Article Review Related to Public Health Topic

Problem Statement and Research Design

The problem statement identified in the study is the existence of a disconnection between the policies made by government health economists and the application of the policies by health practitioners (Neumann, 2008, p. 2173). The study, therefore, sought to explain the dynamics leading to this apparent gap in the theoretical makeup of health policies in health care administration and the practical dynamics experienced by health care practitioners on the same. The research design is flexible and qualitative, considering the study was aimed at seeking the perspectives of health care practitioners on the measurement of health care services birthed by the public health department.

Significance of Problem to Nursing

The gap experienced between the formulation of health policies by government health economists and the practical implementation of the same has been reported over many years. Often, the gap occurs because policy formulators lack the requisite foresight of how their policies are going to be implemented at the grass-root level. Since all health practitioners operate under the guidelines of the government and relevant health bodies, the body of research identified in the research article is relevant because of the extensiveness of the recommendations identified in the study. This is true especially considering the fact that most government health policies are meant to uphold the good of the general public. This means that the implementation of their policies is an important bit in the overall realization of health and nursing goals because health institutions share the same goal as the government. Also, if the implementation of health policies is improved, then nurses are likely to get more satisfaction from their work but overall, the nursing profession will receive commendation because of the expected increase in the efficiency of the practice.

Description of Target Population

The target population described in the study consisted of local health practitioners because of their rich knowledge in the implementation of health policies over the years. This target population was carefully and fully described by the researchers, considering important information about their sampling was appropriately mentioned. For instance, the respondents were reported to be 46. Twenty-four of them were reported to hail from local health departments; seven from state health departments; eight from national health facilities; four from academic centers and eight from specific health boards (Neumann, 2008, p. 2176). The way the respondents were sourced (for example through adverts, random sampling, referrals, and the likes) was however excluded from the study, though it was an important bit of information that could be used in the analysis of the credibility of the study.

Data Collection Instruments

The major instrument used for data collection in the entire study was an interview. The interviews were done face to face. The structure of the interview was however semi and it was done sequentially among different groups of respondents. Existing literature was also used in the study to provide an insight into already researched materials on the research topic (Neumann, 2008, p. 2175). The literature review was also used to analyze how public health policies have been implemented and formulated in the past. This was done in the literature review section.

Assumptions and Limitations of the Study

The limitations of the study can be traced to its data collection and analysis techniques. Considering the major data collection technique used was interviews, the study’s credibility was therefore limited to the extent of the advantages or disadvantages of interviews. At the same time, the study was also limited to the fact that various health centers have different initiatives in implementing health policies. This implies that one health facility can have a good record of policy implementation than another facility in the same location because both have different administrative factors such as systems issues, collaborative elements, and the likes. The major assumption identifiable in this study is the general application expected of the study’s findings. Considering the respondents were sampled from group health centers across the state and nation, the study’s conclusions and recommendations are assumed to apply to the entire state and nation as well.

Recommendations of the Study

The study recommends that how health agencies collect and analyze information from health facilities should be standardized so that there are no ambiguities in the outputs produced from the same process. This will also mean a standardization of the outcomes of various health analysis processes across the state and nation. In addition, the study also points out that experts dealing with data collection and analysis need to undergo further training to improve their proficiencies in the same. Ultimately, the study recommends that investments should be directed towards assessing the benefits of health services provided in most public health facilities; otherwise, it would be difficult to quantify the overall benefits public health facilities offer the general public. These recommendations are supported by the study, considering they have been derived from a comprehensive analysis of existing literature on the topic, as well as a critical analysis of the respondent’s views on the same. For instance, decision-analytic tools such as the QALY and the ROI frameworks have been used to come up with recommendations (Neumann, 2008, p. 2179).


Neumann, P. (2008). Measuring the Value of Public Health Systems: The Disconnect Between Health Economists and Public Health Practitioners. American Journal of Public health, 98(12), 2173-2180.