| Course | HLTH 6412 Health and Wellness Education Communication and Technology Strategies |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Materials critique |
| Length | About 680 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 6412 Week 3
Materials Critique: Where a Reader Stops in a Clinic's Six-Panel Colorectal Cancer Screening Brochure, and the Outdated Age That Appears Before They Do
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6412: Health and Wellness Education Communication and Technology Strategies
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Materials Critique: Where a Reader Stops in a Clinic's Six-Panel Colorectal Cancer Screening Brochure, and the Outdated Age That Appears Before They Do
The Material and the Reader
The material is a six-panel tri-fold brochure on colorectal cancer screening distributed in the waiting room of a composite community health center. Its intended reader is an adult of screening age who has not been screened and picks up the brochure while waiting. This critique follows that reader panel by panel and asks where they would stop, rather than listing every change an editor might make.
Panel by Panel
Cover
The cover shows a photograph of a smiling older couple and the title "Colorectal Health: What You Should Know." The reader learns the topic but not that the brochure asks them to do anything. A cover that named the action, such as getting screened, would tell the reader why to open it.
Panel 2: Anatomy
The first inside panel explains the colon and rectum with a labeled diagram and two paragraphs on how polyps form. This is accurate and, for the target reader, the most likely stopping point. A reader who opened the brochure wondering whether they need a test meets biology instead of an answer. The word "polyp" is used before it is defined.
Panel 3: Who Should Be Screened
The answer to the reader's question arrives on panel 3, and it is out of date. The brochure says screening should begin at age 50. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommended in 2021 that adults begin screening at age 45 and continue through age 75, with selective screening from 76 to 85 (U.S. Preventive Services Task Force [USPSTF], 2021). A 46-year-old reading this panel would conclude, wrongly, that the brochure does not apply to them.
Panel 4: Test Options
The panel lists colonoscopy, a stool-based test and CT colonography with one sentence each. It does not say that several test options are acceptable or that a test done at home exists in plain terms. The colonoscopy description includes a paragraph on bowel preparation, which may discourage a hesitant reader without telling them that a home stool test is an alternative they can choose.
Panel 5: Risk Factors
A bulleted list of risk factors follows. It is useful but placed after the options, when a reader deciding whether screening applies to them would need it earlier.
Back Panel
The back panel carries the clinic's logo and address. There is no phone number to schedule screening, no mention of asking at today's visit and no single clear next step.
Where the Reader Stops, and Why It Matters
Most hesitant readers will stop on panel 2, before reaching who should be screened. Those who continue reach an age that excludes adults 45 to 49 and then a set of options without a recommended next step. The brochure is accurate about anatomy and incomplete or wrong where the reader needs it.
Judging the Brochure Against a Standard Tool
The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool rates print materials for understandability and actionability, and its developers found that people scored better on comprehension with materials rated as actionable than with poorly actionable ones (Shoemaker et al., 2014). On actionability, this brochure would score poorly: it never states a clear action, never breaks an action into steps and never tells the reader how to begin. On understandability, undefined terms and a purpose that appears late would lower the score. Because weaker health literacy tracks with worse outcomes across many studies (Berkman et al., 2011), these features matter most for the readers least likely to be screened.
What a Revision Would Change
Lead with the action and the age range on the cover and first panel. Correct the starting age to 45. Present options as choices, with the home stool test described in plain words. Move risk factors forward. End with a phone number and a line encouraging the reader to ask about screening at today's visit. Keep the anatomy, but as a small box rather than the first thing a reader meets.
References
Berkman, N. D., Sheridan, S. L., Donahue, K. E., Halpern, D. J., & Crotty, K. (2011). Low health literacy and health outcomes: An updated systematic review. Annals of Internal Medicine, 155(2), 97-107. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-155-2-201107190-00005
Shoemaker, S. J., Wolf, M. S., & Brach, C. (2014). Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): A new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Education and Counseling, 96(3), 395-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027
U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. (2021). Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(19), 1965-1977. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6238
What the HLTH 6412 Week 3 instructions ask for
The third week asks students to critique an existing piece of published health material by following its intended reader through it. The critique identifies where a reader would stop and why, rather than listing every change a professional editor might suggest. Accuracy matters too: content should be checked against current recommendations, and any outdated or incorrect fact must be flagged. Students often organize the critique by page or panel, then summarize where readers are lost and why that matters. Applying an established assessment tool strengthens the judgment. A brief revision plan is usually welcome but secondary. Sources include current guidelines for the content and research on materials assessment and health literacy in APA format.
How the HLTH 6412 Week 3 example is put together
The critique names the brochure, its waiting-room setting and its intended reader. A panel-by-panel walk-through notes that the cover lacks an action, the anatomy panel is the likely stopping point and uses "polyp" before defining it, the eligibility panel cites age 50 against the 2021 recommendation for 45 to 75, the options panel discourages with bowel preparation details without presenting the home stool test plainly, risk factors come too late and the back panel lacks a phone number. A summary explains where most hesitant readers stop. A section applies the assessment tool's actionability and understandability items, and a final section outlines a revision leading with the action and corrected age range.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6412 Week 3 rubric
Materials critiques are graded on reader focus and accuracy. Faculty reward critiques that follow the intended reader and identify the point where they would stop, with reasons tied to specific panels. Catching factual errors against current guidelines carries significant weight, because inaccurate content outweighs any design flaw. Applying an established tool, such as a materials assessment instrument, shows professional method. Specific references to panels, phrases and missing elements let instructors verify the critique. Listing every minor edit without prioritizing earns less. A brief, focused revision plan adds value when it addresses the stopping point first. Clear organization and APA citations for guidelines and research complete the expectations.
HLTH 6412 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
Materials critiques often lose marks by listing many small editorial fixes without identifying the moment the reader gives up. Another common problem is failing to check the content against current guidelines, missing an outdated recommendation. Some students also critique design in general terms without referring to specific panels or sentences. To write a stronger critique, picture the intended reader and their question. Walk through the material in order and note where the answer appears. Check every fact against the current guideline. Apply one assessment tool. Summarize where readers stop. Propose two or three changes. If you need a critique of a specific brochure or web page, our writers can prepare one.
Get a HLTH 6412 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Attach the material your section assigned, or a link to it, together with the critique prompt and rubric, and a full worked critique arrives within 24-48 hours at no cost the first time. Where the evaluation criteria are fixed by the assignment, the findings sit under exactly those headings.
More HLTH 6412 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6412 Week 1: Discharge Sheet Discussion Post
- HLTH 6412 Week 2: Night Shift Audience Analysis
- HLTH 6412 Week 4: Plain Language Rewrite
- HLTH 6412 Week 5: Heat Illness Fact Sheet
- HLTH 6412 Week 6: Text Reminder Plan Peer Reply
- HLTH 6412 Week 7: New Parent Channel Plan
- HLTH 6412 Week 8: Video Page Accessibility Audit
- HLTH 6412 Week 9: Screening Day Video Script
- HLTH 6412 Week 10: Fact Sheet Message Test Plan
- HLTH 6412 Week 11: Flu Clinic Communication Plan
- HLTH 6405 Week 3: Donor Conflict Case Brief
- HLTH 6362 Week 3: Syphilis Population Profile
- HLTH 6280 Week 3: Tobacco 21 Process Trace
- HLTH 6246 Week 3: Activity Trial Article Critique
HLTH 6412 Week 3 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6412 Week 3 sample paper?
A complete Week 3 critique of a clinic's colorectal cancer screening brochure, organized panel by panel with three references, can be found here.
What factual error does the HLTH 6412 Week 3 critique find?
The brochure says screening starts at 50, but the 2021 federal recommendation is to screen adults from 45 through 75.
Where would most readers stop?
On the first inside panel, which explains anatomy and polyps before telling the reader whether screening applies to them.
How does the brochure score on actionability?
Poorly, because it never states a clear action, breaks it into steps or tells the reader how to begin, such as a phone number.
What would a revision change first?
Lead with the action and the 45 to 75 age range, present test options as choices including the home stool test, and end with a phone number.