MPH610 Assignment #4: Public Health Intervention Grant Proposal and Presentation

35% of course grade / 70 points 

Students will bring together knowledge and insights developed over this course on their health topic of interest and create their own public health intervention grant proposal. 

 

The purpose of this assignment is for you to synthesize your learnings over this course to create your own theory and evidence-based public health program to address a social or behavioral health topic. 

 

If you have questions about this assignment, please post them on the General Discussion board in Engage.  

 

Instructions:  

 

1. Program Proposal Narrative (35 pts)

 

Format:?  Papers should be under 10 pages long, double-spaced, 12-font and 1” margins all around. APA format should be followed throughout, including all cited references.  Citations are not included in the 10-page limit. You should have many citations to support your ideas.

 

Contents:  Please follow the below outline as a guide.  In each section, ensure you provide a?  concise and clear description of your program idea with a strong theoretical justification. Cite sources throughout to justify your proposal. All figures should be labeled with a figure number and description. 

 

Writing tips: Use third-person language throughout. Write efficiently. Check your paper for?  redundancy and avoid repeating yourself. All figures should be able to stand alone. If you want to explain or describe the contents of your logic model, only do so if it improves comprehension or elaborates on the contents of the model. I am most interested in your understanding of theory in this paper. 

 

Required Sections: 

 

1.    Background & Significance 

• A clear description of the need for services/program based on lit review
• A detailed description of the area and population to be served 
• Review of existing programs that address this health problem
• Construct a ?Logic Model of the Problem? that represents behavioral and environmental determinants of the health problem

 

2.    Objectives and Outcomes 

• Clearly state and justify your program’s goals and outcomes of interest: Health Outcomes, Behavioral and Environmental Change outcomes
• Describe and justify your program’s Performance and Change Objectives 

 

3. Theoretical Basis 

• Provide a clear theoretical basis for your chosen outcomes by identifying at least 2 applicable social/behavioral theories. Describe how the theories explain the problem and the potential solution. 
• Construct a L?ogic Model of Change? that demonstrates your theory of change, or how you believe the health outcome will be improved through your program. 
• Discuss the relationship between the social/behavioral theories and your Logic Model of Change.  

 

4.    Program design and implementation plan 

• Describe where the program will take place and justify it as an appropriate setting for the program. 
• Clearly describe the activities your program will actually do in order to achieve the desired change in your program’s outcomes and objectives. Each activity should be related to part of your ?Logic Model of Change.  

 

5.    Conclusion 

? Re-iterate how your proposed program will address social and behavioral health determinants and achieve improvement in your chosen public health issue. 

 

DUE DATE: Papers should be uploaded via Engage by 11:59?              pm on Friday of Week 8. 

 

 

2. Presentation (25 pts)

 

Presentations should be 8-10? minutes in length and created via VoiceThread. Create a full?       slideset to describe the contents of your program narrative, and deliver as a professional “pitch” to your peers and instructor. Please do not simply read your paper to your class.? Use?      your communication skills to persuade us that you have created a strong, theory-based program that we should fund! Stay grounded in evidence and theory and cite sources. Include an APA bibliography at the end. Points may be docked if you go excessively over time!?       

 

DUE DATE: Presentations should be uploaded to VoiceThread by 11:59? pm Friday of Week 8. 

 

 

3. Peer feedback (10 pts)

 

Peer Review is an essential part of the process of receiving public health funding. You will be privately assigned two classmates’ presentations to provide feedback on. Watch their presentation and provide feedback using the below template. Use theory and provide strong justifications to accompany your critiques. There is no such thing as a perfect proposal, so help your classmates out by finding ways their idea can be strengthened!  Your review should be specific and constructive, including meaningful feedback for improvements. You will receive your peers’ comments back along with your graded work. 

Peer Review template

 

Name of student receiving review: 

Program proposal: 

 

		Strengths	Areas for improvement
Significance and context	How relevant is this type of program for the issue at hand? Is the scope right? Is it addressing disparities?
Objectives & Outcomes	How specific, quantifiable, and justified are these?
Theoretical Basis	How well-justified is this?  Is the understanding of theory correct?
Logic Models	How clear and accurate are the logic models? Do they relate clearly to the theories + intervention?
Implementation Plan	How feasible is this given the setting & population?
Overall comments	Would you support funding this grant as is, with improvements, or no? Why?

 

DUE DATE: Peer feedback should be uploaded as a second attachment to the proposal dropbox by 11:59?       pm Sunday of Week 8.

               

 

Grading criteria Written Proposal	Excellent	Competent	Developing	Weak
Content    10pts possible	Paper and presentation soundly addresses all required topics. Demonstrates a strong understanding of the proposal components. Minimal need for improvement.  (9-10)	Paper and presentation adequately addresses all required topics. Demonstrates a good understanding of the proposal components and related concepts. A few areas need improvement. (8-8.5)	Paper and presentation addresses some of the required topics. Demonstrates a developing understanding of the proposal components and related concepts. Several areas need improvement. (7-7.5)	Paper or presentation does not address most required topics. Demonstrates weak understanding of the proposal components and related concepts. Major components are missing or need improvement. (0.5-6.5)
Use of theory and logic models     20pts possible	Theories are accurately identified and soundly applied. Student provides a strong theoretical perspective. Logic models are clear and utilize behavioral constructs correctly. (18-20)	Theories accurately identified and applied. Student provides an adequate theoretical perspective. Logic models are good and utilize behavioral constructs adequately. (16-17.5)	Theories identified and applied. Student provides a basic application of theory and demonstrates a simplistic theoretical perspective. Logic models are provided, but lacks clarity or needs improvement. (14-15.5)	Theory used simplistically or not properly discussed, or no theory is present at all. A logic model is not provided, or it is unclear and poorly executed. (0.5-13.5)
Strength of argument and justifications   10pts possible	Clearly argued original thought with direct citations. Problem is well-established and justified, and solution (intervention) is well justified. (9-10)	Offers original thoughts that are well supported by theory and citations. Problem and solution (intervention) are both well described with some evidence cited. (8-8.5)	Attempts to use theory. Problem and solution (intervention) are described, but supporting citations are rarely used. May rely on unsupported ideas, personal opinion, or bias.  (7-7.5)	Does not clearly justify ideas with supporting evidence. Relies too heavily on opinion. Little to no justifications provided for description of problem or solution (intervention). (0.5-6.5)
Feasibility, critical thought, and persuasiveness    10pts possible	High quality critical thinking is displayed connecting the program to theory, using strong reasoning and well-supported conclusions. Approach is thoughtfully discussed and presented persuasively. (9-10)	Basic logic and reasoning is displayed connecting the program to theory. Approach is discussed and presented with some level persuasion. (8-8.5)	Simplistic reasoning and potentially biased or unclear thinking is demonstrated. An opinion based perspective is used. Approach is not really justified to the audience, and is not very persuasive. (7-7.5)	Weak reasoning with biased or unclear thinking is demonstrated. Relies too heavily on personal opinion. Approach is not justified or is incorrectly justified, not persuasive. (0.5-6.5)
Academic writing quality and APA   5pts possible	Excellent academic writing quality. Concise scholarly tone, well organized, uses appropriate vocabulary and standard English. Clear, logical, and coherent flow. Strong skill, proper APA.  (4.5-5)	Good writing quality. Professional tone, well organized and rarely strays from appropriate vocabulary or standard English. Clear and logical flow. The introduction and conclusion frame the paper well. (4)	Acceptable writing quality. Communicates ideas, but lacks professional or academic tone. Organization, clarity, and flow need improvement. Strays from standard English and/or writing quality interferes with comprehension. (3.5)	Inadequate writing quality. Inappropriately casual tone. Lacks organization or flow. Introduction and conclusions are weak or absent. Strays from standard English. The writing quality is in the way of understanding