Question at position 20 In the P.E.R.I.E. process for evidence-based public health, which of the following is an example of "evaluation" and what it is focused on?Determining the potential cause of a new mysterious illnessAssessing the number of cases in a recent disease outbreakAdapting an intervention for promoting prostate cancer awareness to be used instead for COVID-19 awarenessDetermining if an intervention offering free beer from a local brewpub for people who received a COVID-19 vaccine helped increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Let's break down the question and each option in the context of the P.E.R.I.E. process for evidence-based public health, focusing specifically on what evaluation involves.
Option 1: 'Determining the potential cause of a new mysterious illness' — This task is about etiologic investigation or problem diagnosis. It relates to surveillance, hypothesis generation, and identifying causes, which aligns more with the 'E' in P.E.R.I.E.—Environment/Assessment or perhaps even the initial steps of analysis. It is not evaluating an implemented intervention’s effect or value, so it does not exemplify evaluation.
Option 2: 'Assessing the number of cases in a recent disease outbreak' — This is a surveillance or measurement activity, describing the burden or magnitude of a problem. While essential for public health work, counting cases is a descriptive or analytical activity used in monitoring, not the evaluation of a program or intervention’s effectiveness or value. Therefore, it does not illustrate evaluation per se.
Option 3: 'Adapting an intervention for promoting prostate cancer awareness to be used instead for COVID-19 awareness' — This describes modifying an intervention to fit a new context or audience. This is more about adaptation, implementation planning, or program design rather than evaluating whether an intervention works or meets objectives in its current form. It concerns tailoring rather than evaluating outcomes, so it does not exemplify evaluation in the P.E.R.I.E. framework.
Option 4: 'Determining if an intervention offering free beer from a local brewpub for people who received a COVID-19 vaccine helped increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake' — This statement centers on assessing the impact of a specific intervention by measuring whether it influenced vaccine uptake. It directly involves evaluating outcomes, effectiveness, and potentially unintended consequences of a program, which is the core activity of the evaluation phase in P.E.R.I.E. Evaluation asks about what happened when the intervention was implemented and whether it achieved its goals, making this the quintessential example.
In evaluating these options, the key distinction is between describing, diagnosing, or adapting activities versus assessing actual outcomes and value of an intervention. The first three choices describe problem identification, burden measurement, and adaptation decisions, which are not evaluations of effectiveness. The fourth option explicitly asks whether a particular intervention influenced an outcome, which is the essence of evaluation in this public health process.
Throughout this reasoning, it’s important to separate what constitutes an evaluative question from what is a descriptive, diagnostic, or adaptation task. Evaluation asks about impact, effectiveness, or net benefit, whereas the other activities serve different roles in the public health cycle, such as identifying causes, quantifying cases, or modifying an intervention for a new context.

类似问题

Which framework is primarily used to comprehensively evaluate the public health impact of an intervention program?

If an intervention fails to produce the expected results, but the process evaluation shows that it was delivered as planned, this suggests:

The dental hygienist's role in public health in evaluating program via index and community evaluations is:

Which of the following was a reason for the RE-AIM framework to be developed?

Name the Supreme Court decision that removed financial constraints on PACs.

Political scientists Joshua Kalla and David Broockman find that senior policy makers made themselves available to _____ between three and four times more often than they did to constituents.

更多留学生实用工具

智能学习助手

风格化写作助手

论文查重助手

文献引用助手

课堂转译助手

课堂笔记助手

Quiz搜索助手

学校历年真题

智能刷题助手

智能匹配练习

希望你的学习变得更简单