| Course | HLTH 6110 Health and Wellness Education Competency Based Practice |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Gap analysis |
| Length | About 1,030 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6110 Week 10
Four Areas I Cannot Yet Evidence and the Reason for Each: No Opportunity in Research and Administration, an Advocacy Draft Delivered by Someone Else and an Evaluation Done Alongside an Epidemiologist
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6110: Health and Wellness Education Competency Based Practice
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Four Areas I Cannot Yet Evidence and the Reason for Each: No Opportunity in Research and Administration, an Advocacy Draft Delivered by Someone Else and an Evaluation Done Alongside an Epidemiologist
How the Gaps Were Identified
The gaps come from two documents produced earlier this term: the self-inventory, which gave each area of the 2025 framework a score on a four-point evidence scale, and the evidence map, which crossed those areas with five kinds of artifact (Gardner et al., 2026). Any area rated 1 or 2 on the inventory, or showing an empty row or a row of work shared with someone else on the map, is treated as a gap. Four areas meet that test.
Each gap is classified by its reason, because the reason decides the remedy. There are three kinds of reason: no opportunity in my current role, an artifact that exists but cannot be shared, and work performed under supervision that I cannot claim alone.
Gap 1: Research
Reason: no opportunity. Harlan County Public Health's chronic disease unit does not design or run research studies. Its evaluation work is program monitoring, not research intended to produce generalizable knowledge. I have never written a research protocol, sought ethics review or published a study.
Weight: in the 2025 framework, Research is the area with the smallest share of the entry-level certification examination, 3%, but it accounts for 10% of the advanced examination, and most of its sub-competencies are classified at advanced levels (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing & Society for Public Health Education, 2025). The gap matters more for the advanced credential than for my current certification.
Remedy: the most realistic route is a supervised role in someone else's study. The state university's school of public health runs community studies in our county, and a supporting role on one, such as recruiting participants or drafting a survey instrument, would produce a first artifact while being honest about who led the work.
Gap 2: Administration and Management
Reason: no opportunity. The program manager holds the unit's budget and supervises its staff. No budget has ever been mine to build or manage, and I have not hired or supervised an employee or volunteer.
Weight: Administration and Management is 5% of the entry-level examination and 14% of the advanced one, the largest share of any area at the advanced level (National Commission for Health Education Credentialing & Society for Public Health Education, 2025). The 2020 framework grouped this work with leadership in a single area, Leadership and Management (Knowlden et al., 2020), and the 2025 framework moves leadership elsewhere, which sharpens the area's focus on budgets, staff and operations.
Remedy: two small, real opportunities exist. The workshop uses volunteer peer facilitators, and I could take over their recruitment, training and scheduling, which would be supervision in a limited sense. The unit also prepares an annual budget request for the workshop's materials, and the program manager has agreed to let me draft it for her review next spring.
Gap 3: Advocacy
Reason: work performed under supervision that I cannot claim alone. I drafted the unit's testimony supporting a tobacco retail license ordinance in January 2026, and the unit director delivered it to the county board. The board's minutes name the director as the speaker. I can claim the draft; I cannot claim the delivery, the response to board members' questions or any effect on the vote.
Remedy: the next step is to deliver testimony or a public comment myself, in a setting where that is appropriate and approved by the director, such as the board of health's public comment period on a smaller matter. The artifact would be the comment text and the meeting record naming me.
Gap 4: Evaluation
Reason: work performed under supervision that I cannot claim alone. The workshop's knowledge test, given at the first session and again at the sixth, was written jointly by me and the unit epidemiologist, and she designed the analysis and wrote the results section of the cohort memo. My contribution was the question wording and the data collection.
Remedy: the next cohort's evaluation could be divided differently. With the epidemiologist's agreement, I would write the analysis plan and run the analysis, and she would review it. The artifact would be the plan with her review comments, which documents both my work and the supervision behind it.
An Artifact That Exists but Cannot Be Shared
One kind of reason does not apply to any of the four gaps but deserves mention. The unit's survey of senior center members, which I designed in 2026, includes free-text answers that name participants' clinicians and medications. The full data set cannot be placed in a portfolio. The instrument and a summary table can be, and the evidence map uses only those.
Timeline
The steps below run from the one I control most to the one I control least. Taking over peer facilitator recruitment and training can start with the next workshop cohort in January 2027, because the program manager has already agreed. Writing the evaluation analysis plan can follow in the same cohort, with the epidemiologist's review scheduled for the end of March. Drafting the workshop's budget request belongs to the spring budget cycle, with a draft due to the program manager by April 15, 2027. Delivering a public comment depends on a suitable item reaching the board of health's agenda and on the director's approval, so it carries no fixed date; I will ask the director in January which upcoming items would be appropriate. A role in a university study depends on the school's schedule and is the least certain; I will contact the school's community research office this fall and treat any role as a 2027 goal.
Each step produces a dated artifact that can be added to the evidence map, so progress will be visible in the same document that revealed the gaps.
Summary
Two gaps reflect my role, and closing them depends on new opportunities. Two reflect shared work, and closing them depends on dividing the next piece of work differently and recording who did what. None of the four is a gap I can close by describing the existing work more confidently.
References
Gardner, A. J., Chaney, B. H., Hembry, I. F., Henderson, J., Houston, M., Datema, W., Sherry, C., Dixon, S., & Opp, M. (2026). The Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis III 2025 (HESPA III 2025): Process and outcomes. Health Education & Behavior. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/10901981261479329
Knowlden, A. P., Cottrell, R. R., Henderson, J., Allison, K., Auld, M. E., Kusorgbor-Narh, C. S., Lysoby, L., & McKenzie, J. F. (2020). Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis II 2020: Processes and outcomes. Health Education & Behavior, 47(4), 642-651. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198120926923
National Commission for Health Education Credentialing & Society for Public Health Education. (2025). Health Education Specialist Practice Analysis III 2025 (HESPA III 2025): Executive summary. https://www.nchec.org/practice-analysis
HLTH 6110 Week 10 instructions, in plain terms
The tenth week usually asks for a gap analysis listing the areas of responsibility the writer cannot presently evidence, with a reason for each. The prompt expects the gaps identified by reference to earlier work, such as an inventory or evidence map, so the list rests on documents a reader has seen. Reasons are often sorted into kinds: no opportunity in the current role, an artifact that exists but cannot be shared, and work done under supervision that cannot be claimed alone. Each gap should receive a remedy that fits its reason. Instructors reward a diagnostic tone rather than apology, and remedies that are concrete and realistic. Three to four pages are typical. Sources include the framework and data on the weight of each area. Gap lists that promise to "gain more experience" without saying how or when miss the point of the exercise.
How the HLTH 6110 Week 10 example is put together
The paper opens by naming the inventory and evidence map as the source of the gaps, states the test used and introduces three kinds of reason. Research is a gap of opportunity; its exam weight rises sharply at the advanced level, and the remedy is a supporting role in a university study with credit stated honestly. Administration and Management is also a gap of opportunity; the 2020 and 2025 frameworks handle it differently, and remedies include supervising volunteer facilitators and drafting the workshop budget. Advocacy is a gap of shared work, since board minutes name the director as speaker; the remedy is a public comment delivered personally. Evaluation is shared work with an epidemiologist; the remedy is writing the next analysis plan for her review. A section explains an artifact that cannot be shared, a timeline orders steps by how much they depend on others, and a summary separates the two kinds of gap.
HLTH 6110 Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks
Gap analyses are generally graded on how gaps are identified, the classification of reasons, the fit of remedies, use of evidence and tone. Identification earns credit when it rests on earlier documents and a stated test. Classifying each gap by its reason is often the central criterion, because it shows the writer understands why the evidence is missing. Remedies should match their reasons and be specific about who, what and when. Using data on the weight of each area shows judgment about priorities. A timeline strengthens the plan. A diagnostic, unapologetic tone is valued. The references are a professional executive summary with exam weights and two practice analysis articles.
Common HLTH 6110 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Gap analyses most often go wrong by listing weaknesses without explaining why the evidence is missing. Another frequent problem is offering the same remedy for every gap, usually more experience or more training. Students also inflate shared work to shrink the list. Before submitting, list the areas your inventory or map shows as unsupported. For each, decide whether the cause is lack of opportunity, an artifact you cannot share or work you did with someone else. Write a remedy that fits the cause, naming the person, task and date. Use data on how much each area matters for your goals. Order the remedies on a timeline. Keep the tone factual. A custom analysis can examine gaps against a different framework or for a specific job posting.
Get a HLTH 6110 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt and the rubric attached to it and a sample gap analysis arrives shaped to both, first one free, inside 24-48h. Only you know why a particular area is empty, so those reasons are never supplied for you; the sample demonstrates the classification and the interpretive paragraphs on constructed gaps.
More HLTH 6110 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6110 Week 1: Responsibility Area Placement Post
- HLTH 6110 Week 2: Ethics Provision Standards Analysis
- HLTH 6110 Week 3: Competency Self-Inventory
- HLTH 6110 Week 4: Artifact Narrative Paper
- HLTH 6110 Week 5: Competency Evidence Map
- HLTH 6110 Week 6: Artifact Claim Peer Reply
- HLTH 6110 Week 7: Recorded Session Critique
- HLTH 6110 Week 8: Skill Demonstration Write-Up
- HLTH 6110 Week 9: Portfolio Section Example
- HLTH 6110 Week 11: Capability Statement Example
- HLTH 6051 Week 10: Remedy Detectability Post
- HLTH 6038 Week 10: Theory Use Appraisal
- HLTH 6031 Week 10: Advocacy Campaign Plan
- HLTH 6005 Week 10: Professional Development Plan
HLTH 6110 Week 10 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6110 Week 10 sample paper?
This page offers a complete Week 10 gap analysis of four areas of responsibility, each with a classified reason, a remedy and a timeline, with three references.
Which gaps does the HLTH 6110 Week 10 example identify?
Research and Administration and Management, which the writer's role does not include, and Advocacy and Evaluation, where the work was shared with a director or epidemiologist.
Why classify gaps by reason?
Because the reason decides the remedy: a gap of opportunity needs a new assignment, while a gap of shared work needs the next task divided and recorded differently.
How much do Research and Administration count on the certification exams?
Under the 2025 specifications, Research is 3 percent of the entry-level exam and 10 percent of the advanced one; Administration and Management is 5 and 14 percent.
What remedy does the example propose for Evaluation?
Writing the analysis plan for the next workshop cohort and running the analysis, with the epidemiologist reviewing it, so the record shows both the work and the supervision.