Assignment 2

The program that is going to be reviewed is entitled Description and evaluation of a prenatal exercise program for urban Aboriginal women. This program seeks to reduce the incidence of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and Type 2 diabetes in Aboriginal women and their offspring through exercise. I have chosen to use a mixture of models for evaluating this program. The three models that I think would be appropriate to evaluate this program are Scriven’s model, Stake’s countenance model, and Stufflebeam’s CIPP model.

In terms of Scriven’s model, since this program has already been implemented and has come to a completion, this program evaluation will be a summative one. In this sense, the program evaluation will look at the program’s success of meeting its goal of reducing the rate of GDM and Type 2 diabetes in Aboriginal women and their offspring through exercise. Since this program evaluation is summative, there will be no opportunity to modify the program as it is implemented. The summative nature of this program evaluation however, will allow for the continuance, modification, or cessation of the program in the future.

Stake’s countenance model will also play a role in this program evaluation in two main ways. First, in order to receive a clear picture of the impact of this program on Aboriginal women, their lives, and future generations, both anecdotal and descriptive data will be utilized. In doing this, this program evaluation will use both qualitative and quantitative data to ensure an accurate portrayal of the program is achieved. Anecdotal questions that will be asked include:

• Have you noticed a difference in your health since taking part in this program?
• Were you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the program?
• Is there anything that you would like to see changed if the program were to run again?

Descriptive data would include:

• Medical history of GDM and Type 2 diabetes
• Age of the participant
• The usual diet of the participant
• Correlation between amount of sessions attended and propensity of GDM or Type 2 diabetes in offspring
• Rate of GDM and/or Type 2 diabetes in the offspring of the women involved in the program

Another component of the countenance model that is applicable to this program evaluation is the issue of contingency: what is the relationship between exercise and the reduction of GDM and Type 2 diabetes in the offspring of Aboriginal women? This question may prove hard to answer given the abundance of possible interacting and confounding variables in this study. Given prior research however, if there is a reduction in incidence of GDM and Type 2 diabetes in the offspring of the women who participated in this program, one could make a logical connection between prenatal exercise and lower incidence of GDM and Type 2 diabetes in offspring however, one should not accept these results blindly. Questions that need to be asked to determine contingency include:

• Could the nutritious snacks after the exercise have had an influence of GDM or Type 2 diabetes?
• Could the free educational materials that were given out have caused the participants to start leading healthier lives which may contribute to the reduction of GDM and Type 2 diabetes?
• Were the women using the pool or doing other exercise at times other than in the program?
• Are the women on any type of medication that may interact with GDM or Type 2 diabetes?
• Could the act of forming relationships with the other women in the program promote a healthier lifestyle and a support network causing the participants to be less stressed and less prone to GDM or Type 2 diabetes?
• Or, is there a combination effect where exercise along with these factors contributes to decreased GDM or Type 2 diabetes?

Lastly, Stufflebeam’s CIPP (context, input, process, and product) model, more specifically a process and product evaluation, will be used to evaluate this program. In terms of a process evaluation, some of the questions that need to be asked have been described in this post previously. These questions will help to clarify and interpret the outcomes. To recap however, these questions would include (as mentioned above):

·   Could the nutritious snacks after the exercise have had an influence of GDM or Type 2 diabetes?

·   Could the free educational materials that were given out have caused the participants to start leading healthier lives which may contribute to the reduction of GDM and Type 2 diabetes?

·   Were the women using the pool or doing other exercise at times other than in the program?

·   Are the women on any type of medication that may interact with GDM or Type 2 diabetes?

·   Could the act of forming relationships with the other women in the program promote a healthier lifestyle and a support network causing the participants to be less stressed and less prone to GDM or Type 2 diabetes?

·   Or, is there a combination effect where exercise along with these factors contributes to decreased GDM or Type 2 diabetes?

Since this program has already been completed, and the goal of the present evaluation is to determine if the exercise program was effective in reducing GDM and Type 2 diabetes in future generations, it makes sense to include a product evaluation in this program evaluation. Questions that would assess short term and long terms outcomes include:

·   Do the participants feel healthier after being part of this program?

·   Do participants feel supported after being part of this program?

·   Has there been a change in diet/exercise habits of the participants since the program?

·   Do the participants have more knowledge about pregnancy, exercise, GDM, and/or Type 2 diabetes since this program?

·   Is there a reduction in GDM increasing to Type 2 diabetes in the women since taking this program?

·   Is there a reduction in the propensity of GDM and/or Type 2 diabetes in the offspring of the women who were involved in this program?

I would have liked to have included Lincoln and Guba’s naturalistic model as well, but due to the nature of the program, having been completed prior to the evaluation, this is not possible. I think that if this model had been part of the program evaluation, the evaluator could recieve valuable first hand information about the interactions between the women in the program as well as interactions between program facilitators and participants. By including this component, more clarity may have been possible in terms of interacting or confounding variables affecting the outcomes of this program.

In conclusion, it is my opinion that the integration of Scriven’s model, Stake’s countenance model, and Stufflebeam’s CIPP model ensure a comprehensive program evaluation. By utilizing elements of various models, and by combining various methods of data collection, a clearer picture can emerge of the relationship between exercise and GDM or Type 2 diabetes in the offspring of Aboriginal women. Furthermore, the utilization of these models allows for more clarity about the variables that could interact with or influence exercise and GDM or Type 2 diabetes. Lastly, the models that were chosen for this program evaluation were chosen specifically for the goal of this program: to reduce incidence of GDM and/or Type 2 diabetes in the offspring of Aboriginal women.

Reference

Klomp, H., Dyck, R., & Sheppard, S. (2003). Description and evaluation of a prenatal exercise program for urban Aboriginal women. Canadian Journal of Diabetes, 27, 231-238.