NR 612 Week 3 Reach Summary Example

Reach Summary: Invited, Reached and Referred, Each Group Defined by a Rule Someone Else Could Apply, With Walk-Ins and Repeat Visitors Kept Apart

Student Name

College of Nursing, Chamberlain University

NR 612: Population Health Concluding Graduate Experience II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

Reach Summary: Invited, Reached and Referred, Each Group Defined by a Rule Someone Else Could Apply, With Walk-Ins and Repeat Visitors Kept Apart

Group 1: Invited

Rule: an adult over 50, by the student's visual estimate, present in the parish hall waiting area when the welcome announcement was read, at 10:00 or 10:25, on a session day.

Source: the student's count of occupied chairs and standing adults at 10:05 and 10:30.

Applied by: the student, on each session day, at the time.

Number: 398 person-occasions across four sessions, inside a base of 721 households served over the same four Wednesdays.

This group is smaller than the population named in the proposal because the announcement did not reach people who arrived after 10:30 or left before it.

Group 2: Reached

Rule: anyone whose blood pressure was measured at the table.

Source: the tally sheet.

Applied by: the student, at the time of each reading.

Number: 96 readings across four sessions, of which 89 came from people in the waiting line and 7 from walk-ins.

Group 3: Referred

Rule: anyone whose reading fell in either of the two upper categories and who took a referral card.

Source: the count of referral cards missing from the stack at the end of each session.

Applied by: the student, at 9:55 and 12:05 on each session day.

Number: 31 cards taken, inside a base of 39 readings at or above 140/90.

Walk-Ins, Kept Separate

Seven readings came from people not in the waiting line: three volunteers, two people dropping off donations and two people who heard about the table outside and came in only for the check. No invitation record covers them. They are counted in group 2 but kept out of the share of the invited group reached, so as not to inflate it.

The Same Person, Twice

No names were collected. To estimate repeat visitors, the student asked each person, "Have you had your pressure checked at this table before?" Fifteen of the 96 said yes. That suggests about 81 different people were reached, with 15 coming twice. Two people who came a third time are counted within the 15.

What Each Channel Can Evidence

The announcement can be linked to the invited group, since the count was taken at the same moment. The sign and the queue volunteers' mentions cannot be linked to any group: nobody was asked which channel brought them. Several people said "the lady at the door told me," which suggests the volunteers mattered, but the summary does not count it.

Comparing the Three Groups

Of 398 invited person-occasions, 89 resulted in a reading from the line, about 22%. Of the 39 high readings, 31 led to a referral card being taken, about 79%. The steepest drop is between being invited and coming to the table.

Session totals went from 19 on 14 October to 27 and then 28, the two Wednesdays after the invitation changed. Readings from people who spoke Spanish with the student rose from 1 on 14 October to 6, 8 and 5 on the later dates. This is consistent with the change widening reach, though the summary cannot rule out other explanations, such as people hearing about the table from friends.

Why Reach Is Reported This Way

The evaluation framework defines reach as the number and proportion of the intended population who participate, and asks how participants differ from those who do not (Glasgow et al., 1999). A single headline figure, such as "96 people screened," would hide that some readings were from the same people, that seven were walk-ins and that the invitation itself missed part of the line.

Reach Among Spanish Speakers

Readings from people who spoke Spanish at the table were 1, 6, 8 and 5 across the four sessions, 20 in all. The coordinator estimates that about a fifth of households speak Spanish at home. On the last three dates, Spanish speakers made up roughly a quarter of readings, close to their share of the line. On the first date, they made up one in nineteen.

The Seated Count in Detail

The 398 invited person-occasions break down as 98, 104, 101 and 95 people seated at the first announcement, plus about 25, 30 and 15 people who came in from outside before the second announcement on the last three dates. The first session had no second announcement, which is why its invited count is lowest relative to households. Adding the outdoor groups raises the invited total; leaving them out would overstate the share reached on later dates.

Who Was Not Reached

People who waited outside before 21 October; people who arrived after 10:30; people who spoke Spanish on 14 October; and people who chose not to come to the table. The last group is the largest and cannot be described, since nobody was asked why they did not come.

How the Rules Were Agreed

The three rules were written before the first session and shared with the coordinator, so that the pantry and the student counted the same thing. Agreeing measures in advance with a community partner is part of sharing decisions rather than reporting to them (Israel et al., 1998). The walk-in rule was added after the first session, when it became clear that volunteers and visitors were also coming to the table.

Why the Base Matters

Ninety-six readings sounds like a lot or a little depending on what it is set against. Against 721 households over four weeks, it is a modest share. Against 398 invited person-occasions, about a fifth. Against the 110 adults over 50 the proposal estimated each week, roughly a fifth to a quarter each Wednesday. Reporting the base with every figure lets the pantry choose the comparison that fits its own question.

What the Chain Suggests for a Second Round

The biggest loss is at the first step: most invited people did not sit down. A second round should focus on that step, for example by moving the table nearer the waiting chairs or offering checks during the second announcement. Improving the later steps, such as cards and slips, matters less while so few people reach the table.

Limits

The invited count is an estimate based on visual age and chair counts. The repeat-visitor figure depends on people remembering and answering truthfully. These limits are carried forward into the results and the limitations analysis. Reviews of the framework's use note that reach is often reported without its base or method (Gaglio et al., 2013), which this summary tries to avoid.

References

Gaglio, B., Shoup, J. A., & Glasgow, R. E. (2013). The RE-AIM framework: A systematic review of use over time. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), e38-e46. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301299

Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322

Israel, B. A., Schulz, A. J., Parker, E. A., & Becker, A. B. (1998). Review of community-based research: Assessing partnership approaches to improve public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 19, 173-202. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.19.1.173