Experience in Monitoring and Evaluation †Free Samples to Students

Question: Discuss about the Experience in Monitoring and Evaluation. Answer: Introduction: The conventional way of studying a policy is by breaking it down into many stages. The segregation of stages and its ideas have changed with time and place, but the fundamental idea still remains the same (Turner, 2013). A cycle divides a policy into various stages, from the point where the policy maker thinks of devising a policy for the problem to end point where the policy has been implemented and the policymakers discuss the success of the policy and what other steps should be taken (Kind, Hardman Leese, 2005). The policy making process can be divided into the following stages: Agenda Setting: this stage focuses on identifying the problems that need government attention and intervention. Policy Formulation: It has steps like finding an objective, estimating the cost and effects of the solutions and then selecting from a list of solutions and choosing the policy instruments (Kind, Hardman Leese, 2005). This stage also involves the legitimating the chosen policy instruments have support i.e. legislative approval, executive approval etc (Kind, Hardman Leese, 2005). Policy Implementation: here the actual implementation of the policy takes place like establishing an organisation which takes responsibility for the implementation of the policy and also ensuring that the organisation has funds (Turner, 2013). Evaluation: Some people consider this as the fourth stage of the policy cycle. This stage examines the success of the policy i.e. if the policy was implemented correctly or if it had the desired results or not (Kind, Hardman Leese, 2005). As defined by the World health organisation, health is not just the absence or immunity from some disease or infection, but it is a state of total physical, mental and social prosperity of an individual. There are determinants of health which may be identified as the situations in which people live which can affect their health or poor health and may cause health inequality amongst people of an area (Sheldon, 2005). As public health struggles to make a move towards a more integrated setup, we see that there is an emphasis on the prevention, education, convenience etc, thus affecting the health of the community to a large scale and not focussing on an individual. This becomes the base for the new health policy approach (Sheldon, 2005). The new health approach focuses on the social, behavioural and environmental factors which are education, employment, socioeconomic status etc, in a way that they may balance out the health inequalities (Schultz, 2018). This is where it differs from the old health policy approach which focuses on the biological determinants of health which mainly focus on the clinical treatments and straight forward methods to treat the communicable diseases. The old approach is favourable towards working with the local councils on the Sanitation of the locality and targets the large population (Schultz, 2018). It also believes in implementing infrastructures and dealing with the biological causes of the disease whereas the new approach focuses on the importance of the waste management as it will eventually lead to the sanitation of the locality too (Sheldon, 2005). Another instance of the new health approach is the Walking School bus Initiative which provides a safe environment to the school going children but also educates children about the healthy and active lifestyle and also creating awareness against obesity. This has created better results than the old health approach in treating obesity (Bryson, Duclos Jolly, 2010). The launch of the Sun Smart campaign is also a part of the new health approach. It educates people about the benefits and harms of the UV rays and has also produced drastic results with the reduced cases of skin cancer since its implementation (Bauman, King Nutbeam, 2014). There are many social factors that affect a persons health and fitness. Social factors vary from region to region for e.g. weight can be seen as a positive thing in the countries with scarce foods and can be seen as obesity in countries where there is no scarcity of food. It all depends on the social status of the people how they perceive it (Bauman, King Nutbeam, 2014). There are other factors in the society that affect a persons health and well being of the culture, the food and the climate of the place that they live in. For e.g. some isolated communities are known to have a longer lifespan as compared to others (Bryson, Duclos Jolly, 2010). The reason behind this may be that the people have to do all the work by themselves, giving them a different culture, eating pattern as they physically work hard on their lands, and also different outlook and conduct. This may also add a little stress to their lives but that becomes a part of their social life and is well accepted amongst people. People who enjoy a good socio-economic status have been found to have a better health and lifestyle as they have better access to good education and better healthcare services. Added to this a good start to life also adds to a healthy life of an individual as it enhances their physical, cognitive and emotional growth (Bryson, Duclos Jolly, 2010). A healthy and a stress free pregnancy also affect a childs well being in his lifetime. It helps in the proper foetal development of the child. Poverty also has a major impact on a persons health and well being. There are still instances of absolute poverty even in countries like Europe. This situation thus leads to increased cases of premature deaths as there is limited access to good healthcare services, education, and lifestyle (Bryson, Duclos Jolly, 2010). Having a job is better than having no job at all. Lack of opportunity to showcase ones skills and lower decision making power also add to the stress in ones life leading to poor health and sickness and thus leading to premature deaths too in some cases (Valle, 2016). Power is usually interpreted as the potential to reach a coveted outcome. But in policy making the term power is usually thought of as power over others. There are a number of ways in which one can get his work done by other people by using his power which is recognised as the dimensions of power. They are: Power as decision making:- emphasises on acts of the people (individual or group) which effect the policy decisions. Different people exercise influence on different policy matters. Some groups including the weaker ones also could pierce through the political system and enjoy power. Whereas only a small number of people have a direct say in the key decisions of the policy making, most people exercise an indirect impact on the decisions (Mhlmann, Reumann, Evangelatos Brand, 2018). Policy as non-decision making: highlights the role of the powerful groups in controlling the agenda below the policy radar screen. It can also be said that power as non-decision making includes restricti ng the capacity of real decision making in safe issues by controlling the commanding values, myths, and political institutions and procedures (Ney, 2012). In this dimension of power, few of the problems remain hidden and fail to find a place in the policy design. Power as thought control: - This dimension argues that the power is an element of the artistry to affect others by sculpting their preferences (Bekker, Mutsaers, Dumont Jansen, 2014). As per this dimension one empowers power over the other when one affects the other in a way contrary to his interests i.e. the one with power gains others consent by sober means which may include the capacity to reform meanings and viewpoints of the fact, by restraining information from the mass media or by limiting the process of stabilisation (van Kessel, 2008). Obesity has become a major concern for the public health practitioners in the most developed countries of the world. The major cause of this could be cited as the societal changes that lead to less physical activities and increased consumption of the junk food. There have been community based and social marketing interventions that focus mainly on eating less junk food, eating healthier and exercising regularly (Goranitis, Siskou Liaropoulos, 2014). There have been many policies that have been proposed earlier but their success rate has not been satisfactory. We would be citing some examples here and also the remedies to them so that the newly revised policies work. Misconceptions about obesity have hampered the success of the policy efforts. Some of them with remedies can be ; restrictive diets do not work: - Individuals are usually not able to maintain the weight loss through the restrictive diets as that leads to eating unhealthier foods because of the starvation caused in the bo dy. Instead of going for restrictive diets one should focus on healthy diets (Bekker, Mutsaers, Dumont Jansen, 2014). Cafeterias should have more options for vegetables. Schools should first serve vegetables before any other food item. Restrict the sugar sweetened drinks (Goranitis, Siskou Liaropoulos, 2014). There should be healthy food advertisements rather than the unhealthy ones. Weight stigma will not reduce obesity:- Instead, if one is stigmatised for obesity, it will lead to further inhabiting of the unhealthier habits and not result in weight loss. Public service announcements and anti-obesity campaigns should be pre announced to ensure better results. Also, weight should be made a protected class (Goranitis, Siskou Liaropoulos, 2014). Weight does not equal health: - which means that if you weigh lesser, it does not mean you are healthy. For this, BMI should be the measure of health and not weight. Introducing physical activities in these environments would also help (Goranitis, Siskou Liaropoulos, 2014). Incentives should be given for the physical activity programs. References Bauman, A., King, L., Nutbeam, D. (2014). Rethinking the evaluation and measurement of health in all policies. Health Promotion International, 29(suppl 1), i143-i151. Bekker, M., Mutsaers, B., Dumont, R., Jansen, M. (2014). Responsive evaluation of Health in All Policies: the Brabant Aspect policy for health 2014. European Journal Of Public Health, 24(suppl_2), 2-10. Bryson, M., Duclos, P., Jolly, A. (2010). Global immunization policy making processes.Health Policy,96(2), 154-159. Goranitis, I., Siskou, O., Liaropoulos, L. (2014). Health policy making under information constraints: An evaluation of the policy responses to the economic crisis in Greece.Health Policy,117(3), 279-284. Kind, P., Hardman, G., Leese, B. (2005). Measuring health status: information for primary care decision making.Health Policy,71(3), 303-313. Mhlmann, L., Reumann, M., Evangelatos, N., Brand, A. (2018). Big Data for Public Health Policy-Making: Policy Empowerment.Public Health Genomics. Ney, S. (2012). Making Sense of the Global Health Crisis: Policy Narratives, Conflict, and Global Health Governance.Journal Of Health Politics, Policy And Law,37(2), 253-295. Sheldon, T. (2005). Making evidence synthesis more useful for management and policy-making.Journal Of Health Services Research Policy,10(1_suppl), 1-5. Schultz, R. (2018). Implementation of policies to protect planetary health. The Lancet Planetary Health, 2(2), e62. Turner, L. (2013). The Effect of Medicaid Policies on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Children's Mental Health Problems in Primary Care. Health Economics, 24(2), 142-157. Valle, A. (2016). The Mexican experience in monitoring and evaluation of public policies addressing social determinants of health. Global Health Action, 9(1), 29030. van Kessel, G. (2008). How do we do public health?.Australian Journal Of Physiotherapy,54(1), 80.