| Course | HLTH 6038 Health Behavior Theory |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Construct map |
| Length | About 710 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6038 Week 3
The Health Belief Model Mapped Onto Adults With Diabetes Due for a Dilated Eye Exam at a Community Health Center: Each Construct in the Original Order, What It Would Sound Like Spoken Aloud and Where Such Reports Have Been Recorded
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6038: Health Behavior Theory
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Health Belief Model Mapped Onto Adults With Diabetes Due for a Dilated Eye Exam at a Community Health Center: Each Construct in the Original Order, What It Would Sound Like Spoken Aloud and Where Such Reports Have Been Recorded
Purpose and Population
This map takes the Health Belief Model apart and lands each construct on something adults with diabetes have actually reported about eye exams. The population is patients of a composite community health center, adults living with type 2 diabetes, who are due for their annual dilated eye exam, the screening that detects diabetic retinopathy before vision loss. The map keeps the model's structure intact: constructs appear in the order the original papers present them, with perceived susceptibility and severity together and self-efficacy last, as the later addition it is (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock et al., 1988). It does not invent beliefs. Every entry in the right column names where such a report has been recorded in published work.
The Map
Table 1
Health Belief Model Constructs Mapped Onto Diabetic Eye Exam Attendance
| Construct | What it would sound like from a patient | Where such reports have been recorded | |
|---|---|---|
| Perceived susceptibility | "My sugar is pretty good, so my eyes are fine." | Beliefs about consequences, coded in a systematic review of 69 studies (Graham-Rowe et al., 2018) | |
| Perceived severity | "If something happened, they'd fix it with glasses." | Gap between education provided and patient understanding, in patient focus groups (Hartnett et al., 2005) | |
| Perceived benefits | "I don't see why I need it if I can see fine." | Knowledge domain, including confusion between routine eye care and retinopathy screening (Graham-Rowe et al., 2018) | |
| Perceived barriers | "I can't pay for it, and the wait is a year." | Finances and long waits, reported by patients and physicians (Hartnett et al., 2005) | |
| Cues to action | "My doctor never told me to go." | Recommendations by health care professionals within the social influences domain (Graham-Rowe et al., 2018) | |
| Self-efficacy | "I wouldn't know how to get to the eye clinic or what to ask." | Environmental context and resources, the most frequently coded domain (Graham-Rowe et al., 2018) | |
Middle-column statements are illustrative paraphrases; the right column identifies the published source of each type of report.
What the Map Shows
The map holds together in most rows, and that is worth saying first. Perceived susceptibility, benefits and cues to action each have a clear counterpart in published reports. In a systematic review that coded barriers and enablers from 69 studies into theoretical domains, Graham-Rowe et al. (2018) found that environmental context and resources, social influences, knowledge, memory and decision processes, beliefs about consequences and emotions were the domains most likely to influence attendance, and among the examples were confusion between routine eye care and retinopathy screening and the role of recommendations from health care professionals. Those findings map onto benefits, susceptibility and cues to action without strain.
Two rows strain. The first is perceived severity. Patients in the qualitative study by Hartnett et al. (2005) largely believed their diabetes education was adequate, yet the authors found a gap between what was taught and what patients understood. That is a report about knowledge, not about how serious patients think vision loss would be; the model's severity construct has no published report to land on here, and the map marks the row as weak rather than inventing one.
The second is self-efficacy. The most common domain in the review was environmental context and resources, which includes practical obstacles such as registers, appointments and access. A patient who does not know how to reach the eye clinic may lack self-efficacy, or may simply face a system that makes the task hard. The model tends to read the second as the first. The same study by Hartnett et al. (2005) found that patients and physicians both named access to care, including a one-year wait for an eye appointment, as a barrier, and that no one named the system's capacity as the cause. A map built only on individual beliefs would miss that.
Use in Later Weeks
The map identifies which constructs a survey could measure with confidence in this population, susceptibility, benefits, barriers and cues, and which would need new items or a different model, severity and the system-level side of self-efficacy.
References
Graham-Rowe, E., Lorencatto, F., Lawrenson, J. G., Burr, J. M., Grimshaw, J. M., Ivers, N. M., Presseau, J., Vale, L., Peto, T., Bunce, C., & Francis, J. J. (2018). Barriers to and enablers of diabetic retinopathy screening attendance: A systematic review of published and grey literature. Diabetic Medicine, 35(10), 1308-1319. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13686
Hartnett, M. E., Key, I. J., Loyacano, N. M., Horswell, R. L., & DeSalvo, K. B. (2005). Perceived barriers to diabetic eye care: Qualitative study of patients and physicians. Archives of Ophthalmology, 123(3), 387-391. https://doi.org/10.1001/archopht.123.3.387
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The Health Belief Model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818401100101
Rosenstock, I. M., Strecher, V. J., & Becker, M. H. (1988). Social learning theory and the Health Belief Model. Health Education Quarterly, 15(2), 175-183. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500203
What the HLTH 6038 Week 3 instructions ask for
The third week asks students to map one theory's constructs onto a described population and behavior. The prompt expects the constructs in the order the original authors presented them, each with a description of what it would look like in the population and a source showing where such reports have been recorded. Instructors want plain language in the middle column, something a person could say, rather than jargon. The right column should point to qualitative studies, surveys or reviews, not to the student's assumptions. Many prompts also ask students to note where the model fits poorly, since a forced fit hides the model's limits. A short paragraph before and after the table usually carries the analysis. Sources should include the model's foundational papers and population-specific research. Inventing beliefs that no study has recorded is the error the assignment is built to prevent.
Inside the HLTH 6038 Week 3 example
The brief opens by naming the population, the screening at issue and the rule that no belief will be invented. A six-row table follows, from perceived susceptibility through self-efficacy, each with a paraphrased patient statement and a source: beliefs about consequences and knowledge from the systematic review, finances and long waits from the clinic study, recommendations from health professionals for cues to action and environmental context for self-efficacy. The analysis paragraphs report the review's six key domains and its examples, then identify two weak rows. Severity has no published counterpart; the clinic study's finding concerns a gap between education and understanding. Self-efficacy blurs into system barriers, since patients and physicians in the clinic study both named a one-year wait. A final note says which constructs a survey could measure confidently and which would need new items.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6038 Week 3 rubric
Construct maps are usually graded on fidelity to the model, the plain-language translation, sourcing and honesty about fit. Fidelity means presenting constructs in the model's original order and with accurate definitions. Translation earns credit when the middle column reads like real speech rather than restated jargon. Sourcing is often the heaviest criterion: each row must point to recorded reports, and invented beliefs lose substantial credit. Graders reward students who identify where a construct has no good counterpart in the population. Explaining what the fit means for later measurement adds value. The table should be clear and well labeled. Mechanics include APA entries for two foundational theory papers, a systematic review with many authors and a qualitative study.
Common HLTH 6038 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Construct maps most often fail by filling every cell with what the student assumes people believe. Another common problem is reordering constructs or adding ones the model does not include. Students also present a perfect fit, when every model strains somewhere. Before submitting, list the constructs in the order the original papers give them. For each, write what a person in your population might actually say. Find a study, review or survey that recorded that kind of statement, and cite it. Mark any row where you found no published report. Write a paragraph on what the weak rows mean for measuring the model. A custom map can apply the same model to a different screening, such as hearing tests in older adults, or map another theory onto the same population.
Get a HLTH 6038 Week 3 example written to your instructions
A map is only as good as the population it describes, so the prompt and rubric you send set both the model and the group. Name the constructs your section wants in the table, along with whichever citation style applies, and a written Week 3 sample for HLTH 6038 arrives within 24 to 48 hours. No charge on the first.
More HLTH 6038 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6038 Week 1: Theory Scan Paper
- HLTH 6038 Week 2: Behavior Specification Post
- HLTH 6038 Week 4: Planned Behavior Application
- HLTH 6038 Week 5: Peer Critique Example
- HLTH 6038 Week 6: Theory Comparison Paper
- HLTH 6038 Week 7: Construct Measurement Plan
- HLTH 6038 Week 8: Intervention Design Sketch
- HLTH 6038 Week 9: Theory Boundary Post
- HLTH 6038 Week 10: Theory Use Appraisal
- HLTH 6038 Week 11: Applied Theory Paper
- HLTH 6031 Week 3: Advocacy Issue Brief
- HLTH 6005 Week 3: CHES Credential Brief
HLTH 6038 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6038 Week 3 sample paper?
This page holds a full Week 3 construct map placing the Health Belief Model on diabetic eye exam attendance, with a six-row table and four references.
What population does the HLTH 6038 Week 3 example map?
Community health center patients living with type 2 diabetes who are due for their annual dilated eye exam, the screening that detects diabetic retinopathy.
Which constructs fit poorly in the map?
Perceived severity, which has no matching published report in this population, and self-efficacy, which overlaps with system barriers such as long waits for appointments.
What barriers to diabetic eye exams have been recorded?
Finances and a one-year wait for appointments in a clinic study, and environmental context, knowledge gaps and confusion between routine eye care and screening in a 69-study review.
Why keep the constructs in their original order?
Presenting them as the original authors did, with self-efficacy last as a later addition, keeps the map faithful to the model rather than reshaping it to fit the data.