistent quantitative and qualitative measures. When contemplating these changes, the study will confidently use the Downtown Emergency Service Center to show the effectiveness of a single-site Housing First program. 11 Bibliography Appel, P. W., Tsemberis, S., Joseph, H., Stefancic, A., & Lambert-Wacey, D. (2012). Housing First for severely mentally ill homeless methadone patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 31(3), 270-277. Collins, S. E., Malone, D. K., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2013). Housing retention in single-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems. American journal of public health, 103(S2), S269-S274. Clifasefi, S. L., Collins, S. E., Torres, N. I., Grazioli, V. S., & Mackelprang, J. L. (2016). Housing first, but what comes second? A qualitative study of resident, staff and management perspectives on single-site housing first program enhancement. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(7), 845-855. Henwood, B. F., Dichter, H., Tynan, R., Simiriglia, C., Boermer, K., & Fussaro, A. (2015). Service use before and after the provision of scatter-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol use disorders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 883-886. Kirst, M., Zerger, S., Misir, V., Hwang, S., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2015). The impact of a Housing First randomized controlled trial on substance use problems among homeless individuals with mental illness. Drug and alcohol dependence, 146, 24-29. Malone, D. K., Collins, S. E., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2015). Single-site housing first for chronically homeless people. Housing, care and Support. 12 Mackelprang, J. L., Collins, S. E., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2014). Housing First is associated with reduced use of emergency medical services. Prehospital Emergency Care, 18(4), 476-482. Stahl, N., Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., & Hagopian, A. (2016). When Housing First lasts: Exploring the lived experience of single-site Housing First residents. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(4), 484-498. 1 Organizational Information The Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance (OCAPICA) was established in 1997 with the aim of doing research, advocating for change, and educating the public about health problems affecting Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders (AAPIs). This non-profit agency had grown to cover legislative education and activism, as well as youth, performing arts, and curriculum advancement, by 1999. Since then, OCAPICA has expanded its services to include mental health and wellbeing for children and families, political involvement and voter empowerment, youth opportunities, and student mentoring and college preparation, in order to meet the needs of other underserved populations. My specific branch at OCAPICA is called RISE. RISE is the name of my division at OCAPICA. With the Rapid Re-housing and Homelessness Prevention program at OCAPICA, the Rapid Re-housing and Homelessness Prevention program seeks to decrease homelessness rates in the cities of Garden Grove and Irvine. The program uses funding from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development's Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG-CV2), OCAPICA, and a variety of other non-profits in the cities of Garden Grove and Irvine to help people who are homeless or at risk of being homeless. RISE seeks to help those who fall into the low-income category. The program, which is financed by Covid-related funds, has expanded its scope to include rental aid and landlord disputes for those that have been most impacted by the pandemic. Participants depend on RISE to gain living and financial security for themselves and their families. 2 Statement of Need/Objective Homelessness is a major public health concern that strains the healthcare and criminal justice systems. Chronically displaced people face conditions that are often regarded as insurmountable obstacles to conventional housing programs. Housing First models seek to reach this population more rapidly, and the Downtown Emergency Service Center's single-site housing first approach is an evolving version of this (Malone et al., 2015). Single-site House First is a program that provides chronically homeless individuals with immediate, permanent, low-barrier affordable housing in a single building. Housing First applies to supplying chronically homeless people with urgent, permanent, low-barrier, affordable housing, with all of them having co-occurring social, physical, and substance-use issues. The Housing First model's low-barrier nature has sparked debate because, unlike the continuum-of-care or longitudinal suburban models, it does not enable residents to meet any specific milestones in order to access or retain housing. The aim of this study is to look at how people with severe alcohol problems keep their homes (Collins et al., 2013). The study is important because it will assess the housing retention rate of the single-site Housing First initiative. Furthermore, the research would show that it is advantageous in terms of housing and other issues that affect this population. As a result, it will be an important part of efforts to end homelessness for chronically homeless people with co-occurring emotional, medical, and substance-use disorders. The authors studied and published two types of housing First schemes, which vary mainly in how housing units are differentiated (scattered-site Housing First) or clustered (single- 3 site or project-based Housing First). The scattered-site housing first model has been used to support chronically homeless people with primary mental illnesses since the early 1990s (Malone et al., 2015). Residents are given multiple housing units spread around a larger neighborhood, and an assertive community care model makes social services accessible. The single-site solution provides residents with separate units within a single building and the option of providing onsite social services. Despite these differences, both models show the elements of the "Housing First Checklist" established by the US Interagency Council on Homelessness. In 2005 and 2008, the Downtown Emergency Service Center initiated a Housing First program, which has since developed into a well-known single-site Housing First network. According to the study, the Housing First Model is critical for engaging and housing chronically homeless people. The Downtown Emergency Service Center will be used as an example to demonstrate single-site Housing First, enumerate its underlying concepts, and provide a solid reference base for replication in this report. Information on the components of a successful single-site Housing First project, as well as how it operates, are included in the report. One example of a single-site Housing First model is the Downtown Emergency Care Center, which focuses on chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism, who are the most frequent recipients of governmentfunded services. The aim of this study is to put to the test the commonly held belief that people who are chronically homeless actually do not want to be housed. In addition, the study would examine the hypothesis that people who regularly use alcohol and other medications have more serious psychological issues, are sicker, and have a longer history of chronic homelessness are less likely to sustain housing. Since single-site 4 Housing First uses a low-barrier model with strong social service elements to adequately meet the needs of this demographic, the study hypotheses that these factors will not impede housing retention (Malone et al., 2015) . In addition, the study will determine the percentage of people who return to homelessness after leaving a housing project and test predictors of this reversion to homelessness. Project description In the form of a single-sight, housing retention and related factors a place to live. The first solution will be investigated for chronically homeless people with serious alcohol issues. The first goal would be to put to the test the commonly held belief that chronically homeless people actually do not want to be housed. The majority of participants who will demonstrate an interest in accessing housing would be hypothesized based on the results of a previous study in this community. The second goal would be to test the hypothesis that people who regularly use alcohol and other drugs, have more serious psychological issues, are sicker, and have a longer history of chronic homelessness are less likely to keep their housing. Since single-site Housing First uses a low-barrier model with strong social service elements to adequately meet the needs of this community, it would be hypothesized if such factors will prevent housing retention. The third target would be to determine the number of people who return to homelessness after leaving a housing project and to look for predictors. These secondary studies will be conducted as part of a nonrandomized controlled trial comparing the impact of a single-site Housing First intervention and a wait-list control condition 5 on public service use and costs. Chronically homeless people with serious alcohol issues who entered a Housing First program in Seattle between December 2005 and August 2008 will be the participants. The broader parent sample will be taken from two sources: a rank-ordered list of persons who experienced the largest public expenses in 2004 for alcohol-related use in emergency services, hospitals, sobering centres, and county jail, and a list of eligible individuals recommended by service practitioners familiar with the target demographic. Single items may be used to assess demographic factors such as age, gender, racial/ethnic origin, and history of homelessness during the baseline interviews. Single items would be used to gauge participants' views about abstinence-based accommodation at the onset. These elements would be used in descriptive reviews. Inferential statistical models may use variables with demographic characteristics to classify samples and as predictors. The Addiction Severity Index's substance-use prevalence portion, which is an accurate and true predictor of various substanceuse outcomes, will be used to measure alcohol and other drug use in the previous 30 days. Following that, data on alcohol and other drug consumption will be dichotomized to represent baseline use over the preceding 30 days, and these data will be used as predictors in inferential statistical models. Participants' experience of clinical symptoms will be assessed using six scales from the well-validated 53-item Brief Symptom Inventory: interpersonal sensitivity, such as feelings of inadequacy or distress during interpersonal encounters, depression, anxiety, aggression, delusional ideation, and psychoticism. Inferential statistical models can use the baseline means of 6 the six 5-point subscales as predictors. The Physical Health Form will have 20 dichotomous items that will measure participants' illness burden, based on a 30-day self-reported history of health conditions common to this population, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, hepatitis, frostbite, and broken bones. To build the illness burden indicator for inferential statistical analyses, the baseline number of positive responses for each of the 20 symptoms or illnesses will be added together. Housing information for each participant would be retrieved from housing department documents. The number of days continuously housed for each person will be estimated for the two years after their transfer into this particular housing project, and this variable will be used as an outcome in informative analyses and as a censoring variable in survival analyses. Retention in this housing project over the 2-year follow-up will be an outcome predictor in generalized estimating equation (GEE) experiments. Finally, in logistic regression analyses, a return to homelessness would be used as an outcome variable. Since they are in the neighborhood, people on the priority list will be given single-site Housing First units in the parent report. Until the Housing First initiative is completed, more participants may be added to a waiting list. The parent summary may be approved verbally by housing program staff. And, regardless of whether or not they partake in the project, participating parties will consult with research personnel for an educational session for which they will be paid. Participants either completed the baseline assessment right away or were scheduled for follow-up appointments after providing written, informed consent. Participants were paid $20 for 7 participating in self-report data collection interviews, which took place at baseline, 3-, 6-, 9-, 12-, 18-, and 24-month follow-ups. In this analysis, only baseline self-report data were used to describe the sample and as predictors in the primary outcome analyses. Participants (n = 111) who moved into the Housing First project during the study were analyzed; the start of the 2-year study period was determined by the participants' individual move-in dates. The SPSS version will be used to calculate descriptive statistics. Preliminary descriptive analyses will be carried out to determine the shapes of the outcome variable distributions and the presence of outliers, as well as to provide descriptive statistics on the sample demographic variables, housing attitudes, housing retention outcomes, and reasons for leaving housing. STATA version 11.2 can be used for inferential analysis. The value will be set to.05, and 95 percent confidence intervals will be used. The Housing First project will use an exponential survival model with time before initial move-out as the censoring or offset portion to evaluate sex, race/ethnicity, history of homelessness, disease burden, alcohol and other drug use, and psychological symptoms as predictors of survival. As a result, it would be crucial to see how risk factors will predict not only "survival," but also overall time spent in housing over a period of transition. Over the course of the 2-year analysis, a logistic GEE model would be used to test the same set of explanatory variables as predictors of presence in the Housing First project. Finally, a logistic regression would be used to see whether the same set of explanatory variables might determine whether or not a housing discontinuity meant a return to homelessness. 8 These data will enable the first longitudinal study of housing retention in single-site Housing First units, adding a unique and important contribution to the literature on homelessness and housing. The researchers would collect data from both sides, the Housing First project and housing episodes in other living arrangements, to provide enough information to draw fair conclusions. Researchers' inability to define how to evaluate the effectiveness of the Downtown Emergency Service Center Model may have created differences in findings between the data collection instruments, as shown by qualitative and quantitative analyses. In this scenario, the quantitative measure would better cover the results that the researchers need, lowering material validity and preventing researchers from incorrectly assessing the effectiveness of Housing First for chronically homeless people (Malone et al., 2015). As a result, the researchers will use the requisite data collection techniques to determine housing preservation in single-site Housing First programs for chronically homeless individuals with serious alcohol issues. Due to the complexity and uniqueness of the research and setting, the findings may not be generalizable to other populations or housing environments. Although providers and policymakers offered external explanations, it may become increasingly necessary to understand the factors at play in this context. As a consequence, in a randomized controlled trial, using simple random selection eliminates potential explanations for the outcomes, reduces bias, and allows for causation inference by showing findings exclusively attributable to the intervention. Conclusion 9 The study examines the components of a competitive single-site Housing First program, as well as how it functions in practice. One example of a single-site Housing First model is the Downtown Emergency Care Center, which focuses on chronically homeless people with severe alcoholism, who are the most frequent recipients of government-funded services (Clifasefi et al., 2016). Because of the population's particular features, the findings presented could not be generalized. As a result, researchers should look at the impact of single-site Housing First approaches on drug use, mental health, and quality of life for all populations that use single-site Housing First. Housing First is crucial for engaging and housing chronically homeless individuals, according to accumulating scientific and clinical evidence. Since deciding that accommodation must come first, the question of what should come second has remained unanswered. At the Downtown Emergency Service Center, this issue is being resolved by focusing on assisting residents in living a full life in the community. Members of the crew, for example, assist with job searches and outreach programs. Although further research is required to determine the viability of Housing First for chronically homeless people with extreme alcoholism, it has the potential to reduce the number of people who are homeless. Despite this, the study's weaknesses preclude researchers from assessing the Housing First initiative's viability. Data from the Housing First initiative as well as housing episodes in other living situations will be examined to help fill in the study's gaps. A randomized design and random sampling can help to minimize the issue of selection bias. 10 Finally, weak data collection measures can be strengthened by using strong and consistent quantitative and qualitative measures. When contemplating these changes, the study will confidently use the Downtown Emergency Service Center to show the effectiveness of a single-site Housing First program. 11 Bibliography Appel, P. W., Tsemberis, S., Joseph, H., Stefancic, A., & Lambert-Wacey, D. (2012). Housing First for severely mentally ill homeless methadone patients. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 31(3), 270-277. Collins, S. E., Malone, D. K., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2013). Housing retention in single-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems. American journal of public health, 103(S2), S269-S274. Clifasefi, S. L., Collins, S. E., Torres, N. I., Grazioli, V. S., & Mackelprang, J. L. (2016). Housing first, but what comes second? A qualitative study of resident, staff and management perspectives on single-site housing first program enhancement. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(7), 845-855. Henwood, B. F., Dichter, H., Tynan, R., Simiriglia, C., Boermer, K., & Fussaro, A. (2015). Service use before and after the provision of scatter-site housing first for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol use disorders. International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(9), 883-886. Kirst, M., Zerger, S., Misir, V., Hwang, S., & Stergiopoulos, V. (2015). The impact of a Housing First randomized controlled trial on substance use problems among homeless individuals with mental illness. Drug and alcohol dependence, 146, 24-29. Malone, D. K., Collins, S. E., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2015). Single-site housing first for chronically homeless people. Housing, care and Support. 12 Mackelprang, J. L., Collins, S. E., & Clifasefi, S. L. (2014). Housing First is associated with reduced use of emergency medical services. Prehospital Emergency Care, 18(4), 476-482. Stahl, N., Collins, S. E., Clifasefi, S. L., & Hagopian, A. (2016). When Housing First lasts: Exploring the lived experience of single-site Housing First residents. Journal of Community Psychology, 44(4), 484-498. Dear Christine Nguyen, I have reviewed the comments you made on the second draft of my grant proposal and have addressed your comments in my final draft. I have fixed minor details and grammar errors all throughout the entire proposal to include missing information and improve the overall flow. I hope you enjoy the final draft of my grant proposal. In the cover letter I have included the dollar amount requested for the funding in this project and have also shortened one of the sentences to remove unnecessary wording. For the organizational information, I have explained how the research is relevant to the site which was not explained clearly in my previous draft. For the project summary, the main issue was sentence length. To correct this, I broke up the lengthier sentence into two smaller sentences. The public health significance section was merged with my project summary, now it is given its own section with a heading. In this section I have discerned whether each goal is long or short term. In the timeline, I have included the names of the months to be more specific and to provide clarity. I have also clarified the future research directions because it was incorrectly done in my last draft. Other minor errors were fixed that included eliminating all first-person perspective sentences and grammar errors. Sincerely, T o drick T a m a n d u a 1 Social Epidemiology and Research in Community Health Lab 653 E. Peltason Dr. Irvine, CA 92617 16 February 2021 NIH Center for Scientific Research 6701 Rockledge Drive Room 1040-MSC 7710 Bethesda, MD 20817 To Whom it May Concern: I am pleased to present this grant proposal titled “Vaccination Beliefs and Barriers in Lowincome, Urban Populations” for consideration under the NIH Research Grant Program (R01) with PA-20-185 which was discussed with Jennifer Alvidrez. Please assign this application to the following: Institutes/Centers National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NIMHD) Scientific Review Groups Community Influences on Health Behavior (CIHB) This project corresponds with the missions of NIMHD which is to enhance the healthcare among minority communities to reduce health disparities. This correlates with the goals of this study because the main focal point is on low-income, urban communities and understanding how their vaccination beliefs affect these groups in pandemic situations. These impoverished areas are home to minority groups and their vaccination beliefs assist in understanding any barriers to healthcare they have. We are respectfully requesting $427,099.94. The NIH study section being requested is the CIHB. This study section focuses on how community factors influence health behaviors and risks. This relates closely to my study because it focuses on the community level and how specific factors of that community impact the general health of the populations and my chosen study focuses on vaccination beliefs in the low-income, urban populations of Los Angeles County. Sincerely, Emily Drum Site Supervisor OMB Number: 4040-0001 Expiration Date: 12/31/2022 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 3. DATE RECEIVED BY STATE 1. TYPE OF SUBMISSION 4. a. Federal Identifier SF 424 (R&R) Pre-application Application 2. DATE SUBMITTED Changed/Corrected Application b. Agency Routing Identifier Applicant Identifier c. Previous Grants.gov Tracking ID 2-23-2021 5. APPLICANT INFORMATION Legal Name: Organizational DUNS: Social Epidemiology and Research in Community Health Department: Street1: State Application Identifier Division: 653 E. Peltason Drive Street2: City: Irvine State: California Country: USA: United States of America County / Parish: Province: ZIP / Postal Code: 92617 Person to be contacted on matters involving this application Prefix: First Name: Last Name: Middle Name: Todrick Suffix: Tamandua Position/Title: Street1: 653 E. Peltason Drive Street2: City: Irvine State: California Province: Country: USA: United States of America ZIP / Postal Code: Phone Number: Email: County / Parish: 92617 Fax Number: (949)824-5011 bonavene@uci.edu 6. EMPLOYER IDENTIFICATION (EIN) or (TIN): 7. TYPE OF APPLICANT: H. Public/State Controlled Institution of Higher Education Other (Specify): Small Business Organization Type Women Owned 8. TYPE OF APPLICATION: New Renewal If Revision, mark appropriate box(es). Resubmission Continuation Socially and Economically Disadvantaged A. Increase Award Revision Is this application being submitted to other agencies? B. Decrease Award E. Other (specify): Yes No What other Agencies? 10. CATALOG OF FEDERAL DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE NUMBER: TITLE: 9. NAME OF FEDERAL AGENCY: National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities 11. DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF APPLICANT'S PROJECT: Vaccination Beliefs and Barriers in Low-Income, Urban Populations 12. PROPOSED PROJECT: Start Date Ending Date 4-01-2021 4-01-2022 C. Increase Duration 13. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT OF APPLICANT CA-45 D. Decrease Duration 2 SF 424 (R&R) Page 2 APPLICATION FOR FEDERAL ASSISTANCE 14. PROJECT DIRECTOR/PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR CONTACT INFORMATION Prefix: First Name: Last Name: Middle Name: Emily Suffix: Drum Position/Title: Research Manager Organization Name: Social Epidemiology and Research in Community Health Lab Department: Street1: Division: 653 E. Peltason Drive Street2: City: County / Parish: Irvine State: Province: California Country: USA: United States of America Phone Number: Email: ZIP / Postal Code: 92617 92617 Fax Number: (949)824-5011 edrum@hs.uci.edu 15. ESTIMATED PROJECT FUNDING 16. IS APPLICATION SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS? a. Total Federal Funds Requested $427,099.94 b. Total Non-Federal Funds $0 c. Total Federal & Non-Federal Funds $427,099.94 d. Estimated Program Income $0 a. YES THIS PREAPPLICATION/APPLICATION WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE STATE EXECUTIVE ORDER 12372 PROCESS FOR REVIEW ON: DATE: b. NO 2-23-2021 PROGRAM IS NOT COVERED BY E.O. 12372; OR PROGRAM HAS NOT BEEN SELECTED BY STATE FOR REVIEW 17. By signing this application, I certify (1) to the statements contained in the list of certifications* and (2) that the statements herein are true, complete and accurate to the best of my knowledge. I also provide the required assurances * and agree to comply with any resulting terms if I accept an award. I am aware that any false, fictitious. or fraudulent statements or claims may subject me to criminal, civil, or administrative penalties. (U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001) I agree *The list of certifications and assurances, or an Internet site where you may obtain this list, is contained in the announcement or agency specific instructions. 18. SFLLL (Disclosure of Lobbying Activities) or other Explanatory Documentation Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 19. Authorized Representative First Name: Prefix: Last Name: Middle Name: Todrick Suffix: Tamandua Position/Title: Director of Extramural Funding Organization: Social Epidemiology and Research in Community Health Lab Department: Street1: Division: 653 E. Peltason Dr. Street2: City: State: Country: Province: California ZIP / Postal Code: USA: United States of America Phone Number: Email: County / Parish: Irvine (949)824-5011 92617 Fax Number: bonavene@uci.edu Date Signed Signature of Authorized Representative 2-16-2021 20. Pre-application Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 21. Cover Letter Attachment Add Attachment Delete Attachment View Attachment 3 4 Organization Information The Social Epidemiology and Research in Community Health (SEARCH) lab at the University of California, Irvine assists with activities that aid research conducted by Dean Bernadette Boden-Albala. The mission of SEARCH lab and the research done by Dean Bernadette Boden-Albala is to utilize behavioral and demographic data to analyze disease risk factors on a global and domestic level. A large portion of her research consists of stroke prevention studies as well as how to combat health disparities among minority groups. Dean Bernadette Boden-Albala is the director and founding dean of the program in public health at UCI; she is an expert in the social epidemiology of cardiovascular disease and stroke. SEARCH Lab centers on the biological and social mechanisms that frame the health of different communities and populations globally and involves research assistants as well as undergraduate interns. Seeing that this lab focuses on the social epidemiology aspect of public health, the components of an individual’s surroundings that include their cultural, economic, social, and psychological environment are examined based on their interactions and how they affect well-being, disease, and health. The purpose of social epidemiology is to define and intervene on the social determinants of disease and to analyze how the role of sex, race, ethnicity, social network, stress and so forth impacts health on all levels. Within this lab, literature reviews are conducted, research material and studies are developed, and other procedural support for these research activities are carried out with its focal point on COVID-19, stroke, chronic disease, and risk factors among populations that are overlooked but are at high risk for health disparities and disease. This research is relevant to the site because all of the literature reviews and research studies being conducted fall under the category of COVID-19, stroke, and minority groups. 5 Project Summary During this cross-sectional study, the overall objective is to examine and analyze the vaccination beliefs among individuals in the urban, low-income population of Los Angeles County to create an understanding of the impact these beliefs have during a pandemic situation and to apply the results of this study to other high-risk communities. Moreover, this crosssectional study will also investigate the impact that transportation to vaccine dissemination sites and affordability of vaccination has on these attitudes and beliefs. The results of this study will have external validity that can be applied to similar communities. This will allow for a creation of a profile that can be applied to these communities and also be utilized by public health officials to enhance outreach to these vulnerable individuals as well as increase pandemic preparedness. All of which will be achieved by conducting a cross-sectional survey of 1,500 individuals in Los Angeles County. These individuals will be selected from five free public health clinics that are located in the impoverished areas of the county. On selected days, researchers will be recruiting and enrolling participants in the waiting room of these clinics using a systematic serial sampling process. Prior to completing the survey, respondents will give their informed consent and their responses will remain confidential with Human Subjects protection. This 36-question survey will have a combination of short answer and multiple-choice responses and descriptive analyses will be used to generate the frequency distribution using the SAS system. Under a data-sharing agreement the results of this study will be made available to participants and other researchers. This study will take a total of 12 months and will require $427,099.94 of federal funding. 6 Public Health Significance For this study, the impact that affordability of vaccines and transportation to vaccine dissemination sites has on the attitude and beliefs towards seasonal influenza vaccination will be observed among the low-income, urban population in Los Angeles County. The public health significance is that the results from this study will then be used to create a profile for other highrisk populations to contribute to increasing pandemic preparedness and decreasing mortality and infection rate among vulnerable populations. This study will also create a better understanding of the barriers to vaccination these populations face and will give public health officials a better idea on how to eliminate these barriers and increase vaccination accessibility in the long term. It will also provide an opportunity to correct any myths or misconceptions members of these communities have on vaccination in the short term as well as improving vaccination knowledge overall in the long term. 7 Statement of Need/Objective Rapid dissemination of a vaccine is key to reducing the mortality rate during a pandemic, yet uptake of these vaccinations face multiple challenges and vulnerable populations are immensely affected (Redelings et al., 2012). The purpose of this cross-sectional survey is to analyze the beliefs and attitudes about the seasonal influenza vaccine in low-income populations in the urban areas of Los Angeles County. Disparities among racial/ethnic groups propose that these underserved groups are disproportionately impacted by influenza strains during a pandemic (Redelings et al., 2012). Understanding the attitude, knowledge, and beliefs of vaccinations in these populations can aid influenza pandemic efforts given by health departments. Vaccines have demonstrated proven effectiveness and prevent approximately 2 to 3 million deaths a year (Gualano et al., 2019). This cross-sectional study will not only evaluate the attitude, knowledge, and beliefs about the seasonal influenza vaccination in the urban, low-income areas of Los Angeles County, but it will also take into consideration the impact that affordability of vaccination and transportation to vaccination dissemination sites has on these beliefs which is a current gap in knowledge. A qualitative study in Appalachian, Kentucky indicated that transportation was a major factor among the uptake of the HPV vaccine for women; many described transportation as problematic and results revealed that these transportation issues served as a barrier to receiving the HPV vaccine (Mills et al., 2013). It is essential to consider transportation because if vaccinations are not even accessible to an individual or group of people it forms an obstacle and has the ability to alter perception of vaccination. In a study conducted on the role that affordability had on the uptake of the HPV vaccination, the results revealed that insurance and cost barriers need to be considered; higher income individuals and those with HMOs were more 8 likely to of finished or initiated the HPV vaccination series (Pourat & Jones, 2012). Both transportation and affordability are major deciding factors for receiving a vaccination and need to be considered in order to effectively evaluate vaccination beliefs and understand vaccination uptake especially among overlooked populations. Compared to previous studies, this study is new and innovative because it will utilize the affordability and transportation component of receiving the seasonal influenza vaccination among underserved communities and will apply the external validity of the results to other urban, low-income populations with an overall objective to increase pandemic preparedness. Studies have been conducted on observing vaccination beliefs among high-risk groups but not on the root of these beliefs and what can be done since vaccination decisions have ramifications on the individual and public health as a whole. At this given time, there are many groups domestically and globally who refuse to receive recommended vaccinations and this opposition remains widespread despite the demonstrated efficacy of these vaccinations (Gualano et al., 2019). Pandemic situations can be unpredictable, and the impact of this study would identify any misconceptions, concerns, and barriers these high-risk populations have in order to give public health officials an idea on how to curve the seasonal influenza pandemic and other pandemic situations overall. 9 Project Description/Narrative Hypothesis and Specific Aims The overall objective of this project is to observe vaccination beliefs, attitudes, and knowledge about the seasonal influenza vaccine in the urban, low-income population of Los Angeles County. The results from this study will then be applied to other urban, low-income populations to enhance pandemic preparedness and decrease infection and mortality rate within these high-risk populations. Aim 1 is to examine the impact transportation to clinic sites and affordability of vaccines has on vaccination beliefs and attitudes as well as the uptake of the seasonal influenza vaccine. Hypothesis 1 is that those that lack transportation to vaccine d...

Option 1

Low Cost Option
Download this past answer in few clicks

16.89 USD

PURCHASE SOLUTION

Already member?


Option 2

Custom new solution created by our subject matter experts

GET A QUOTE

Related Questions