You work at a health or healthcare organization where you identified a health or healthcare issue you believe needs to be addressed. To address this issue, you have been asked to design an
effective health program. As a first step, you will conduct a needs justification to gather information on the population you intend to target, as well as an analysis of best evidence-based
practices implemented by other organizations with similar programs. This work will help you identify a health or healthcare issue to be addressed through a program that you will plan with the
help of your team.
You are required to work on and share your needs justification with senior management at your organization so they can decide whether to approve the plan and implement it. Then, you will
use facts, statistics, and published information to identify the scope of the need and validate its relevance to the present scenario. This assignment will help you identify and validate the
program idea you will use for the course project. Remember, before you begin working on future project preparation assignments and the course project, integrate the feedback you will get
from your instructor.
Prompt
Write a needs justification analysis that focuses on the health or healthcare issue and the target population for your eventual program plan.
Specifically, you must address the following rubric criteria:
- Health or Healthcare Issue: Health or Healthcare Issue: Describe the health or healthcare issue that needs to be addressed.
- Location and Target Population: Location and Target Population: Describe the specific location and target population impacted by the selected health or healthcare issue. Your selected location must be
somewhere within the United States or its territories and cannot be larger than a city or county. Be sure to include appropriate demographic information, such as age, income, education,
ethnicity, and so on. Consider the following questions to guide your response:
What are the primary and secondary populations impacted by the identified problem or issue?
Which two key characteristics of your target population should you consider while designing the program? Explain your reasoning. - Program Goal: Program Goal: Describe the overarching goal of your program. Consider the following questions to guide your response:
What are the two measurable outcomes that would help evaluate your progress toward the goal?
What challenges do you foresee in attaining the goal or outcomes? - Health or Healthcare Disparities: Health or Healthcare Disparities: Describe how you will address health or healthcare disparities among the target population related to your chosen health or healthcare issue.
Consider the following questions to guide your response:
What are two health disparities that you believe exist in your community, city, or state?
What are the potential causes of these disparities?
What is the significance of considering and incorporating health or healthcare disparities in program planning? - Healthcare or Community Service Organization: Healthcare or Community Service Organization: Describe why the healthcare or community service organization is, or should become, involved in addressing your chosen health
or healthcare issue. Consider the following question to guide your response:
What role can the identified healthcare or community service organization play in addressing the problem?
Sample Solution
leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: âcare must be taken where evil doesnât outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).â This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill âto shelter the innocent from harmâ¦punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as âwe may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).â In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldnât this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: âit is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).â In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether itâs lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after >
GET ANSWER
leads to the question of combatant qualification mentioned later in the essay. This is corroborated by the bombing of Nagasaki and Hiroshima, ending the Second World War, where millions were intently killed, just to secure the aim of war. However, sometimes civilians are accidentally killed through wars to achieve their goal of peace and security. This is supported by Vittola, who implies proportionality again to justify action: âcare must be taken where evil doesnât outweigh the possible benefits (Begby et al (2006b), Page 325).â This is further supported by Frowe who explains it is lawful to unintentionally kill, whenever the combatant has full knowledge of his actions and seeks to complete his aim, but it would come at a cost. However, this does not hide the fact the unintended still killed innocent people, showing immorality in their actions. Thus, it depends again on proportionality as Thomson argues (Frowe (2011), Page 141). This leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill âto shelter the innocent from harmâ¦punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as âwe may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).â In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldnât this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: âit is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).â In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether itâs lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after >
Is this question part of your Assignment?
We can help
Our aim is to help you get A+ grades on your Coursework.
We handle assignments in a multiplicity of subject areas including Admission Essays, General Essays, Case Studies, Coursework, Dissertations, Editing, Research Papers, and Research proposals
Header Button Label: Get Started NowGet Started Header Button Label: View writing samplesView writing samples