| Course | HLTH 6205 Assessing Health and Wellness Needs for Communities |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Data source review |
| Length | About 700 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 6205 Week 3
Seven Sources Weighed for One Question: Which Data Can Carry a Binge Drinking Assessment of Calumet County Adults, Which Supply Context Only and Which Were Rejected, With the Reason for Each
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6205: Assessing Health and Wellness Needs for Communities
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Seven Sources Weighed for One Question: Which Data Can Carry a Binge Drinking Assessment of Calumet County Adults, Which Supply Context Only and Which Were Rejected, With the Reason for Each
The Question and the Criteria
The question is how common binge drinking is among adults who live in Calumet County, Wisconsin, and how that compares with a fair reference group. Every candidate source was judged on the same five criteria: whether it measures binge drinking or a direct consequence of it, whether its finest published geography reaches the county, how often it is collected, how old its latest reference period is, and whether a student analyst can use it without a data agreement. A source had to pass the first two criteria to carry weight in the assessment.
The Sources
Table 1
Candidate Sources Appraised Against Five Criteria
| Source and producer | What it measures | Finest geography | Frequency | Latest period used | Access | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PLACES, CDC | Model-based prevalence of binge drinking and 39 other measures | County, place, tract | Annual release | 2023 survey data | Open | |
| BRFSS state estimates, CDC and Wisconsin DHS | Direct survey prevalence of binge drinking, by age, sex, income | State | Annual | 2023 | Open | |
| American Community Survey, Census Bureau | Age, income, education, poverty; no drinking measures | County and below | Annual, 5-year pooled | 2020-2024 | Open | |
| NSDUH substate estimates, SAMHSA | Binge alcohol use and alcohol use disorder | Substate regions that group several counties | Pooled years | Two pooled survey years | Open | |
| WISH query system, Wisconsin DHS | Deaths and hospital encounters by cause | County | Annual | Varies by module | Open, with small-count suppression | |
| Fatality Analysis Reporting System, NHTSA | Fatal crashes, including driver blood alcohol results | Crash location, county | Annual census | Most recent final year | Open | |
| Wisconsin Youth Risk Behavior Survey, DPI | Student drinking and binge drinking | State and some regions | Every two years | Most recent cycle | Open | |
Criteria and judgments are the reviewer's; descriptions summarize each producer's published documentation.
Sources That Will Carry the Assessment
Two sources carry the weight. PLACES is the only source that reports binge drinking prevalence for Calumet County itself: 20.4% of adults in 2023, with a 95% interval of 17.1% to 24.1% (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025). Its limitation is that the county figure is not counted from county respondents; it is predicted from a statewide model using each county's age, sex and race mix and county-level covariates (Zhang et al., 2014). Validation against a locally run survey found the method reproduces direct estimates reasonably well for most measures (Wang et al., 2017), but the assessment will treat the county figure as an estimate with a wide interval, not as a count.
The state BRFSS results are the reference. Wisconsin's 2023 prevalence was 18.4%, with an interval of 17.4% to 19.5%, and the same release breaks it down by age, sex, education and income (CDC, 2026). Because PLACES is built from the same survey, the two are closer relatives than any other pair in the table.
Sources Supplying Context Only
The American Community Survey measures nothing about drinking but describes the population whose drinking PLACES estimates, so it will supply denominators and the composition profile (U.S. Census Bureau, 2025). WISH and the crash census describe consequences rather than the behavior. They are useful for showing what binge drinking costs, but county counts of alcohol-involved deaths in a county of 53,000 are small, often suppressed and too unstable to rank the county against others in a single year.
Sources Rejected
The NSDUH substate estimates were rejected because their regions combine Calumet with other counties, so a regional figure would describe a different population. The youth survey was rejected because the assessment's population starts at 18. County Health Rankings was considered and set aside because its excessive drinking measure is a modeled figure built on the same state survey, so citing both would present one survey as two pieces of evidence.
What the Review Leaves Open
No source reports how often county adults binge drink, how many drinks they have, or where. PLACES gives prevalence only, while national analyses show frequency and intensity carry much of the burden (Kanny et al., 2018). That gap is the reason for the instrument and interview plan in later weeks.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). PLACES: Local data for better health, county data, 2025 release [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/swc5-untb
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2026). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) prevalence data (2011 to present) [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/d/dttw-5yxu
Kanny, D., Naimi, T. S., Liu, Y., Lu, H., & Brewer, R. D. (2018). Annual total binge drinks consumed by U.S. adults, 2015. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 54(4), 486-496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2017.12.021
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). American Community Survey 5-year estimates, 2020-2024 [Data set]. https://data.census.gov/
Wang, Y., Holt, J. B., Zhang, X., Lu, H., Shah, S. N., Dooley, D. P., Matthews, K. A., & Croft, J. B. (2017). Comparison of methods for estimating prevalence of chronic diseases and health behaviors for small geographic areas: Boston validation study, 2013. Preventing Chronic Disease, 14, Article E99. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd14.170281
Zhang, X., Holt, J. B., Lu, H., Wheaton, A. G., Ford, E. S., Greenlund, K. J., & Croft, J. B. (2014). Multilevel regression and poststratification for small-area estimation of population health outcomes: A case study of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease prevalence using the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. American Journal of Epidemiology, 179(8), 1025-1033. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwu018
HLTH 6205 Week 3 instructions, in plain terms
The third week asks students to appraise the data sources available for their population and question, not just list them. Each candidate source is described by what it measures, who collects it, how often, the finest geography it publishes, the most recent reference period and any access restrictions. A table usually holds that description. The judgment comes after: which sources will carry the assessment, which supply context only and which are rejected. Criteria must be applied evenly to every source, including ones the writer hoped to use. Students are expected to name rejected sources and give reasons, since a review listing only usable sources hides the work. The best reviews close by stating what no source reports, which sets up the primary data weeks. References follow APA, with data sets cited by producer, year and link.
How this HLTH 6205 Week 3 example is built
The sample begins with the question and five criteria, and states that a source must pass the first two to carry weight. A seven-row table describes PLACES, state BRFSS estimates, the American Community Survey, NSDUH substate estimates, the WISH query system, the Fatality Analysis Reporting System and the Wisconsin Youth Risk Behavior Survey. The verdict sections follow. PLACES carries the county figure, with its modeled nature and validation evidence explained. State BRFSS results serve as the reference because they come from the same survey. The ACS supplies denominators, while death, hospital and crash data describe consequences too small to rank in one year. Regional estimates, the youth survey and County Health Rankings are rejected for mismatched geography, age range and double counting. A closing paragraph identifies the missing frequency, intensity and setting data.
HLTH 6205 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Appraisal is what faculty reward here. A row that describes what a source contains is half the task; the other half states whether it is fit for this population and question. Graders watch for consistent criteria and notice when a writer relaxes the standard for a favored source. Significant credit goes to the verdict sections, especially the separation of sources that carry weight from those that only supply context, which weaker reviews blur. Rejections with reasons earn their own marks. Accuracy matters: the finest geography and latest period should match what the producer publishes. The closing statement of what remains unmeasured shows foresight and links to later weeks. A clear table, plain prose and APA references for every data set round out the evaluation for this assignment.
HLTH 6205 Week 3 help from the desk
Reviews usually lose marks for reading like annotated bibliographies, describing each source without ever judging whether it works. Others accept every source, which signals the criteria were never applied. A third common problem is overlooking that two sources draw on the same survey, so one estimate is counted twice. Before writing, set your criteria in a short list and decide which ones a source must pass to carry weight. Fill the table from each producer's own documentation. Write the verdicts in three groups and give one reason per source. Check whether any two sources share an origin. Finish with the questions none of them answer. If you would like a source review for your own population and question, our team can prepare one using the data available in your state.
Get a HLTH 6205 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Upload the prompt and rubric and a sample review returns within 24-48h, free on a first request, with the table columns and verdict sections your section is looking for. Which sources exist for your county and how recently each was refreshed is local knowledge, so the model demonstrates appraisal on named source types and the search itself stays in your hands.
More HLTH 6205 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6205 Week 1: Population Boundary Discussion Post
- HLTH 6205 Week 2: Calumet County Community Profile
- HLTH 6205 Week 4: County Binge Drinking Comparison
- HLTH 6205 Week 5: Drinking Patterns Survey Instrument
- HLTH 6205 Week 6: Age Structure Comparison Peer Reply
- HLTH 6205 Week 7: Key Informant Interview Plan
- HLTH 6205 Week 8: Adult Needs Prioritization Brief
- HLTH 6205 Week 9: Binge Drinking Needs Assessment
- HLTH 6205 Week 10: Binge Drinking Findings Report
- HLTH 6205 Week 11: Needs Assessment Summary Paragraph
- HLTH 6112 Week 3: Delegation Statute Brief
- HLTH 6110 Week 3: Competency Self-Inventory
- HLTH 6051 Week 3: Rights Standards Audit
- HLTH 6038 Week 3: Health Belief Model Map
HLTH 6205 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6205 Week 3 sample paper?
This page contains the complete Week 3 review of seven data sources for a Calumet County binge drinking assessment, with an appraisal table and six references.
Which sources carry the HLTH 6205 Week 3 assessment?
CDC's PLACES, the only source with a county binge drinking estimate, and Wisconsin's BRFSS results, which serve as the reference because they come from the same survey.
Why are NSDUH substate estimates rejected?
Their regions group Calumet County with other counties, so a regional figure would describe a different population from the one the assessment defined.
Why is County Health Rankings set aside?
Its excessive drinking measure is a modeled figure built on the same state survey, so citing it alongside PLACES would present one survey as two separate pieces of evidence.
What gap does the review find?
No source reports how often county adults binge drink, how many drinks they have or where, which is the reason for the survey and interview plans later in the course.