From the suggested reading materials, select a home visiting or case management program and summarize in 250 words or less the program goals and objectives and what interventions are provided. Focus on nursing activities when possible. Develop a logic model that would reflect that program. Ensure the critical elements of inputs, outputs, outcomes or impacts are included. There will be aspects of the logic model that will require research so references are required using APA style. Place the detail references on a separate page with the logic model. Click here for a guide to developing and using logic models (https://www.cdc.gov/dhdsp/docs/logic_model.pdf). Click here for an example of logic model (https://www.cdc.gov/prc/pdf/prc-logic-model.pdf).
The assignment should be presented in logic model format with APA formatted citations and references. At least two scholarly sources, other than the textbook and provided materials are required.
JOGNN I N F O C U S
Effects of Home Visiting and Maternal
Mental Health on Use of the Emergency
Department among Late Preterm Infants
Neera K. Goyal, Alonzo T. Folger, Eric S. Hall, Robert T. Ammerman, Judith B. Van Ginkel, and Rita S. Pickler
Neera K. Goyal, MD
3333 Burnet Ave. ML 7009
Cincinnati, OH 45229.
maternal mental health
Objective: To describe use of the emergency department (ED) among late preterm versus term infants enrolled in a
home visiting program and to determine whether home visiting frequency was associated with outcome differences.
Design: Retrospective, cohort study.
Setting: Regional home visiting program in southwest Ohio from 2007–2010.
Participants: Late preterm and term infants born to mothers enrolled in home visiting. Program eligibility requires �
one of four characteristics: unmarried, low income, < 18 years, or suboptimal prenatal care.
Methods: Data were derived from vital statistics, hospital discharges, and home visiting records. Negative binomial
regression was used to determine association of ED visits in the first year with late preterm birth and home visit
frequency, adjusting for maternal and infant characteristics.
Results: Of 1,804 infants, 9.2% were born during the late preterm period. Thirty-eight percent of all infants had at least
one ED visit, 15.6% had three or more. No significant difference was found between the number of ED visits for late
preterm and term infants (39.4% vs. 37.8% with at least one ED visit, p = .69). In multivariable analysis, late preterm
birth combined with a maternal mental health diagnosis was associated with an ED incident rate ratio (IRR) of 1.26,
p = .03; high frequency of home visits was not significant (IRR = .92, p = .42).
Conclusions: Frequency of home visiting service over the first year of life is not significantly associated with reduced
ED visits for infants with at-risk attributes and born during the late preterm period. Research on how home visiting can
address ED use, particularly for those with prematurity and maternal mental health conditions, may strengthen program
impact and cost benefits.
JOGNN, 44, 135-144; 2015. DOI: 10.1111/1552-6909.12538
Accepted July 2014
Neera K. Goyal, MD, is an
assistant professor in the
Department of Pediatrics,
Hospital Medical Center,
Alonzo T. Folger, PhD, is a
senior epidemiologist in the
Department of Pediatrics,
Hospital Medical Center,
The elevated risk of mortality and morbidity for late
preterm infants (LPIs) born at 34 weeks
CDC Division for
Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention
State Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program
Developing and Using a
Department of Health and Human Services
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention
and Health Promotion
This guide was developed for the Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention
under the leadership of Susan Ladd and Jan Jernigan in collaboration with Nancy
Watkins, Rosanne Farris, Belinda Minta, and Sherene Brown.
State Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention programs were invaluable in the
development and fine-tuning of this guidance document. Their review contributed
significantly to the clarity and utility of this guide. Special thanks are extended to:
Susan Mormann (North Dakota Department of Health),
Ghazala Perveen (Kansas Department of Health and Environment),
Ahba Varma (North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services), and
Namvar Zohoori (Arkansas Department of Health and Human Services).
We encourage readers to adapt and share the tools and resources in the document to
meet program evaluation needs. For further information, contact the Division for Heart
Disease and Stroke Prevention, Applied Research and Evaluation Branch at
[email protected] or
Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention Program Evaluation Guides
The Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention (HDSP) Program Evaluation Guides are a series of
evaluation technical assistance tools developed by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), Division for Heart Disease and Stroke Prevention, to assist in the evaluation of
heart disease and stroke prevention activities within states.
The guides are intended to offer guidance, consistent definition of terms, and aid skill building on a
wide range of general evaluation topics and selected specific topics. They were developed with the
assumption that state health departments have varied experience with program evaluation and a
range of resources allocated to program evaluation. In any case, these guides clarify approaches
to and methods for evaluation, provide examples specific to the scope and purpose of the state
HDSP programs, and recommend resources for additional reading. Some guides will be more
(e.g., health services and service gaps, socioeconomic conditions)
National, Regional, or Local Health
Priorities and Health Disparities
Motivating Conditions for Developing and
Maintaining Relationships (e.g., Trust)
• Individual Level
• Community Level
• Policy and
for Health Promotion
and Support for
Logic Model for the Prevention Research Centers Program
at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
January 13, 2009 (5)
CDC PRC Program Office Oversight
and Mentoring, e.g.
• Community Members
Engage the Community
Conduct Core and
Other Research Using
OUTCOMESINPUTS ACTIVITIES OUTPUTS
and Other Products, e.g.
• Intervention Tools
Other Partners, e.g.
• Public Health
• Government Agencies
• Private Sector
Resources and Capacities, e.g.
• Expertise in Key Areas (e.g. Research,
Community Engagement and Partnerships,
Training, Communication and Dissemination,
• Facilities, Infrastructure, and Administrative
• Experience in Community-Based Participatory
Research and Public Health Practice
• Community Relationships and Accessibility