| Course | HLTH 6362 Sexual Health and Well-Being |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Guidance review |
| Length | About 770 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 6362 Week 6
Guidance Review: Three Documents on Syphilis Screening in Pregnancy Read for Scope, Population, Evidence Labels, Date and Revision Status Before Any Commentary, and Then for What Each Leaves Unaddressed
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6362: Sexual Health and Well-Being
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Guidance Review: Three Documents on Syphilis Screening in Pregnancy Read for Scope, Population, Evidence Labels, Date and Revision Status Before Any Commentary, and Then for What Each Leaves Unaddressed
The Documents
Three documents guide syphilis screening in pregnancy for a health educator working in South Dakota: the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation statement (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF], 2018), CDC's 2021 sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines (Workowski et al., 2021) and the South Dakota Department of Health's 2025 health care guidance (South Dakota Department of Health, 2025). Each is described first on five fixed fields, then read for what it recommends and what it leaves unaddressed.
First Reading: The Descriptive Fields
Table 1
Descriptive Fields for Three Guidance Documents
| Field | USPSTF statement | CDC treatment guidelines | South Dakota guidance | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope | Screening for syphilis infection in pregnancy | Testing, treatment and management of sexually transmitted infections, including syphilis in pregnancy | Enhanced syphilis screening and testing statewide, with prenatal, emergency and primary care sections | |
| Population | Pregnant women | People with or at risk for sexually transmitted infections, including pregnant women | Pregnant women, women aged 15 to 45 and listed higher-risk groups | |
| Evidence label | Letter grade from a reaffirmation evidence update | Recommendations developed after expert consultation; no single grade per item in the summary | No evidence grading; cites a professional society's endorsement | |
| Publication date | 2018 | 2021, with a 2023 erratum | 2025, with data provisional as of June 2025 | |
| Revision status | Reaffirms the 2009 recommendation | Updates the 2015 guidelines | Issued with 2024 surveillance data; no stated revision cycle | |
Fields taken from each document; the USPSTF grade appears in its recommendation statement.
Second Reading: What Each Recommends
The USPSTF recommends early screening for syphilis in all pregnant women, based on evidence that accurate screening algorithms exist and that treatment during pregnancy prevents congenital infection (USPSTF, 2018). Its focus is the first screen.
The CDC guidelines recommend testing all pregnant women at the first prenatal visit and describe circumstances calling for repeat testing later in pregnancy; their summary lists "expanded risk factors for syphilis testing among pregnant women" among the 2021 updates (Workowski et al., 2021). Treatment recommendations for each stage, including the requirement that treatment in pregnancy use penicillin, sit in the same document.
The South Dakota guidance recommends three screenings for every pregnant woman regardless of risk: at the first prenatal appointment or at pregnancy diagnosis if follow-up is uncertain, in the 28th to 32nd week and when the baby is delivered, plus testing after any stillbirth at 20 weeks or later. It extends screening to emergency departments, urgent care and primary care for all pregnant women and for women aged 15 to 45 (South Dakota Department of Health, 2025).
What Each Leaves Unaddressed
The USPSTF statement addresses whether to screen, not how often. A reader looking for guidance on third-trimester retesting will not find it there, and the statement's 2018 date predates the steepest rises in congenital cases.
The CDC guidelines address testing and treatment in detail but, as clinical guidance, say little about where treatment should be delivered or how a clinic without penicillin on site should ensure it happens within 30 days of diagnosis. They make later testing depend on risk or local prevalence, which leaves the decision to the clinician's judgment of who is at risk.
The South Dakota guidance is the broadest on screening but does not address treatment access, partner treatment logistics or how providers should document the later tests. It also has no binding force: the statute on the books mandates just one early blood draw (S.D. Codified Laws § 34-23-9), meaning the three-test schedule is a request to providers rather than a requirement.
A Note on Dates
The three documents span seven years, and the dates matter for interpretation. The federal statement predates the sharpest national rise in congenital cases, the CDC guidelines were written before the 2023 Vital Signs analysis of missed opportunities in 2022 cases and the state guidance was issued with 2024 data. A reader should expect the newest document to be the most expansive about testing, as it is, and should check each document's revision status before citing it in patient materials.
Where the Documents Agree and Diverge
All three agree that every pregnant woman should be tested at least once, early. They diverge on later testing: the federal task force is silent, CDC ties it to risk and prevalence and the state recommends it for everyone. A health educator writing patient materials in South Dakota should follow the state guidance for timing, cite CDC for treatment and avoid implying that later tests are legally required.
References
Attending physician to take blood sample from pregnant woman, S.D. Codified Laws § 34-23-9 (2025).
South Dakota Department of Health. (2025). Syphilis in South Dakota: 2024 data and health care guidance.
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2018). Screening for syphilis infection in pregnant women: US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation recommendation statement. JAMA, 320(9), 911-917. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.11785
Workowski, K. A., Bachmann, L. H., Chan, P. A., Johnston, C. M., Muzny, C. A., Park, I., Reno, H., Zenilman, J. M., & Bolan, G. A. (2021). Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 70(4), 1-187. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1
Reading the HLTH 6362 Week 6 instructions
The sixth week asks students to review the guidance documents that govern practice on their topic. Each document is described first on fixed fields, such as scope, population, evidence labels, publication date and revision status, before any commentary begins. A second reading reports what each document recommends and then what it leaves unaddressed, because gaps in guidance shape practice as much as recommendations do. Students should compare the documents' agreements and divergences and draw a practical conclusion for their role. Legal status matters: a reader should know whether a recommendation is binding. Sources are the guidance documents themselves and any statute that sets requirements. A table for the descriptive fields keeps the first reading tidy. References follow APA format.
Inside the HLTH 6362 Week 6 example
The sample names the three documents and the fields it will apply. A table describes each one's scope, population, evidence label, date and revision status. The second reading summarizes the task force's recommendation for early screening, CDC's first-visit testing with risk-based repeat testing and stage-specific penicillin treatment, and the state's three-test schedule with screening in emergency, urgent and primary care. A gaps section explains that the federal statement says nothing on frequency, CDC leaves later testing to clinical judgment and says little about treatment logistics, and the state guidance is not binding while the statute requires only a first-examination test. A note on dates and a section on agreement and divergence give a practical rule for patient materials.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6362 Week 6 rubric
Guidance reviews are graded on the separation of description from commentary and on identifying gaps. Faculty reward reviews that complete the descriptive fields accurately before evaluating, and they deduct when commentary leaks into the first reading. The second reading earns credit for stating what each document actually recommends and for naming specific omissions. Attention to evidence labels and legal status shows sophistication. Accurate dates and revision information matter because guidance changes. A practical conclusion that tells the reader which document to follow for which purpose adds value. Clear tables and concise prose aid grading. APA citations for each document and statute complete the expectations for the week.
HLTH 6362 Week 6 help from the desk
Guidance reviews often go wrong by summarizing recommendations without recording dates, evidence labels or revision status, which leaves readers unable to judge currency. Another common problem is treating a state recommendation as a legal requirement. Some students also skip the second reading for gaps. To write a stronger review, set your descriptive fields first and fill them for every document. Then summarize each recommendation in one paragraph. List what each document does not address. Check whether any recommendation is binding. Finish with which document governs which decision. If you need a review of the guidance on your own topic, our writers can compare the current federal, professional and state documents.
Get a HLTH 6362 Week 6 example written to your instructions
This needs the Week 6 instructions, your classroom's rubric, and the guidance document your section is working on, first custom sample free inside 24-48h. Naming the edition matters, since reviews of different editions are different documents. Every recommendation the sample records is attributed to the body that issued it and reported as that body's, never restated as advice to a reader.
More HLTH 6362 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6362 Week 1: Syphilis Terminology Audit
- HLTH 6362 Week 2: Literature Pattern Discussion Post
- HLTH 6362 Week 3: Syphilis Population Profile
- HLTH 6362 Week 4: Syphilis Determinants Brief
- HLTH 6362 Week 5: Screening Study Evidence Appraisal
- HLTH 6362 Week 7: Prenatal Syphilis Testing Handout
- HLTH 6362 Week 8: Positive Test Case Response
- HLTH 6362 Week 9: Data Assumption Reflection
- HLTH 6362 Week 10: Think Syphilis Program Critique
- HLTH 6362 Week 11: Congenital Syphilis Policy Paper
- HLTH 6280 Week 6: Missing Stage Peer Reply
- HLTH 6246 Week 6: Design and Question Fit Peer Reply
- HLTH 6207 Week 6: Grant Method Narrative
- HLTH 6205 Week 6: Age Structure Comparison Peer Reply
HLTH 6362 Week 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6362 Week 6 sample paper?
The complete Week 6 guidance review comparing three documents on syphilis screening in pregnancy, with four references, is published here.
Which documents does the HLTH 6362 Week 6 review compare?
The 2018 US Preventive Services Task Force reaffirmation statement, CDC's 2021 STI treatment guidelines and the South Dakota Department of Health's 2025 guidance.
Where do the documents agree?
All three call for testing every pregnant woman for syphilis at least once, early in pregnancy.
Where do they diverge?
On later testing: the task force does not address it, CDC ties it to risk or local prevalence, and South Dakota recommends tests at 28 to 32 weeks and at delivery for everyone.
Is South Dakota's three-test schedule legally required?
No. State law requires testing only at the first examination, so the later tests are a recommendation to providers.