Case Assignment-Fighting Chronic Disease and Community Nutrition Intervention

For this Case Assignment you will expand your understanding of core public health roles; specifically nutrition. Please answer these questions:

1. Discuss the differences in the role of public health in the prevention of infectious diseases and chronic diseases. In your opinion, which will be more important to the health of our nations over the next 20 to 30 years?

2. Discuss and explain the role of prevention in fighting and controlling the spread of chronic diseases and the impact of chronic diseases on health care spending.

3. Discuss the core public health responsibilities and how they have had an impact on nutritional issues in America, including obesity and diabetes. Do you believe that they have been effectively or ineffectively managed by public health agencies? Define and discuss the role of State government in this area and how it differs from that of the Federal government.

4. How do community nutritionists, public health nutritionist, and clinical nutritionist differ?

5. Why is nutrition important in health and disease treatment, control and prevention and how is nutrition related to any of the Social Determinants of Health?

6. Which organizations are involved in public health nutrition? Of the organizations identified which one has the most influence over public policy for public health nutrition? Please justify your response.

Please submit your Case Assignment at the end of Module 4. Please refer to the Trident calendar for exact due dates. Please contact me at any time should you have any questions.

Assignment Expectations

1. You are expected to consult the scholarly literature in preparing your paper; you are also expected to incorporate relevant background readings.

2. Your paper should be written in your own words. This will enable your instructor to assess your level of understanding.

3. In order to earn full credit, you must clearly show that you have read ALL required Background materials.

4. Be sure to cite your references in the text of all papers and on the reference list at the end. For examples, look at the way the references are listed in the modules and on the Background reading list. Remember, any statement that you make that is not common knowledge or that originates from your synthesis or interpretation of materials you have read must have a citation associated with it. For guidelines on in-text citations, visit the following website:

5. Proofread your paper to be sure grammar and punctuation are correct and that each part of the assignment has been addressed clearly and completely.

6. Your assignment will not be graded until you have submitted an Originality Report with a Similarity Index (SI) score <15% (excluding direct quotes, quoted assignment instructions, and references). Papers not meeting this requirement by the end of the session will receive a score of 0 (grade of F). Papers with a lower SI score may be returned for revisions. For example, if one paragraph accounting for only 10% of a paper is cut and pasted, the paper could be returned for revision, despite the low SI score. Please use the report and your SI score as a guide to improve the originality of your work.

Length: Your paper should be 5-7 pages (double-spaced) in length, and include 5-7 peer-reviewed reference citations (excluding title page and references)

Note: Wikipedia is not an acceptable source of information.

Module 4 – Background – Reading Requirement


Implementation of Patient-Centered

Education for Chronic-Disease Management

in Uganda: An Effectiveness Study

Trishul Siddharthan1,2*, Tracy Rabin2, Maureen E. Canavan3, Faith Nassali4,
Phillip Kirchhoff5, Robert Kalyesubula4, Steven Coca2,6, Asghar Rastegar2, Felix Knauf2,7

1 Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Johns Hopkins University, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine,

Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America, 2 Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, Yale

University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 3 Global Health Leadership Institute, Yale

University, New Haven, Connecticut, United States of America, 4 College of Health Sciences, Makerere

University, Kampala, Uganda, 5 Department of Surgery, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland,

6 Department of Nephrology, Mt. Sinai Hospital, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York,

United States of America, 7 Department of Nephrology, Friedrich-Alexander-Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg,

Erlangen, Germany

* [email protected]



The majority of non-communicable disease related deaths occur in low- and middle-income

countries. Patient-centered care is an essential component of chronic disease management

in high income settings.


To examine feasibility of implementation of a validated patient-centered education tool

among patients with heart failure in Uganda.


Mixed-methods, prospective cohort.


A private and public cardiology clinic in Mulago National Referral and Teaching Hospital,

Kampala, Uganda.


Adults with a primary diagnosis of heart failure.


PocketDoktor Educational Booklets with patient-centered health education.

PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0166411 November 16, 2016 1 / 12



Citation: Siddharthan T, Rabin T, Canavan ME,

Nassali F, Kirchhoff P, Kalyesubula R, et al. (2016)

Implementation of Patient-Centered Education for

Chronic-Disease Management in Uganda: An

Effectiveness Study. PLoS ONE 11(11): e0166411.


Editor: Christophe Leroyer, Universite de Bretagne

Occidentale, FRANCE

Received: June 15, 2016

Accepted: October 29, 2016

Published: November 16, 2016

Copyright: © 2016 Siddharthan et al. This is an
open access article distributed under the terms of

the Creative Commons Attribution License, which

permits unrestricted use, distribution, and

reproduction in any medium, provid

What will it take to improve prevention of chronic diseases
in Australia? A case study of two national approaches

Sonia Wutzke1,2,4 BSc (Psych) Hons, MPH, PhD Deputy Director

Emily Morrice1,2 BIGS(Hons), Research Assistant

Murray Benton3 BSocSci, Director

Andrew Wilson1,2 BMedSci, MBBS(Hons), PhD, FRACP, FAFPHM, Director

1The Australian Prevention Partnership Centre, Ultimo, NSW 2007, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

2Menzies Centre for Health Policy, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Email: [email protected]
3Inca Consulting Pty Ltd, Sydney, NSW 2000, Australia. Email: [email protected]
4Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]

Objective. Despite being a healthy country by international standards, Australia has a growing and serious burden

from chronic diseases. There have been several national efforts to tackle this problem, but despite some important
advances much more needs to be done. From the viewpoint of diverse stakeholders, the present study examined two
approaches to controlling chronic disease in Australia: (1) the 2005 National Chronic Disease Strategy (NCDS); and
(2) the 2008 National Partnership Agreement on Preventive Health (NPAPH).

Methods. Individual and small group semistructured interviews were undertaken with 29 leaders across Australia,
reflecting a diverse cross-section of senior public health managers and program implementation staff from state and
territory health departments, as well as academics, thought leaders and public health advocates. A grounded theory
approach was used to generate themes relevant to the research.

Results. There is general support for national approaches to the prevention of chronic disease. The NCDS was viewed
as necessary and useful for national coordination, setting a common agenda and serving as an anchor to align jurisdictional
priorities and action. However, without funding or other infrastructure commitments or implementation plans, any
expectations as to what could be meaningfully achieved were limited. In contrast, although jurisdictions welcomed the
NPAPH, its associated funding and the opportunity to tailor strategy to their unique needs and populations, there were
calls for greater national leadership as well as guidance on the evidence base to inform decision making. Key aspects of

Research Article
ACommunity-Based Nutrition and Physical Activity Intervention
for Children Who Are Overweight or Obese and Their Caregivers

FurongXu,1 StephanieMarchand,2 Celeste Corcoran,3 HeatherDiBiasio,4 Rachel Clough,5

Christopher S. Dyer,1 Jennifer Nobles,6 Jade White,6 Mary L. Greaney,1 and
Geo2rey W. Greene6

1Department of Kinesiology, University of Rhode Island, Independence Square II, Kingston, RI 02881, USA
2KinderHealthRI, LLC, 10 High Street, Wake&eld, RI 02879, USA
3Coastal Medical Narragansett Bay Pediatrics, 65 Village Square Drive, South Kingstown, RI 02879, USA
4Wake&eld Pediatrics, LLC, 46 Holley Street, Wake&eld, RI 02879, USA
5Busy Bodies Studio, 12 High Street, South Kingstown, RI 02879, USA
6Department of Nutrition and Food Sciences, University of Rhode Island, Fogarty Hall, Kingston, RI 02881, USA

Correspondence should be addressed to Furong Xu; [email protected]

Received 10 May 2017; Revised 12 September 2017; Accepted 17 September 2017; Published 8 October 2017

Academic Editor: Aron Weller

Copyright © 2017 Furong Xu et al. (is is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

(ere is a need for e-cacious interventions to reduce the prevalence of childhood obesity, and a limited body of research suggests
that collaborative community-based programs designed for children and their caregivers may be e/ective in reducing obesity
rates. (is paper reports the results of a community-based obesity intervention, South County Food, Fitness and Fun (SCFFF),
designed for preadolescent children who are overweight or obese and their caregivers. SCFFF was developed in response to
community concerns. Families were referred to the program by their physician and participated in the program at no cost. (e
16-week intervention includes weekly group nutrition and physical activity sessions. Analyses determined that 65 out of the 97
children who completed SCFFF provided 2-year follow-up data and had reduced BMI z-scores over 2 years following the
intervention. (ese participants decreased their energy, fat, carbohydrate, saturated fat, and sodium intake and increased core
body strength and endurance from baseline to the end of the intervention. SCFFF was e/ective in reducing relative weight and
improving diet and core muscle strength and endurance in children who are overweight or obese.

1. Introduction

Obesity is a major health concern among children in the
United States [1]. Recent data indicate that 17.9% of children
aged 6–11 years have obesity (body mass index (BMI) greater
than or equal to the 95th percentile for children of the same