| Course | IHP 670 Program Design, Planning and Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | MPH discussion post on writing measurable program objectives |
| Length | About 370 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MPH |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for IHP 670 Module 5
Module Five Discussion
From Raise Awareness to Numbers and Dates
The draft grant application I inherited for our falls prevention program listed three objectives: raise awareness of fall risk among seniors, improve balance and strength and build community partnerships. All three sound good. None could be checked. If the funder asked in two years whether we had met them, any answer would be an opinion.
Milstein and Wetterhall (2000) describe a framework for program evaluation built on six steps, from engaging stakeholders and describing the program to gathering credible evidence and ensuring results are used, guided by standards of utility, feasibility, propriety and accuracy. Their emphasis on agreeing in advance what success means, and how it will be measured, is exactly what our objectives lacked. An objective should state who will change, by how much, measured how and by when.
Glasgow et al. (1999) proposed the RE-AIM framework, which judges a program's public health impact across reach, effectiveness, adoption by settings, implementation fidelity and maintenance over time. Our draft focused only on effectiveness. Yet a program that works brilliantly for thirty people and is never adopted beyond one senior center would do little for 64,000 older adults. RE-AIM pushed me to write objectives for each dimension.
Targets also need to be realistic. Sherrington et al. (2019) reported that falls dropped by about a quarter in exercise trials, which are usually better controlled than community programs. Promising to halve falls would set us up to fail. My rewritten objectives include: by month six, certify twelve instructors; by the end of year one, offer class series at all nine senior centers, including the three rural townships; by year three, enroll 1,800 participants, two in five of them from rural townships, living alone or with a prior fall; among participants attending at least two-thirds of sessions, reduce self-reported falls by 20% in the six months after classes compared with the six months before; and by year three, cut fall-related emergency care for the county's seniors by a tenth.
The awareness objective is gone; awareness matters only if it leads to enrollment, which we now measure directly. For classmates: how do you choose targets that are ambitious enough to excite funders but realistic enough to meet?
References
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
Milstein, B., & Wetterhall, S. (2000). A framework featuring steps and standards for program evaluation. Health Promotion Practice, 1(3), 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1177/152483990000100304
Sherrington, C., Fairhall, N. J., Wallbank, G. K., Tiedemann, A., Michaleff, Z. A., Howard, K., Clemson, L., Hopewell, S., & Lamb, S. E. (2019). Exercise for preventing falls in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (1), Article CD012424. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012424.pub2
What the IHP 670 Module 5 instructions ask for
The Module 5 discussion in IHP 670 usually asks you to write or critique program objectives. Keep the first post tight, supported by peer-reviewed sources in APA 7, and come back for two peer replies with substance. Show objectives before and after revision, explain what makes each revised objective measurable, cover process as well as outcome objectives and use evidence to set realistic targets. Close by asking classmates how they balance ambition and realism when setting targets. IHP 670 graders notice clean headings in IHP 670 papers. IHP 670 names and dates need checking before IHP 670 submission. IHP 670 prompts vary by term, so recheck IHP 670 directions. Tie each objective to a data source you can actually obtain.
How this IHP 670 Module 5 discussion example is built
In this post, a composite county planner replaces three vague grant objectives, including raise awareness, with five measurable ones covering instructor certification, senior center adoption, enrollment of 1,800 adults, a 20% drop in participants' falls and a 10% drop in county emergency visits. Milstein and Wetterhall's evaluation framework, Glasgow, Vogt and Boles's RE-AIM dimensions and Sherrington and colleagues' review of effect sizes shape the rewrite. The writer asks classmates how they set targets. IHP 670 students can reuse this structure for IHP 670 work. IHP 670 claims here trace to cited IHP 670 sources. IHP 670 readers can adapt each section to IHP 670 data. The awareness objective is removed with an explanation.
Where the IHP 670 Module 5 rubric puts the points
Objective-writing discussions in this course are commonly graded on measurability of revised objectives, coverage of process and outcome levels, realistic targets grounded in evidence, correct use of frameworks, APA 7 and peer replies that improve classmates' objectives. Posts that explain why a vague objective was cut or changed tend to stand out. Credit falls when objectives lack numbers, dates or measurement methods, or when targets ignore what research shows is achievable. IHP 670 marks favor careful formatting across IHP 670 sections. IHP 670 citations keep every IHP 670 argument credible. IHP 670 instructors weigh evidence heavily in IHP 670 grading. A short before-and-after table of objectives is a helpful format.
IHP 670 Module 5 help: the mistakes that cost points
Posts on objectives often keep phrases such as increase awareness or improve health, forget process objectives and set targets far beyond what evidence supports. Replies that approve a classmate's objectives without suggesting improvements add little. Rewrite each objective with who, how much, measured how and by when, include reach and adoption, anchor targets in research and explain what you removed. Share your program and draft objectives and the IHP 670 prompt so the post fits your project. IHP 670 drafts start well from a IHP 670 outline. IHP 670 feedback already received guides IHP 670 revisions. IHP 670 rubrics posted in Brightspace clarify IHP 670 expectations. Check that each target has a baseline to compare against.
Get IHP 670 Module 5 written to your instructions
Share the IHP 670 Module 5 prompt and your draft objectives. The post will rewrite them as measurable process and outcome objectives, anchor targets in evidence and invite classmates to compare approaches, within 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More IHP 670 papers and related MPH samples
- IHP 670 Module 1 Discussion: Choosing a Program Because the Evidence Supports It
- IHP 670 Module 2 Needs Assessment Paper: Documenting the Burden of Falls Among Older Adults in One County
- IHP 670 Module 3 Milestone One: Framing the Program's Purpose, Population and Evidence Base
- IHP 670 Module 4 Logic Model Paper: Connecting Resources, Activities and Outcomes With Theory
- IHP 604 Module 9 Final Project: The Quality Improvement Report on Diabetes Control in a Medical Group
- IHP 600 Module 7 Change Management Paper: Leading Change With Readiness and a Staged Model
- IHP 515 Module 3 Milestone One: Describing the Overdose Crisis by Person, Place and Time
- IHP 645 Module 8 Milestone Three: An Integrated Compliance and Safety Improvement Plan
IHP 670 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free IHP 670 Module 5 Discussion sample?
The complete IHP 670 Module 5 post is on this page, rewriting vague grant objectives as measurable process and outcome objectives.
What makes an objective measurable?
It states who will change, by how much, how it will be measured and by when.
What is RE-AIM?
A framework judging programs on reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance, not effectiveness alone.
Should I include process objectives?
Yes; objectives for delivery, such as classes offered and people enrolled, show whether the program is reaching people.
How do I set realistic targets?
Use effect sizes from reviews and trials, adjusting downward for real-world delivery.