WGU D627
Task 3: Evaluation Strategy for a Public Health
Program
Small Steps, Strong Family: Prevent Type 2 Diabetes
A culturally responsive diabetes-prevention education program for Hispanic and Latino adults in the
United States
Program focus: Affordable familiar foods, water instead of sugar-sweetened beverages, family-based physical activity, blood glucose
screening, and connection to a promotora or trusted clinic.
Public Health Education and Promotion
Western Governors University
D627 Task 3 | Evaluation Strategy • 1
, Evaluation Strategy
Program and Evaluation Purpose
The proposed public health program, Small Steps, Strong Family: Prevent Type 2 Diabetes, uses a one-page,
bilingual-ready poster and brief promotora-supported education to help Hispanic and Latino adults reduce their risk of
type 2 diabetes. The program is intended for adults with prediabetes or elevated risk, including individuals with a
family history of diabetes, overweight, limited access to preventive care, or barriers related to language, cost,
transportation, work schedules, or health literacy. The intervention promotes four practical actions: prepare balanced
meals with familiar foods, replace sugar-sweetened beverages with water, walk or move with family members, and
obtain a blood sugar screening or prevention referral through a trusted clinic or community health worker.
The evaluation will determine whether the program was implemented as intended, reached the priority population
equitably, improved understanding and confidence, prompted initial behavior change, increased screening and
referral uptake, and produced early cardiometabolic improvement among participants with elevated risk. The
evaluation also will identify why results differ across language, age, sex, insurance status, and access-related
subgroups. Findings will be used for program improvement, accountability to community partners, and decisions
about continuation or expansion.
Primary evaluation decision: Continue and refine the program if implementation fidelity and equity standards are met and participants
demonstrate meaningful gains in knowledge, self-efficacy, protective behaviors, and screening/referral completion. Expand only after
feasibility and outcome signals are confirmed.
Evaluation Framework and Approach
The evaluation follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention framework: engage stakeholders, describe
the program, focus the evaluation design, gather credible evidence, justify conclusions, and ensure use and share
lessons learned (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024a). A utilization-focused, mixed-methods
approach is appropriate because decision makers need both numerical evidence of change and contextual evidence
explaining acceptability, barriers, cultural fit, and unintended effects. Process evaluation will assess reach, dose,
fidelity, and acceptability. Short-term impact evaluation will assess knowledge, risk perception, self-efficacy,
intentions, and early behavior. Intermediate outcome evaluation will assess screening, referral completion, program
enrollment, weight-related indicators, and glycemic status.
A pragmatic pretest-posttest cohort design will be used for the initial six-month pilot. Participants will complete
baseline, immediate post-education, 3-month, and 6-month assessments. When feasible, participating sites will
phase implementation so that a later-start site can serve as a comparison group during the first three months. This
strengthens causal interpretation without denying the program to eligible community members. Because random
assignment may be impractical and could weaken community trust, all conclusions will acknowledge the limitations of
a nonrandomized design.
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Role in evaluation How input will be used
Revise survey wording, delivery
Hispanic/Latino adults and Define meaningful outcomes; review language, burden, and cultural fit;
times, food/activity examples, and
family members interpret findings
recommendations
Promotores/community Assess fidelity and feasibility;
Document delivery, referrals, barriers, and participant feedback
health workers identify workflow improvements
Clinic staff and
Validate outcomes and strengthen
diabetes-prevention Provide screening/referral data and clinical interpretation
referral pathways
partners
Community organizations Assess reach and trust; tailor
Support recruitment and dissemination
and faith leaders community-facing reporting
Program Integrate evidence and lead
Protect data quality, conduct analysis, and facilitate learning
manager/evaluator continuous quality improvement
D627 Task 3 | Evaluation Strategy • 2
Task 3: Evaluation Strategy for a Public Health
Program
Small Steps, Strong Family: Prevent Type 2 Diabetes
A culturally responsive diabetes-prevention education program for Hispanic and Latino adults in the
United States
Program focus: Affordable familiar foods, water instead of sugar-sweetened beverages, family-based physical activity, blood glucose
screening, and connection to a promotora or trusted clinic.
Public Health Education and Promotion
Western Governors University
D627 Task 3 | Evaluation Strategy • 1
, Evaluation Strategy
Program and Evaluation Purpose
The proposed public health program, Small Steps, Strong Family: Prevent Type 2 Diabetes, uses a one-page,
bilingual-ready poster and brief promotora-supported education to help Hispanic and Latino adults reduce their risk of
type 2 diabetes. The program is intended for adults with prediabetes or elevated risk, including individuals with a
family history of diabetes, overweight, limited access to preventive care, or barriers related to language, cost,
transportation, work schedules, or health literacy. The intervention promotes four practical actions: prepare balanced
meals with familiar foods, replace sugar-sweetened beverages with water, walk or move with family members, and
obtain a blood sugar screening or prevention referral through a trusted clinic or community health worker.
The evaluation will determine whether the program was implemented as intended, reached the priority population
equitably, improved understanding and confidence, prompted initial behavior change, increased screening and
referral uptake, and produced early cardiometabolic improvement among participants with elevated risk. The
evaluation also will identify why results differ across language, age, sex, insurance status, and access-related
subgroups. Findings will be used for program improvement, accountability to community partners, and decisions
about continuation or expansion.
Primary evaluation decision: Continue and refine the program if implementation fidelity and equity standards are met and participants
demonstrate meaningful gains in knowledge, self-efficacy, protective behaviors, and screening/referral completion. Expand only after
feasibility and outcome signals are confirmed.
Evaluation Framework and Approach
The evaluation follows the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention framework: engage stakeholders, describe
the program, focus the evaluation design, gather credible evidence, justify conclusions, and ensure use and share
lessons learned (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024a). A utilization-focused, mixed-methods
approach is appropriate because decision makers need both numerical evidence of change and contextual evidence
explaining acceptability, barriers, cultural fit, and unintended effects. Process evaluation will assess reach, dose,
fidelity, and acceptability. Short-term impact evaluation will assess knowledge, risk perception, self-efficacy,
intentions, and early behavior. Intermediate outcome evaluation will assess screening, referral completion, program
enrollment, weight-related indicators, and glycemic status.
A pragmatic pretest-posttest cohort design will be used for the initial six-month pilot. Participants will complete
baseline, immediate post-education, 3-month, and 6-month assessments. When feasible, participating sites will
phase implementation so that a later-start site can serve as a comparison group during the first three months. This
strengthens causal interpretation without denying the program to eligible community members. Because random
assignment may be impractical and could weaken community trust, all conclusions will acknowledge the limitations of
a nonrandomized design.
Stakeholder Engagement
Stakeholder Role in evaluation How input will be used
Revise survey wording, delivery
Hispanic/Latino adults and Define meaningful outcomes; review language, burden, and cultural fit;
times, food/activity examples, and
family members interpret findings
recommendations
Promotores/community Assess fidelity and feasibility;
Document delivery, referrals, barriers, and participant feedback
health workers identify workflow improvements
Clinic staff and
Validate outcomes and strengthen
diabetes-prevention Provide screening/referral data and clinical interpretation
referral pathways
partners
Community organizations Assess reach and trust; tailor
Support recruitment and dissemination
and faith leaders community-facing reporting
Program Integrate evidence and lead
Protect data quality, conduct analysis, and facilitate learning
manager/evaluator continuous quality improvement
D627 Task 3 | Evaluation Strategy • 2
