Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Discussion 2
Two deliverables, and the second is the one that carries the marks: not what you built, but why that format for that population — and how to describe cultural barriers without sliding into stereotype.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 4, 2026
What this health promotion assessment is really grading
The assessment has two parts that are graded on different things, and most of the risk sits in the second. Part I asks you to make something — a program outline, an event plan, or a pamphlet. Part II asks you to explain why you made that thing, in that form, for that population, and to address the barriers standing between the population and the behaviour you want. Part I is production; Part II is argument. Submissions that pour effort into a beautiful brochure and then narrate its contents in Part II have produced the artifact and skipped the assessment.
Start with the population, and choose one narrow enough to tailor to. The brief says diverse population, and a submission that picks 'the community' or 'low-income adults' has chosen something no material can be tailored to. It also says to review the literature or use health assessments to determine the population's needs — that is an instruction to establish need with data rather than assume it. Naming a specific population and citing what its actual burden is, from surveillance data or a community assessment, is the move that makes everything downstream defensible.
The question Part II really asks — why is this an effective strategy for this population? — has an established answer vocabulary, and using it is the difference between an opinion and an argument. Kreuter's five tailoring strategies name the levers: peripheral (imagery and framing that signal the material is for this group), evidential (presenting the group's own risk data), linguistic (language and vernacular), constituent-involving (community members as peer educators or advisors), and sociocultural (working through faith settings, values, and the social determinants that constrain the behaviour). Saying which of these your design uses, and why that one fits this population's barrier, answers the question directly.
Be careful in the barriers section, because the prompt's own examples — CAM, language, religious beliefs — sit one sentence away from stereotype. There is a real difference between 'members of this community are more likely to consult a traditional healer before a clinician, and here is the prevalence study' and 'this culture believes in folk remedies'. The first is an evidence claim about a distribution; the second attributes a fixed belief to every individual and is exactly what culturally competent practice is meant to prevent. Write barriers as documented patterns with sources, keep individual variation visible, and prefer structural barriers — cost, transport, clinic hours, interpreter availability — where the evidence points there, because they are frequently the larger obstacle and are far less often named.
One more thing worth knowing, because it makes a stronger paper than the confident version: cultural tailoring is not uniformly effective. A 2022 meta-analysis of culturally adapted digital health promotion interventions found no significant advantage over active controls for most behaviours, with physical activity the exception. You are not required to argue tailoring always works. Arguing that this strategy suits this barrier, and acknowledging where the evidence is thin, is a more credible case than an unqualified one.
Finally, read the formatting requirements literally: the APA title page, reference page, font and the minimum of three current scholarly sources are marked PART II ONLY. They are requirements for the paper, not for the pamphlet — and a brochure laid out to APA manuscript rules is a worse brochure, which undercuts the very design argument you are making in Part II.
Likely learning objectives
- Identify a diverse population narrowly enough that an educational intervention can be tailored to it, and establish its health need from literature or health assessment data rather than assumption.
- Justify the choice of educational modality using an established tailoring framework, so that Part II answers why the strategy fits rather than describing what the artifact contains.
- Describe cultural barriers as documented, sourced patterns of distribution rather than as fixed attributes of a group, which is the distinction culturally competent practice depends on.
- Likely assessed on whether the barrier identified in the barriers section is the same barrier the educational strategy is then argued to overcome, since the brief links the two explicitly.
- Tends to be rewarded when structural barriers such as cost, transport, clinic hours or interpreter availability are weighed alongside cultural ones instead of being omitted.
Assignment instructions
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Create an educational program, event, or piece of literature (for example, a pamphlet) that incorporates best practices in health promotion and disease prevention for a diverse population. Then, explain how you developed your educational program, event, or piece of literature and address any barriers to disease prevention and health promotion for the population.By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and assessment criteria:SHOW MORE Toggle Drawer Context From your own professional experiences, as well as your work in this program, you have come to recognize that the goal of community or public health nursing is to improve and maintain the health status of individuals and families; cultural, racial, and ethnic groups; and communities and populations.SHOW MORE Toggle Drawer Questions to Consider To deepen your understanding, you are encoura ged to consider the questions below and discuss them with a fellow learner, a work associate, an interested friend, or a member of the business community.SHOW MORE Toggle Drawer Resources SUGGESTED RESOURCES To help you prepare for this assessment, review the resources you used and the assessments you completed in BSN-FP4010 and BSN-FP4014. Capella Resources APA Paper Template. APA Paper Tutorial. Assessment Instructions PART I To prepare for the first part of the assessment, complete the following: Review the literature or use health assessments to determine health care needs of a diverse population in your community. Explore things that could influence success, such as cultural attitudes toward alternative forms of healing, religious beliefs, or other individuals. Examine the impact of current health promotion and wellness initiatives on health outcomes and health disparities. Review the literature to identify best practices. Once you have identified a diverse population, develop an educational program, event, or piece of literature that promotes wellness and disease prevention. If you choose an educational program or event, be sure you outline the basic content of the program or event, as well as how you would structure it. If you choose a piece of literature, be deliberate in the points you highlight. Be sure that your choice is appropriate for the population. For an educational program or event, prepare and submit an outline of the content and structure. For a brochure or pamphlet, prepare and submit the brochure or pamphlet using a simple Word document or a Microsoft Publisher document, if you have that software available. PART II Explain how you developed your educational program, event, or piece of literature and address any barriers to disease prevention and health promotion for the population.Complete the following: Explain why you chose the particular educational strategy. Why is it an effective strategy for the population? Describe cultural barriers to disease prevention and health promotion in the population. This might include things such as CAM, language, religious beliefs, and so on. Explain how your educational strategy can help overcome some of the barriers you described. Support your work with valid scholarly resources. ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS (PART II ONLY) Format: Include a title page and reference page. Use APA format. References: Cite at least three current scholarly or professional resources. Font: Use double-spaced, 12-point, Times New Roman font. Note: Faculty may use the Writing Feedback Tool when grading this assessment. The Writing Feedback Tool is designed to provide you with guidance and resources to develop your writing based on five core skills. You will find writing feedback in the Scoring Guide for the assessment, once your work has been evaluated. Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Discussion 2
What Part I and Part II each have to contain
- 01Part I: an educational program, event, or piece of literature promoting wellness and disease prevention for a diverse population — submitted as an outline of content and structure for a program or event, or as the actual brochure or pamphlet in a Word or Publisher document.
- 02Part II: an explanation of why you chose that particular educational strategy and why it is effective for the population.
- 03Part II: a description of cultural barriers to disease prevention and health promotion in that population — the brief names CAM, language and religious beliefs as examples.
- 04Part II: an explanation of how your educational strategy helps overcome some of the barriers you described.
- 05Formatting, PART II ONLY: title page and reference page in APA format; at least three current scholarly or professional references; double-spaced 12-point Times New Roman.
Building the program and the rationale that defends it
Name the population and establish its need with data
Identify a specific population and state its health burden using surveillance data, a community health assessment, or published prevalence figures. Say how you determined the need, since the brief offers literature review or health assessment as the two routes.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That the population is specific enough to tailor to and its need is evidenced rather than assumed, since every later design choice is justified by reference to this need.
Identify the target behaviour and the barrier standing in its way
State the single behaviour the intervention is meant to change — screening uptake, medication adherence, vaccination — and the principal barrier blocking it. Weigh structural barriers against cultural ones honestly.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That one behaviour and one principal barrier are named, because the brief later requires the educational strategy to be argued against a specific barrier rather than against general disadvantage.
Part I: build the artifact
Produce the program outline or the pamphlet itself. For a program, give the content sequence, the setting, the facilitator and the duration; for a pamphlet, make deliberate choices about reading level, imagery, language and the single call to action.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That the deliverable matches the brief's stated form — an outline of content and structure for a program, or an actual laid-out document for a pamphlet — rather than a description of one.
Part II: justify the modality using a tailoring framework
Explain why this format suits this population, naming the tailoring strategies you used — peripheral, evidential, linguistic, constituent-involving, or sociocultural — and connecting each to the barrier it addresses.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That the rationale explains why this strategy is effective for this population, which is the question the brief asks, rather than restating the artifact's contents.
Part II: describe cultural barriers without essentialising
Present each barrier as a sourced pattern with variation acknowledged. Where you discuss complementary or alternative medicine, religious practice or language, cite prevalence rather than asserting group belief.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That barriers are framed as evidence about distributions rather than as fixed group characteristics, since attributing uniform beliefs to a population is the failure mode this competency exists to test.
Part II: argue how the strategy overcomes the barrier — and its limits
Close the loop between the barrier you named and the design choice you made. State what your intervention cannot fix, including structural barriers education alone will not move.
What the assessor is likely looking for
That the same barrier named earlier is the one addressed here, and that the claim is proportionate — evidence on cultural tailoring is mixed, so an unqualified claim of effectiveness is weaker than a bounded one.
Finding the population data and the tailoring evidence
Recommended databases
- CINAHL Complete
- PubMed
- Think Cultural Health (HHS Office of Minority Health)
- County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
- CDC WONDER and BRFSS
Search sequence
- 1.Get the population's burden first from surveillance data — BRFSS, county health rankings, or a local community health needs assessment — so the need is a figure you can cite rather than a claim.
- 2.Search your population together with your target behaviour and the word 'barriers' to find studies that document the obstacles rather than assuming them.
- 3.Search 'culturally tailored' or 'culturally adapted' with your behaviour to find whether tailoring has been tested for this outcome, and note where the evidence is null as well as where it is positive.
- 4.Look up the National CLAS Standards for the language-access and communication expectations your material should meet, particularly if your population has limited English proficiency.
- 5.Check your finished material against a readability and clarity standard before you defend it in Part II, so the design argument rests on a measure rather than an impression.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
National CLAS Standards
Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · 2013
The 15 standards and the Principal Standard on providing services responsive to cultural health beliefs, language and health literacy. Use it to ground the language-access and communication choices in your material rather than justifying them by preference.
Community-Based Culturally Tailored Education Programs for Black Communities with Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, Hypertension, and Stroke: Systematic Review Findings
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 10(6), 2986-3006 · 2022
The source for Kreuter's five tailoring strategies — peripheral, evidential, linguistic, constituent-involving and sociocultural — which give you the vocabulary Part II needs. Also reports that programmes run in churches and barbershops achieved better trust and participation than clinical settings, useful for defending your choice of venue.
Culturally adapting internet- and mobile-based health promotion interventions might not be worth the effort: a systematic review and meta-analysis
npj Digital Medicine, 5:34 · 2022
The counter-evidence that keeps your claim proportionate: no significant advantage for culturally adapted digital interventions over active controls in most areas (short-term g = 0.10, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.40), with physical activity the exception (long-term g = 0.48). Cite it when you bound what your intervention can claim. Note it covers digital interventions specifically.
Measuring Health Literacy Levels of a Patient Portal Using the CDC's Clear Communication Index
Health Promotion Practice, 18(1), 140-149 · 2016
A worked application of the CDC Clear Communication Index — 20 items scored 0 or 1 and converted to a 0-100 scale, where 90 or above is considered excellent. Use the Index to assess your own pamphlet so the design argument in Part II rests on a score rather than an assertion.
Literature Review of the National CLAS Standards: Policy and Practical Implications in Reducing Health Disparities
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, 4(4), 632-647 · 2017
A review of 55 articles on how far the CLAS Standards actually reduce disparities, and where implementation breaks down — communication within organisations and inconsistent accountability. Use it for the section acknowledging what your intervention cannot fix at organisational level.
Checking the pamphlet and the paper before you submit
Common mistakes
- Choosing a population too broad to tailor to. 'The community' or 'older adults' leaves you with no cultural specifics to design for and nothing concrete to say in Part II.
- Describing the artifact in Part II instead of justifying it. The brief asks why the strategy is effective for the population; a walkthrough of the pamphlet's panels answers a different question.
- Writing cultural barriers as group beliefs. 'This culture distrusts Western medicine' attributes a fixed attitude to every individual; 'a documented pattern of lower screening uptake, with these reasons reported in this study' is the same point made defensibly.
- Naming one barrier in the barriers section and then arguing the strategy overcomes a different one. The brief links the two explicitly, and the disconnect is easy for an assessor to see.
- Omitting structural barriers entirely. Cost, transport, clinic hours and interpreter availability are frequently the larger obstacle, and a paper that treats culture as the only barrier misdiagnoses the problem.
- Claiming cultural tailoring is straightforwardly effective. The meta-analytic evidence is mixed, and an unqualified claim is easier to challenge than a bounded one.
- Applying the Part II formatting rules to the pamphlet. The APA title page, reference page and Times New Roman requirement are marked PART II ONLY, and a brochure formatted as a manuscript is a worse brochure.
- Asserting the material is appropriate for the population's reading level without checking it against any readability or clarity standard.
Submission checklist
- The population is specific, and its health need is supported by cited data rather than assumed.
- One target behaviour and one principal barrier are named clearly.
- Part I is submitted in the form the brief specifies — an outline of content and structure, or an actual pamphlet document.
- Part II names the tailoring strategies used and ties each to the population, not just to the topic.
- Every cultural barrier is sourced and written as a pattern with variation acknowledged, not as a group trait.
- Structural barriers are considered alongside cultural ones.
- The barrier addressed in the final section is the same one described earlier.
- Claims about effectiveness are bounded, and the limits of what education alone can change are stated.
- Part II has an APA title page and reference page, at least three current scholarly or professional sources, and is double-spaced in 12-point Times New Roman.
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read Brinevia's academic-integrity policy.
Written by
Maren Caldwell
MSN, RN, CNE
Medical-surgical nursing, pharmacology and NCLEX preparation
Maren is a registered nurse with over 15 years of clinical and educational experience in medical-surgical nursing. She writes on NCLEX preparation, patient care fundamentals, pharmacology and evidence-based practice.
Reviewed by
Dr. Tessa Redmond
DNP, RN, CNE
Evidence-based practice and clinical education
Tessa is a doctorally-prepared nurse educator. She reviews Brinevia content for clinical accuracy and alignment with current evidence-based guidelines.