HLTH 6246 Week 4 Peer Nutrition Bibliography Example

Course	HLTH 6246 Introduction to Research in Health and Wellness Education
Week	Week 4
Paper type	Annotated bibliography
Length	About 1,010 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 6246 Week 4

Annotated Bibliography on Peer-Led Nutrition Education: Five Studies, Each Read for What It Contributes to the Question and Where Its Usefulness Stops

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 6246: Introduction to Research in Health and Wellness Education

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the topic and the reading rule, contribution first and limits second, which is the ordering that turns notes into annotations.

Annotated Bibliography on Peer-Led Nutrition Education: Five Studies, Each Read for What It Contributes to the Question and Where Its Usefulness Stops

The Question the Bibliography Serves

The working question is whether nutrition education delivered by trained peers, rather than by professionals or print materials alone, changes what adults eat. Full references appear in the list at the end; the five entries below were chosen to cover two systematic reviews, two randomized trials with adults and one process study of peer leaders in schools. Every annotation runs in a fixed sequence: the study's aim, its general finding, its contribution to the question and the point where its usefulness stops.

What this page is doingStating the question and the annotation order up front lets every entry be read against the same standard.

Entries

Elder et al. (2005)

This trial set out to test whether a lay health advisor, or promotora, added anything to tailored print materials for Spanish-dominant Latina women. Three hundred fifty-seven participants were randomly assigned to a promotora plus tailored print, tailored print alone or standard print. The primary outcomes, calories from fat and grams of fiber, did not differ significantly among conditions over time, but the promotora group had lower energy, total fat, saturated fat and carbohydrate intake (Elder et al., 2005). The study contributes the cleanest comparison in this set: peer delivery is tested against the same materials without a peer, so any difference can be attributed to the person rather than the content. Its usefulness stops at the primary outcomes, which did not move; the favorable results are secondary, and a reader should weigh them as such. Intake was self-reported, and the follow-up ran only 12 weeks after the intervention, so whether changes lasted is unknown.

Lujan et al. (2007)

Lujan, J., Ostwald, S. K., & Ortiz, M. (2007). Promotora diabetes intervention for Mexican Americans. The Diabetes Educator, 33(4), 660-670.

This randomized trial set out to test whether a promotora-led program improved glycemic control, diabetes knowledge and health beliefs among 150 adults of Mexican heritage living with type 2 diabetes, enrolled through a faith-based clinic in a large city on the Texas-Mexico border. The program combined participative group education, telephone contact and faith-based reminder postcards. No differences appeared at three months, but by six months the intervention group showed a greater mean improvement in A1C (Lujan et al., 2007). The study contributes a clinical outcome, which most peer nutrition studies lack, and shows that an effect may take months to appear. Its usefulness for a question about nutrition specifically is limited, because the program covered diabetes self-management broadly and its nutrition content cannot be separated from its other parts. The sample was mostly women with low acculturation recruited at one clinic, which narrows transfer to other groups.

Story et al. (2002)

Story, M., Lytle, L. A., Birnbaum, A. S., & Perry, C. L. (2002). Peer-led, school-based nutrition education for young adolescents: Feasibility and process evaluation of the TEENS study. Journal of School Health, 72(3), 121-127.

This process evaluation set out to learn whether training students as peer leaders was workable within a school nutrition program. About 1,000 seventh graders in eight schools received the program, and 272 were trained to help teachers lead activities. Feedback from peer leaders, classmates and teachers, along with classroom observation, showed the approach was feasible and well accepted (Story et al., 2002). The study contributes evidence on delivery: peers can be recruited, trained and used in a structured setting without disrupting it. Its usefulness stops before outcomes. A process evaluation shows that a model can run, not that it changes diets, and the population is adolescents in schools rather than adults. It earns a place in the bibliography because a reader designing a peer program needs to know about feasibility as well as effect.

Pérez-Escamilla et al. (2008)

Pérez-Escamilla, R., Hromi-Fiedler, A., Vega-López, S., Bermúdez-Millán, A., & Segura-Pérez, S. (2008). Impact of peer nutrition education on dietary behaviors and health outcomes among Latinos: A systematic literature review. Journal of Nutrition Education and Behavior, 40(4), 208-225.

This review set out to assess the impact of peer education or counseling on nutrition and health outcomes among Latinos, drawing on 22 experimental or quasi-experimental studies. It concluded that peer nutrition education had a positive influence on diabetes self-management, breastfeeding, nutrition knowledge and dietary behaviors (Pérez-Escamilla et al., 2008). It contributes breadth: the conclusion rests on many studies rather than one, and it identifies the outcome areas where evidence is strongest. Its usefulness is limited by its population, Latino communities only, and by the mix of designs, since quasi-experimental studies carry more risk of bias than trials. The authors themselves call for longitudinal randomized trials, reliable measures and research on peer educator characteristics, training, client loads and dose, which marks how much remained unsettled at the time. A newer search would be needed to see whether those trials have since been run.

Webel et al. (2010)

This review set out to measure the effect of peer-based interventions on adult health behaviors across 25 randomized trials. Peer interventions produced small to medium effects on behaviors such as physical activity, smoking and condom use, but the evidence was mixed, and some targets, including breastfeeding, medication adherence, women's health screening and participation in general activities, showed no significant change (Webel et al., 2010). It contributes a sober counterweight to the Latino-focused review: across many behaviors and populations, peers help sometimes and modestly. Its usefulness for this question stops at diet, which was not among its main grouped outcomes, and its finding of no effect on breastfeeding sits in tension with the other review's positive conclusion, a disagreement a literature review would need to explain.

What the Set Settles and What It Leaves Open

Together the entries suggest that peer delivery can add something beyond printed materials, that effects on clinical measures may take months to appear and that peer models are feasible to run. They leave open whether peer education changes diet specifically in general adult populations, how much training and contact peers need and whether effects last. The two reviews also disagree on breastfeeding, which points to differences in population, outcome definition or study design as the next thing to examine.

References

Elder, J. P., Ayala, G. X., Campbell, N. R., Slymen, D., Lopez-Madurga, E. T., Engelberg, M., & Baquero, B. (2005). Interpersonal and print nutrition communication for a Spanish-dominant Latino population: Secretos de la Buena Vida. Health Psychology, 24(1), 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.1.49

Lujan, J., Ostwald, S. K., & Ortiz, M. (2007). Promotora diabetes intervention for Mexican Americans. The Diabetes Educator, 33(4), 660-670. https://doi.org/10.1177/0145721707304080

Webel, A. R., Okonsky, J., Trompeta, J., & Holzemer, W. L. (2010). A systematic review of the effectiveness of peer-based interventions on health-related behaviors in adults. American Journal of Public Health, 100(2), 247-253. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.149419

Reading the HLTH 6246 Week 4 instructions

The fourth week asks students to build an annotated bibliography on a topic connected to their research interest. Each entry carries a full APA reference and an annotation that follows the same order every time: what the study set out to establish, what it found in general terms, what it contributes to the student's question and where its usefulness stops. Findings should be described without invented precision; a result can be reported as the kind of finding it is rather than as a number pulled from context. Limits must be specific to each study, not generic statements about sample size. Most prompts ask for five to eight sources mixing primary studies and reviews. A short introduction stating the question and a brief closing synthesis help the bibliography read as a whole rather than a list. Instructors check that every source is real and accurately described.

How the HLTH 6246 Week 4 example is put together

The sample opens by stating its working question, the mix of sources and the four-part annotation order, noting that full references sit in the list at the end. Elder and colleagues' trial is credited with the cleanest test of peer delivery against identical materials, while its unchanged primary outcomes and 12-week follow-up are flagged. Lujan and colleagues contribute a clinical outcome appearing at six months, limited by a broad diabetes program. Story and colleagues show peer leaders are feasible in schools but report no dietary outcomes. Pérez-Escamilla and colleagues offer breadth across 22 studies, bounded by population and mixed designs. Webel and colleagues provide a sober counterweight across 25 trials, with diet outside their main outcomes. The closing paragraph summarizes what the set suggests and names the disagreement a later review must explain.

Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6246 Week 4 rubric

Annotated bibliographies are graded as arguments about evidence. Faculty reward annotations that state each study's contribution to the question before its limits, and they deduct for paragraphs that merely summarize abstracts. Consistency across entries matters; a fixed annotation order shows the sources were read against the same standard. Accuracy is essential: findings must match the sources, and invented numbers or misreported outcomes cost heavily. Limits should be specific to each study, such as a secondary outcome or a single site, rather than generic. A mix of primary studies and syntheses earns credit for balance. A closing synthesis that identifies agreement, disagreement and gaps shows the student is building toward a literature review. Complete, correctly formatted APA references for every entry finish the requirements.

HLTH 6246 Week 4 help: mistakes that cost marks

Bibliographies are often returned because annotations repeat the abstract and never say what the source contributes to the student's own question. Another common problem is copying precise figures without context, which can misrepresent what a study found. Some students also give every entry the same limitation, which shows they did not read closely. To write stronger entries, state your question at the top. For each source, write one sentence on its aim, one on its main finding, one on its contribution and one or two on its specific limits. Report findings in plain terms. Include at least one review. End with a paragraph naming what the set agrees on and where it disagrees. If you need an annotated bibliography on your own topic, our writers can locate and annotate real sources for you.

Get a HLTH 6246 Week 4 example written to your instructions

Send the number of entries your prompt requires, the topic and the rubric, and a matched sample lands within 24-48 hours at no cost the first time. If particular studies are required, name them; otherwise the entries are drawn from openly available published work on the topic given.

More HLTH 6246 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples

HLTH 6246 Week 4 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 6246 Week 4 sample paper?

A complete Week 4 annotated bibliography with five entries on peer-led nutrition education and a closing synthesis is available on this page.

What sources does the HLTH 6246 Week 4 bibliography include?

Two randomized trials with adults, a school peer leader process evaluation, a systematic review of Latino peer nutrition studies and a systematic review of peer-based trials in adults.

What order does each annotation follow?

What the study set out to establish, what it found in general terms, what it contributes to the question and where its usefulness stops.

Do the two reviews agree?

Not fully; the Latino-focused review reports positive effects on breastfeeding, while the broader review of 25 trials found no significant change in breastfeeding.

What does the bibliography leave unresolved?

Whether peer education changes diet in general adult populations, how much training and contact peers need, and whether effects last over time.