PromotingPositive Health Behavior
PromotingPositive Health Behavior
TheEvery Woman Matter (EWM) program is an initiative funded by thefederal government which helps women to pay their office visits withrelated clinical check-ups as well as expenses that accrue on labassociated tests (Feresu et al., 2008). The eligibility for paidscreening services and office visitations through EWM was set at agerange between 40 and 74. The beneficiaries for the program have tomeet the income guidelines for the program. In particular, they oughtto be between 40 -64 years of age, low or medium income, lack anyprivate insurance cover, as well as Medicaid and Medicare cover.
Theprime objective of the program is to assist women access appropriatepreventive cancer medical examination. The scope of the exams theprogram offer to the women include clinical breast exam, creatingawareness regarding monthly beast individual exam, Pap tests andpelvic exam, mammogram, and screening for blood pressure, bloodglucose and cholesterol level (Levin et al., 2008). It networks withcommunity partners who facilitate the availability of the program,enrollment of eligible clients and implementation of health awarenessactivities within their areas (Feresu et al., 2008).
AlthoughEWM featured excellent goals, has largely been ineffective. A numberof possible reasons may explain why the program was ineffective.First, it lacked objective feedback from the support staff of theprogram inhibiting assessing its progress, unearthing possible areasof weakness, and planning for its future implementation. Second, theprogram suffered inadequacy of resources. Despite the rapid expansionof the program into various fields and regions, the state as well asthe federal government failed to offer additional funds (Boyd et al.,2007). This resulted in strain on the few resources the program hadespecially during its stage of implementation. Additionally, itsuffered insufficient flexibility that served as a bottleneck toadjusting to changes that have been witnessed in women preventivecare. Nonetheless, its rigidity was anchored on the stability of thevarious hospital facilities on which the program was dependent. Also,ineffective management strategies may also have warranted the failureof the program.
However,other programs prevention programs that advocate for early screeninghave made comparative success in their operation. They include theNational Breast and Cervical Cancer Program (NBCCCEDP) and New JerseyCancer Education and Early Detection (NJCEED).
NBCCCEDhappens to be one of the most successful programs which spearheadinitiatives towards early screening. It is spread in the entirecountry and makes attempts to promote preventive health care servicesto women (Levin et al., 2008). Furthermore, the program not onlyinvolves women but also incorporates eligible men who are tested forbreast cancer.
Thereare several factors behind the success of NBCCCEDP. First, theinitiative feature relatively excellent leadership structures. Theleadership structure is characterized with a federal government, thestate as well as county outlook. This management structure aid theprogram in streamlining the various diverse aspects of decisionmaking. Moreover, it has enabled the program stakeholders toeffectively settle different difficulties and issues encounteredduring the implementation of its activities. Second, the program hasan effective mechanism of resource allocation. (Boyd et al., 2007)holds that a preventive health program stands higher chances ofsuccess if it features an effective mechanism for resourcesallocation. For instance, NBCCCEDP’s mechanism is based onpriorities larger areas with high a population is always entitled togreater shares of the funds as compared to smaller and less populatedregions (DOESN’Tsnow,2004).
Inaddition to NBCCCED, NJCEED program has also succeeded in thepreventive healthcare discipline. In contrast to NBCCCED, NJCEED is astate funded program for New Jersey. However, just like otherprevention healthcare programs, this program facilitates earlydetection of cancer among women in the state (Levin et al., 2008).Furthermore, the program also features the objective of facilitatingeducation about effective strategies for the prevention andmanagement of cancer. Unlike EWM, NJCEED has been relativelysuccessful in prevention healthcare. A number of factors can beattributed to this success. First, being a state program, onlyresidents of New Jersey are eligible for the program. Unlike NBCCCED,this program features a comparatively manageable population sizemaking its easier for the state department to evaluate the progressand setbacks encountered (Severson et al., 2007). Additionally, theprogram involves an effective implementation approach that alignswith the goals of the program (Levin et al., 2008). The statedepartment also allocates adequate resources which facilitateseffective implementation of the program.
Anurse in-charge of developing a follow-up to EWM would propose thefollowing strategies for creating a more effective preventionprogram. First, the nurse world advocate for community participation.Working with community members help to avoid any resistance thatmight be channeled towards the program. Also, would propose closeworking relationships with the support staff in order to enlightenthem on the significance of feedback on the follow-up process.Furthermore, adequate allocation of resources (both human andcapital) would also steer up the program’s efforts for a moreeffective prevention plan (Newman & Jackson, 2009).
Boyd,N. F., Guo, H., Martin, L. J., Sun, L., Stone, J., Fishell, E., … &Yaffe, M. J. (2007). Mammographic density and the risk and detectionof breast cancer. NewEngland Journal of Medicine,356(3),227-236.
DOESN’Tsnow,I. T. (2004). I SPECTRUM. ENVIRONMENT.
Feresu,S. A., Zhang, W., Puumala, S. E., Ullrich, F., & Anderson, J. R.(2008). Breast and cervical cancer screening among low-income womenin Nebraska: findings from the Every Woman Matters program,1993–2004. Journalof health care for the poor and underserved,19(3),797-813.
Levin,B., Lieberman, D. A., McFarland, B., Smith, R. A., Brooks, D.,Andrews, K. S., … & Winawer, S. J. (2008). Screening andSurveillance for the Early Detection of Colorectal Cancer andAdenomatous Polyps, 2008: A Joint Guideline from the American CancerSociety, the US Multi‐SocietyTask Force on Colorectal Cancer, and the American College ofRadiology*†. CA:a cancer journal for clinicians,58(3),130-160.
Newman,L. A., & Jackson, K. E. (2009). The Sisters Network: A NationalAfrican American Breast Cancer Survivor Advocacy Organization.Journalof Oncology Practice,5(6),313.
Severson,H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., &Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detectbehaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerginginnovations, and professional practices. Journalof School Psychology,45(2),193-223.