Format  APA Academic Level:  Masters Volume of 1 page and half Description a critical of the following ch.14 16, 17 of that book I will send you. Thank you in this book you will find the chapters mentioned in the instructions to do a reflection Kindly consider that the following has been adressed in the paper.  In reading chapters 6 through 9 in the Issel text, I found myself relating to my experience in program planning/implementation, intervention selection, and goal/objective setting.  Although I did not know the specific terminology related to Program Theory, I do feel that I have lived through the process of developing a program theory.  The value of reading the textbook, to me, was in having a better understanding of the theories and elements that must be present for an effect program theory.  In my work, I primarily utilize the Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Model of Improvement.  Although the model does not specify the details found in the textbook about the Process Theory and Effect Theory, the IHI model does include similar principles found in the text including stakeholder engagement in program planning, needs analysis, and objective/goal definition, causal/determinant factors identification, a process for identifying interventions that will affect the causes of the health problem, goal statements, and SMART objectives.  Although the IHI model has some useful tools to identify health problems and develop programs to improve those health problems, the Issel text provides a stronger, more detailed explanation of why it is important to have clear, concise statements and pictorial representations of the Causal Theory Statement and Program Theory.  Being able to ensure all stakeholders and project team members are clear on the problem, interventions, objectives, organizational capacity, and intended health outcomes/impacts is important to keep everyone focused and on track. In developing interventions I have generally referenced most of the 8 Characteristics of Good Interventions in determining if an intervention was the correct one to move forward with in a program.  The text helped to categorize these characteristics and in future projects I will use this as a checklist to ensure all are addressed.  In my position as Director of Population Health at Drexel Medicine, I am responsible for developing quality improvement plans for our practices as part of our Patient Centered Medical Home submission.  The National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) requires similar goal and objective setting standards as were outlined in Chapter 7.  Particularly, setting a target goal and not relying on words like “reduce” or “improve” to quantify the objective.  We use HealthPeople2020, NCQA, PQRS, and CMS benchmarks when developing our objectives to ensure they are reliable targets and align with our patient population.  I appreciated Issel’s list of options for creating objectives when reliable targets are not available.  It ...

1. Format
APA
Academic Level:
Masters
Volume of
1 page and half
Description
a critical of the following ch.14 16, 17 of that book I will send
you. Thank you
in this book you will find the chapters mentioned in the
instructions to do a reflection
Kindly consider that the following has been adressed in the
paper.
In reading chapters 6 through 9 in the Issel text, I found myself
relating to my experience in program planning/implementation,
intervention selection, and goal/objective setting. Although I
did not know the specific terminology related to Program
Theory, I do feel that I have lived through the process of
developing a program theory. The value of reading the
textbook, to me, was in having a better understanding of the
theories and elements that must be present for an effect program
theory. In my work, I primarily utilize the Institute for

2. Healthcare Improvement (IHI) Model of Improvement.
Although the model does not specify the details found in the
textbook about the Process Theory and Effect Theory, the IHI
model does include similar principles found in the text
including stakeholder engagement in program planning, needs
analysis, and objective/goal definition, causal/determinant
factors identification, a process for identifying interventions
that will affect the causes of the health problem, goal
statements, and SMART objectives. Although the IHI model
has some useful tools to identify health problems and develop
programs to improve those health problems, the Issel text
provides a stronger, more detailed explanation of why it is
important to have clear, concise statements and pictorial
representations of the Causal Theory Statement and Program
Theory. Being able to ensure all stakeholders and project team
members are clear on the problem, interventions, objectives,
organizational capacity, and intended health outcomes/impacts
is important to keep everyone focused and on track. In
developing interventions I have generally referenced most of
the 8 Characteristics of Good Interventions in determining if an
intervention was the correct one to move forward with in a
program. The text helped to categorize these characteristics and
in future projects I will use this as a checklist to ensure all are
addressed. In my position as Director of Population Health at
Drexel Medicine, I am responsible for developing quality
improvement plans for our practices as part of our Patient
Centered Medical Home submission. The National Committee
for Quality Assurance (NCQA) requires similar goal and
objective setting standards as were outlined in Chapter 7.
Particularly, setting a target goal and not relying on words like
“reduce” or “improve” to quantify the objective. We use
HealthPeople2020, NCQA, PQRS, and CMS benchmarks when
developing our objectives to ensure they are reliable targets and
align with our patient population. I appreciated Issel’s list of
options for creating objectives when reliable targets are not
available. It can be anticipated that this will be useful to apply

3. to future programs. In Chapter 8, Issel discusses program
implementation in terms that I was able to relate to the Project
Management Institute’s (PMI) PMBOK Process Groups and
Knowledge Areas. Similar theories were presented in both as it
relates to inputs, outputs, throug
I found the summary tables in Chapter 14 describing types of
analysis test by level of intervention (14-4), level of
measurement for comparison-focused analyses (14-6), and level
of measurement for association-focused analyses (14-7) to be
especially effective as a refresher for some of the content we
learned in biostatistics. It’s very helpful to have a quick
reference for the types of analytic tests I should use if, for
example, I have interval data. This will definitely be a resource
that I use for my work in the future. The qualitative analysis
content in Chapter 15 was especially relevant because I will be
doing qualitative work (interviews and focus groups) for my
independent study. Qualitative methods are an area in which I’m
looking to grow my skill set. Although I have assisted in
developing discussion guides and leading discussions, I have
not had the opportunity to code qualitative data or think
critically about sampling strategies, since funding for our
projects usually dictates/limits the number of interviews or
focus groups we can conduct. I also found the discussion of
credibility and transferability to be interesting because
qualitative methods are often viewed as less rigorous. Issel
mentions that credibility is increased when those who provided
the data are asked to review and confirm the accuracy of data
interpretations. It seems to be that this is not done often
enough! Finally, I think that Chapter 16 is immensely important
and very relevant to my current work. Although PHMC has

4. always had an IRB, it recently underwent major changes to
make the review process far more rigorous. PHMC and the
Research and Evaluation Group within PHMC is currently
grappling with the “HIPAA and evaluations” conundrum Issel
describes on pg. 388. PHMC operates six FQHCs around the
city, which all use a single EMR system. The currently
discussion within our IRB is who may have access to data
stored within the EMR since PHMC is a large organization with
a complicated structure. Finally, I thought that the discussion of
dissemination was lacking in one major area – it did not discuss
dissemination back to the communities/populations/individuals
providing the data. Researchers and evaluators alike should
have a commitment to ensuring the information is fed
example of how to do the reflection I found the summary tables
in Chapter 14 describing types of analysis test by level of
intervention (14-4), level of measurement for comparison-
focused analyses (14-6), and level of measurement for
association-focused analyses (14-7) to be especially effective as
a refresher for some of the content we learned in biostatistics.
It’s very helpful to have a quick reference for the types of
analytic tests I should use if, for example, I have interval data.
This will definitely be a resource that I use for my work in the
future. The qualitative analysis content in Chapter 15 was
especially relevant because I will be doing qualitative work
(interviews and focus groups) for my independent study.
Qualitative methods are an area in which I’m looking to grow
my skill set. Although I have assisted in developing discussion
guides and leading discussions, I have not had the opportunity
to code qualitative data or think critically about sampling
strategies, since funding for our projects usually dictates/limits
the number of interviews or focus groups we can conduct. I also
found the discussion of credibility and transferability to be

5. interesting because qualitative methods are often viewed as less
rigorous. Issel mentions that credibility is increased when those
who provided the data are asked to review and confirm the
accuracy of data interpretations. It seems to be that this is not
done often enough! Finally, I think that Chapter 16 is
immensely important and very relevant to my current work.
Although PHMC has always had an IRB, it recently underwent
major changes to make the review process far more rigorous.
PHMC and the Research and Evaluation Group within PHMC is
currently grappling with the “HIPAA and evaluations”
conundrum Issel describes on pg. 388. PHMC operates six
FQHCs around the city, which all use a single EMR system. The
currently discussion within our IRB is who may have access to
data stored within the EMR since PHMC is a large organization
with a complicated structure. Finally, I thought that the
discussion of dissemination was lacking in one major area – it
did not discuss dissemination back to the
communities/populations/individuals providing the data.
Researchers and evaluators alike should have a commitment to
ensuring the information is fed back to research/study subjects
as well as the academic literature......