| Course | HLTH 4380 Strategies for Health Communication and Wellness |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Message testing memo |
| Length | About 1,070 words, 5 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 4380 Week 10
Memorandum
To: Disposal Campaign Team, Maple County Health Department
From: Health Communication Specialist
Date: May 4, 2026
Re: Results of testing two versions of the disposal message with eight adult children
Summary
Eight adult children who had recently helped move a parent read two versions of the campaign's lead message. Both versions communicated the action. The version opening on the action was preferred by five of eight readers. Two findings run against the plan: several readers wanted the list of items a drop box refuses, which the fact sheet had cut, and the version opening on risk was remembered better by some readers but made two of them defensive. This memo recommends restoring a short refused-items line and keeping the action-first opening.
Method
Readers were recruited through a flyer at a composite senior living community, Willow Creek, offering a $25 grocery card for a 30-minute conversation. Eight people took part, six women and two men aged 41 to 63, each of whom had helped move a parent into the community within the past year. They are referred to below by number only.
Each reader saw two versions of the folder insert, in alternating order so that half saw each version first. Version A opened with the action: "Take your parent's old medicines to a drop box." Version B opened with risk: "Leftover pain pills in an empty house can end up in the wrong hands." The rest of the text was identical. After each version, the reader was asked three questions: (1) What is this asking you to do? (2) Would you do it, and what might stop you? (3) Is anything missing or confusing?
Pretesting of this kind is meant to find problems in draft materials before production, not to estimate how a population will respond (National Cancer Institute, 2004). The group was small and self-selected: readers who answer a flyer about medicines may care more about the topic than most. Findings describe what these eight people said.
Findings by Question
Question 1: What Is This Asking You to Do?
All eight readers stated the action correctly for both versions, in words close to "take the old pills to a drop box." Six also repeated the search phrase without looking back at the page. Two readers, 3 and 7, mentioned blacking out the name only for Version A, where the instruction appeared one line higher.
Agreement on this question was complete, and it confirms that the headline sentence carries the action in both versions.
Question 2: Would You Do It, and What Might Stop You?
Seven readers said they would have done it during their parent's move. The barriers they named were practical. Four said they did not know whether their parent's pharmacy had a drop box (readers 1, 2, 5 and 8). Three were unsure what to do with liquid medicines and inhalers, which they remembered finding in their parent's cabinets (readers 2, 4 and 6). Reader 6 said she had thrown away a bag of her mother's inhalers because "nothing told me where they go."
One reader, 3, said she would not have taken the medicines anywhere, because her mother wanted to bring them all to the new apartment. This is a barrier the campaign has not addressed: the parent's own wishes.
Question 3: Is Anything Missing or Confusing?
Five readers asked what the drop box would not take. Reader 4 said, "If I drive over there and they won't take the inhalers, I'm not going back." This directly contradicts a decision made in Week 4, when the list of refused items was cut from the fact sheet to save space and replaced with one line advising readers to ask the pharmacist. Readers did not treat that line as enough; they wanted to know before the trip.
Two readers found "flush list" confusing in both versions, and one asked whether flushing was "allowed now."
The Contradiction: The Refused-Items List
The cut made sense on paper, since the list varies between sites and a single line could cover it. Testing showed that the cost of the cut falls on exactly the reader the campaign is built for: someone making an extra stop on a crowded day, who will not make a second one. The finding came from five of eight readers without prompting, which is the strongest agreement in the test apart from the action itself.
Recommendation: restore a short line naming the items most often refused, needles, inhalers and liquids, with the phrase "call ahead to check." This adds about fifteen words to the sheet.
The Risk-First Version
Version B, opening on risk, produced mixed reactions. Three readers (1, 5 and 8) said the risk sentence made them "take it more seriously," and two of them recalled the opening line word for word at the end of the session. But two readers reacted against it. Reader 2 said, "My dad isn't a drug dealer," and reader 7 said the line made her feel "lectured." Five of eight preferred Version A overall.
These reactions fit published work. A meta-analysis by Witte and Allen (2000) found that fear appeals change behavior most when paired with a clear, doable response and that strong fear with weak efficacy produces defensive reactions. A separate meta-analysis of 93 studies found that gain-framed and loss-framed messages for disease prevention differ very little in persuasiveness overall, with an average difference corresponding to r = .03 (O'Keefe & Jensen, 2007). Neither review predicts a large advantage for opening on risk, and this test did not show one.
Recommendation: keep Version A's action-first opening and move the risk sentence to the second paragraph, where it explains why to act without being the first thing the reader meets.
Other Changes
Add one sentence for readers whose parent wants to hold on to every bottle, prompted by reader 3. Reword the flush list line so it is clearly an exception: "Only if no drop box is near, a few strong pain medicines can be flushed." Keep the search phrase unchanged; six of eight readers recalled it.
Limits
Eight readers from one community cannot represent the campaign's audience. All had already completed a move, so they recalled their needs rather than meeting the message at the moment of action. The moderator was a member of the campaign team, which may have made readers more polite about the drafts. These limits argue for a second small round with readers who are about to move a parent.
References
National Cancer Institute. (2004). Making health communication programs work. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. https://www.cancer.gov/publications/health-communication
O'Keefe, D. J., & Jensen, J. D. (2007). The relative persuasiveness of gain-framed and loss-framed messages for encouraging disease prevention behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Health Communication, 12(7), 623-644. https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730701615198
Witte, K., & Allen, M. (2000). A meta-analysis of fear appeals: Implications for effective public health campaigns. Health Education & Behavior, 27(5), 591-615. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019810002700506
The Walden HLTH 4380 Week 10 instructions
The tenth week asks students to report the results of testing draft campaign materials with members of the intended audience, usually in memo form. The method section should state who was recruited and how, what they were shown and what they were asked, and it should admit the limits of a small or self-selected group. Findings are expected to be reported faithfully, including reactions that contradict the team's assumptions. Many prompts ask students to group findings by question rather than by participant or version, so patterns are visible. Reactions are paraphrased or briefly quoted and attributed by number, never by name. Recommendations should follow from the findings, and published research can help interpret them. The memo usually closes with limits and next steps. Pretesting is formative, so claims about how the whole population will respond go beyond what the method supports.
How the HLTH 4380 Week 10 example is put together
The memo opens with a summary that leads with the decision and the two contrary findings. The method section describes the flyer, the $25 card, the eight readers, the alternating order of versions A and B and the three questions, then cites the NCI planning guide on what pretesting can and cannot show. Findings under question 1 show complete agreement on the action and recall of the search phrase. Under question 2, readers name practical barriers, including unknown drop-box locations, liquids and inhalers, and one parent's wish to keep everything. Question 3 surfaces the request for a refused-items list and confusion about flushing. A contradiction section explains why the Week 4 cut failed this reader and recommends a fifteen-word fix. A section on the risk-first version reports both kinds of reaction and the two meta-analyses. Other changes and three limits close the memo.
Reading the HLTH 4380 Week 10 rubric
Faculty usually grade a testing memo on method, fidelity, organization, interpretation and recommendations. The method row rewards a transparent account of recruitment, materials and questions, with honest limits. Fidelity is the core criterion: findings that contradict the plan must be reported as fully as those that support it, and a memo that buries them loses heavily. Organization by question makes patterns visible and is often explicitly requested. Interpretation earns credit when published research is used to explain a finding without overriding what participants said. Recommendations should follow directly from findings and be specific enough to act on, such as a line to restore and its word count. Participant privacy, through numbering, is expected. Memo format, with a clear summary up front, completes the professional standard. Mechanics include APA entries for a government guide and two meta-analyses.
Common HLTH 4380 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Testing memos most often lose credit by reporting only what supports the draft. The interesting finding is usually the one that went against the plan, and a memo that treats it as an exception misses the point. Another frequent problem is organizing by participant, which buries patterns. Students also overstate results from eight people as if they described the whole audience. Before submitting, put the contrary findings in your summary. Group results by the questions you asked. Count how many participants said each thing. Use research to interpret, not to dismiss, what participants told you. Make each recommendation specific enough that a designer could act on it tomorrow. Name at least two limits of your method and suggest a next round. A custom memo can report a test of different materials, such as a vaccine reminder text, using the same structure.
Get a HLTH 4380 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Upload the prompt and rubric plus the materials your section had you test, and a memo arranged by question, contradictions included, is drafted around them. The first draft carries no fee and is ready in 24 to 48 hours. The testing group in this sample never existed, and since real participants' words belong to them, none are invented for yours.
More HLTH 4380 papers and BS in Public Health samples
- HLTH 4380 Week 1: Message Rewrite Example
- HLTH 4380 Week 2: Channel Comparison Brief
- HLTH 4380 Week 3: Readability Revision Brief
- HLTH 4380 Week 4: Fact Sheet Draft Example
- HLTH 4380 Week 5: Campaign Concept Paper
- HLTH 4380 Week 6: Social Post Set Example
- HLTH 4380 Week 7: Spokesperson Script Example
- HLTH 4380 Week 8: Infographic Rationale Example
- HLTH 4380 Week 9: Media Pitch Example
- HLTH 4380 Week 11: Campaign Portfolio Example
- HLTH 4360 Week 10: Bus Operator Setting Analysis
- HLTH 4340 Week 10: Couch to 5K Program Critique
- HLTH 4320 Week 10: Infant Iron Education Handout
- HLTH 4300 Week 10: Sustainability Check
HLTH 4380 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 4380 Week 10 sample paper?
The full Week 10 testing memo, reporting eight readers' reactions to two versions of the disposal message by question with recommendations and three references, can be read here.
What did testing reverse in the HLTH 4380 Week 10 example?
Five of eight readers asked what a drop box refuses, reversing the fact sheet's cut of that list, so the memo recommends restoring a short line naming needles, inhalers and liquids.
Which version did readers prefer?
Five of eight preferred Version A, which opens on the action. Version B, opening on risk, was memorable for some readers but made two feel defensive or lectured.
Why are findings grouped by question?
Grouping by question puts agreement and disagreement side by side, so the team can see which reactions were shared and which contradicted the plan.
What are the limits of testing with eight people?
The group was small, self-selected and recalling a past move, and the moderator was on the campaign team, so findings describe these readers rather than the whole audience.