Attached All instructions
Part I attached
Part II Capstone
This is a continuation of the health promotion program proposal, part one, which you submitted previously. Please approach this assignment as an opportunity to integrate instructor feedback from part I and expand on ideas adhering to the components of the MAP-IT strategy. Include necessary levels of detail you feel appropriate to assure stakeholder buy-in.
You have already completed the steps 1-4. Make sure you revise this initial submission according to your instructor’s comments.
1. Describe the health problem. Using data and statistics support your claim that the issue you selected is a problem. What specifically will you address in your proposed health promotion program? Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
2. Describe the vulnerable population and setting. What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population? Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
3. Provide a review of literature from scholarly journals of evidence-based interventions that address the problem. After completing a library search related to effective interventions for your chosen health promotion activity, you will write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found. You might consult research texts for information on how to write a review of the literature found in your search.
4. Select an appropriate health promotion/disease prevention theoretical framework or conceptual model that would best serve as the framework guiding the proposal. Provide rationale for your selection which includes discussion of the concepts of the selected model
For this assignment add criteria 5-8 as detailed below:
5. Propose a health promotion program using an evidence-based intervention found in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting. Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which include resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role. Be certain to include a timeline. (2 to 4 paragraph. You may use bullets if appropriate).
6. Thoroughly describe the intended outcomes. Describe the outcomes in detail concurrent with the SMART goal approach. (1 paragraph).
7. Provide a detailed plan for evaluation for each outcome. (1 paragraph).
8. Thoroughly describe possible barriers/challenges to implementing the proposed project as well as strategies to address these barriers/challenges. (1 paragraph).
9. Conclude the paper with a Conclusion paragraph. Don’t type the word “Conclusion”. Here you will share your insights about this strategy and your expectations regarding achieving your goals. (1 paragraph).
Your assignment should be 7-8 pages (excluding title page, references, and appendices), following APA standards.
Remember, your Proposal must be a scholarly paper demonstrating graduate school level writing and critical analysis of existing nursing knowledge about health promotion.
CHLAMYDIA AND PERIODIC SCANNING 2
Chlamydia and Periodic Scanning Among Sex Workers
In recent years, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have increased at an alarming rate. 20% of the population in the US have had an STI since 2018 and their treatment cost has been approximately $16 billion. Among the STDs that have been on the rise include chlamydia. Chlamydia is an infection that affects both men and women and damages their reproductive organs. Because of this, it becomes hard for women to become pregnant and sometimes causes fatal ectopic pregnancy. Florida is among the worst affected population by STDs, and it ranks 7th supporting data shows that from 2010 to 2019, the rates of chlamydia in Florida rose an astonishing 313%. This condition is easily curable, but the shame people must get treated for STDs is the main cause of the high increase rates in of the disease.
It has been noted that this STD is particularly on the rise among young people aged 15-29. This population has been known for having unprotected and rampant sexual engagements. According to the most recent state data available, the illness affected 105,058 people overall in 2018. Florida reported 85,278 chlamydia infections among those between the ages of 15 and 29, which is a treatable bacterial STD. The number of cases the department reported in 2016 grew to 94,719 in 2017, reaching 100,002. Groups with the highest risk of developing an STD were identified by the health department as being young adults (15–24), gay and bisexual men, and those who have had several sex partners. According to the health department, 3 out of 4 STD carriers in Florida are between the ages of 15 and 29.
For asymptomatic ureteral and anorectal Chlamydia trachomatis infection, would periodically screening sex workers be beneficial to reduce incidence and prevalence rates at the community level when compared to communities without intervention in six months?
Sex workers are exposed to many health hazards including STDs such as Chlamydia, AIDs, gonorrhea, and syphilis. The most rampant of them all among sex workers and normal people in the population is chlamydia. The disease is bad if left unchecked but easily cured when it is detected and treated early. It affects the reproductive system to an extent it may cause ectopic pregnancy or even destruction of the uterus. Sex workers are highly subjected to this disease as they are mostly dealing with the most sexually active age group which carries the largest infection rate. The number of cases the department reported in 2016 grew to 94,719 in 2017, reaching 100,002. Groups with the highest risk of developing an STD were identified by the health department as being young adults (15–24), gay and bisexual men, and those who have had several sex partners. Chlamydial and gonococcal infections in females can cause pelvic inflammatory disease and its related consequences, but they are typically asymptomatic. Untreated infections in pregnant women can cause neonatal chlamydial pneumonia or gonococcal or chlamydial ophthalmia in their newborns. Women are most exposed to and affected when it comes to STDs and thus empowering them to carry out regular screening tests will be of great importance.
In 2021, Davidson et al. carried out a study to update the 2014 recommendations that the US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) had commissioned evaluating the harms and positives of gonorrhea and chlamydia screening among young people. From their report, they concluded that there is a moderate benefit after chlamydia screening in almost all sexually active women aged 24 or younger and 25 or older who are at elevated infection risks. The report that this category of women should get screened for STDs such as gonorrhea and chlamydia concluded that there is not enough information available currently to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of screening men for chlamydia and gonorrhea.
Lau et al. (2022) on the other hand did a study and realized that Rectal chlamydia treatment is now definitive but maintaining and evaluating positive outcomes is still difficult and more so when it comes to women who are continually at risk of getting infected. There is a rise in infections among MSM, and strategies are required to lower the incidence of infections. Once developed, viability assays can aid in lowering antibiotic usage. The purpose of routine rectal chlamydia screening in women is still debated, and asymptomatic infections in MSM may be added to this discussion soon.
Pillay et al. (2021) on the hand conducted research through a systematic review highlighting the advantages and disadvantages of screening Chlamydia trachomatis (CT) and Neisseria gonorrhoeae (NG) compared to no screening and other alternative screening approaches. One thing that was noted was the lack of direct information regarding the best screening methods and intervals when to begin and stop screening, and whether screening men in addition to women is important to prevent clinical consequences highlighting that there needs to be an additional study in these areas which would be helpful. Most of the evidence regarding the advantages and disadvantages of screening for CT and/or NG is of low or very low certainty (Pillay et al., 2021). There was a risk of indirectness due to the inclusion of comparator groups that received some screening, insufficient outcome ascertainment, and the utilization of outreach settings.
In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region there is little knowledge of STIs and how commercial sex networks contribute to the disease being transmitted (van Bergen et al., 2021). STIs are effective makers of sexual risk behavior and a potent tool for deciphering the structure of sexual networks and foretelling the possibility of an HIV epidemic. Major gaps remain despite our epidemiological understanding’s advancements, and there is no evidence for more than half of the MENA countries. There is an urgent need due to the lack of STI surveillance and the programmatic responses’ emphasis on case management and syndromic approaches rather than on etiological investigations and evidence-based practices (van Bergen et al., 2021).
We sought to investigate potential future avenues for chlamydia management and produce insights that could inform evidence-based approaches. We specifically wanted to know how far we should go with testing for infections that are asymptomatic at both vaginal and extragenital sites. To help guide the creation of recommendations for potential avenues for chlamydia control in the Netherlands, we described shifting perspectives in chlamydia control. The results of earlier cost-effectiveness analyses may change because of these new findings. In contrast to the current “test and treat” approach, our expert panel believes that future tactics should focus on reducing, rather than expanding.
In their study, Pearce et al. (2020) analysis sought to evaluate the impact of campaigns on young people’s chlamydia screening uptake. Part form only screening, it was discovered through qualitative results that for a campaign to be successful, there needs to be a pertinent language that will showcase various testing possibilities among sex workers that will also ensure their anonymity. The target age group should be between 15 to 24 years as most sex workers who are more active range in this group (Pearce et al., 2021).
Various studies show that thorough treatments can result in appreciable decreases in Chlamydia infection among sex workers. When creating screening programs for these sex workers, integrating both behavioral and biological therapeutic methods should be considered. The recommended screening is for men and women who are sexually active and under the age of 25 and do not have any other risk factors, screening is advised at least once a year but for men and women who have recently started dating someone new or who have more than one relationship at the same time such as sex workers their screening and STI testing should now be done every three months rather than monthly (quarterly). Sex workers receive a certificate of attendance for STI screening at the time of screening, which they can show the brothel manager. This method of operations will greatly reduce the rates in communities that have these policies as compared to those that do not have any clear sex worker policies.
Chemaitelly, H., Weiss, H. A., Smolak, A., Majed, E., & Abu-Raddad, L. J. (2019). Epidemiology of treponema pallidum, chlamydia trachomatis, Neisseria gonorrhoeae, Trichomonas vaginalis, and herpes simplex virus type 2 among female sex workers in the Middle East and North Africa: Systematic Review and meta-analytics.
Journal of Global Health,
Davidson, K. W., Barry, M. J., Mangione, C. M., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Krist, A. H., Kubik, M., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Simon, M. A., Stevermer, J., Tseng, C. W., & Wong, J. B. (2021, September 14). Screening for Chlamydia and Gonorrhea.
Lau, A., Hocking, J. S., & Kong, F. Y. (2022). Rectal chlamydia infections: Implications for reinfection risk, screening, and treatment guidelines.
Current Opinion in Infectious Diseases,
Pearce, E., Jolly, K., Harris, I. M., Adriano, A., Moore, D., Price, M., & Ross, J. (2021). What is the effectiveness of community-based health promotion campaigns on Chlamydia screening uptake in young people and what barriers and facilitators have been identified? A mixed-methods systematic review.
Sexually Transmitted Infections,
98(1), 62–69. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2021-055142
Pillay, J., Wingert, A., MacGregor, T., Gates, M., Vandermeer, B., & Hartling, L. (2021). Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: Systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.
van Bergen, J. E., Hoenderboom, B. M., David, S., Deug, F., Heijne, J. C., van Aar, F., Hoebe, C. J., Bos, H., Dukers-Muijrers, N. H., Götz, H. M., Low, N., Morré, S. A., Herrmann, B., van der Sande, M. A., de Vries, H. J., Ward, H., & van Benthem, B. H. (2021). Where to go to in chlamydia control? from infection control towards infectious disease control.
Sexually Transmitted Infections,