| Course | HLTH 6051 Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Disparity brief |
| Length | About 660 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 6051 Week 5
Could Not See a Doctor Because of Cost, Texas Adults, 2023: One BRFSS Measure for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Respondents, With Its Denominators, Its Confidence Intervals and Why the Gap Is Not an Explanation
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6051: Diversity, Human Rights, and Social Justice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Could Not See a Doctor Because of Cost, Texas Adults, 2023: One BRFSS Measure for Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Respondents, With Its Denominators, Its Confidence Intervals and Why the Gap Is Not an Explanation
The Measure
The measure is the percentage of adults who answer yes to the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) question: "Was there a time in the past 12 months when you needed to see a doctor but could not because you could not afford it?" The reference period is the 12 months before the interview. The population base is adults aged 18 and older in Texas who responded to the question in the 2023 survey. The estimates are crude prevalence, weighted by the survey to represent the state's adult population, and come from the BRFSS prevalence data set that the CDC publishes (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2024).
The System
State health departments run the BRFSS as a telephone interview of adults, with funding and methods from the CDC (CDC, 2023). Its estimates are weighted to adjust for the probability of selection and for differences between respondents and the state's population. Because it is a sample survey, every estimate comes with a confidence interval, and small subgroups yield wide intervals or no estimate at all.
The Comparison
Both figures come from the same system, the same state, the same year and the same question, which is what makes the comparison legitimate. A difference assembled from two different surveys, or two different years, would not be a difference in the same thing.
On these figures, about one in four Hispanic adults in Texas reported going without a needed doctor visit because of cost in the past year, compared with about one in eight non-Hispanic White adults. The absolute difference is 12.3 percentage points, and the ratio is about 1.9. The two confidence intervals do not overlap, so the difference is unlikely to be explained by sampling variability alone.
Table 1
Adults Who Could Not See a Doctor Because of Cost in the Past 12 Months, Texas, 2023
| Group | Weighted percentage | 95% confidence interval | Respondents answering the question | |
|---|---|---|---|
| All adults | 18.3% | 16.8% to 19.8% | 10,020 | |
| Hispanic | 25.4% | 22.4% to 28.4% | 2,901 | |
| White, non-Hispanic | 13.1% | 11.4% to 14.8% | 5,592 | |
Source: BRFSS prevalence data, 2023 (CDC, 2024). Respondent counts are unweighted and sum those answering yes and no; percentages are weighted.
What the Intervals Mean
The interval for Hispanic adults, 22.4% to 28.4%, is wider than the interval for non-Hispanic White adults, 11.4% to 14.8%, because fewer Hispanic respondents answered the question. Both intervals are narrow enough for a statewide comparison. For smaller groups, the data set withholds estimates when the unweighted denominator is under 50 or the relative standard error is too high; in Texas in 2023, that rule suppressed the estimate for American Indian or Alaska Native adults, for example. An absent figure is a limit of the survey, not evidence of no problem.
What the Difference Does Not Explain
A difference in a table is a description, not an explanation. The table does not say why Hispanic adults in Texas more often went without care because of cost. Insurance coverage, income, type of employment, immigration status, the cost of local care and many other factors could contribute, and the BRFSS figure alone cannot separate them. Braveman (2006) distinguishes health disparities, differences that adversely affect socially disadvantaged groups, from health inequities, which carry a judgment that the differences are unjust; calling this gap an inequity requires an argument about its causes and fairness that the number does not supply. The brief therefore reports the gap and its uncertainty and stops there.
Use in Later Work
The measure is suitable for tracking a statewide gap over time, using the same question in later BRFSS years. It is not suitable for county-level claims, where samples are too small, or for evaluating a single program, since many things change the statewide figure at once.
References
Braveman, P. (2006). Health disparities and health equity: Concepts and measurement. Annual Review of Public Health, 27, 167-194. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.27.021405.102103
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2023). About BRFSS. https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/about/index.htm
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System prevalence data (2011 to present) [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/dttw-5yxu
What the HLTH 6051 Week 5 instructions ask for
The fifth week asks for a short brief reporting a documented health difference from a named data system. The prompt expects the measure defined precisely, with its question, reference period and population base, followed by the system that produced it. Both groups' figures should come from the same source and year, because a difference assembled from two systems is not a difference in the same thing. Confidence intervals and denominators should be reported as published. Many instructors require a separate section stating that a difference in a table is not an explanation, and some ask students to note suppressed estimates and what they mean. The brief is usually three to four pages and reads like a technical document. Sources include the data set itself and literature on measuring disparities. Speculating about causes in the results section usually costs credit.
How the HLTH 6051 Week 5 example is put together
The brief begins by quoting the survey question and defining the reference period, population base and weighting, citing the data set. A section describes the survey and why its estimates carry intervals. A three-row table gives the weighted percentages, intervals and unweighted respondent counts for all adults and the two groups, with a note on how counts were assembled. The comparison paragraph explains why the figures are comparable, states the absolute difference and the ratio and notes that the intervals do not overlap. A section interprets the intervals' widths and describes the data set's rule for withholding estimates, with an example of a suppressed group. A section distinguishes disparities from inequities and lists factors the measure cannot separate. The last section says what the measure can and cannot be used for.
HLTH 6051 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Disparity briefs are generally graded on measure definition, comparability, reporting of uncertainty, restraint in interpretation and presentation. The definition earns credit when the question, period and population are precise. Comparability requires both groups to come from the same system and year. Reporting uncertainty means giving intervals and denominators as published and interpreting them correctly. The restraint criterion is often weighted heavily: a separate section stating that the difference is not an explanation is commonly required, and causal language in the results loses credit. Noting suppressed estimates shows understanding of the data's limits. A clean table is expected. References cover a CDC data set, a CDC web page and an annual review article.
Common HLTH 6051 Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Disparity briefs most often go wrong by combining figures from different surveys or years. Another frequent problem is reporting percentages without intervals or denominators. Students also explain the gap with a favored cause, which the data cannot support. Before submitting, quote the survey question and give the reference period. Take both groups' figures from the same table, year and system. Report the interval and the number of respondents for each. Say whether the intervals overlap and what that means. Write a separate section saying what the difference does not explain. Note any groups whose estimates were withheld. A custom brief can report another measure, such as having a personal health care provider, for a different state or pair of groups.
Get a HLTH 6051 Week 5 example written to your instructions
The measure and the data system are usually set by your prompt, so send it with the rubric and any dataset the section names. The HLTH 6051 disparity brief you receive defines its measure, cites one system for both figures, reproduces published uncertainty and marks suppressed cells as suppressed. Expect it inside 24 to 48 hours, with the first one free.
More HLTH 6051 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6051 Week 1: Self-Location Methods Note
- HLTH 6051 Week 2: Rights Claim Discussion Post
- HLTH 6051 Week 3: Rights Standards Audit
- HLTH 6051 Week 4: Rights Analysis Paper
- HLTH 6051 Week 6: Standard Reach Peer Reply
- HLTH 6051 Week 7: Language Access Policy Critique
- HLTH 6051 Week 8: Advocacy Memo Example
- HLTH 6051 Week 9: Opposition Analysis Paper
- HLTH 6051 Week 10: Remedy Detectability Post
- HLTH 6051 Week 11: Rights Position Paper
- HLTH 6038 Week 5: Peer Critique Example
- HLTH 6031 Week 5: Advocacy Letter Example
- HLTH 6005 Week 5: Peer Reply Example
HLTH 6051 Week 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6051 Week 5 sample paper?
The full Week 5 brief on cost barriers to seeing a doctor among Texas adults in 2023, with intervals, denominators and a three-source reference list, sits on this page.
What measure does the HLTH 6051 Week 5 example report?
The share of adults who needed to see a doctor in the past 12 months but could not because of cost, from the 2023 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System in Texas.
How large is the gap in the example?
25.4% of Hispanic adults versus 13.1% of non-Hispanic White adults, a difference of 12.3 percentage points with non-overlapping 95% confidence intervals.
Why are some groups' estimates missing?
The data set withholds estimates when the unweighted denominator is under 50 or the relative standard error is too high, so missing figures reflect sample size, not absence of a problem.
Does the difference explain why the gap exists?
No. The figures describe a difference; insurance, income, employment, immigration status and local costs could all contribute, and the measure alone cannot separate them.