HLTH 6475 Week 3 Training Program Logic Model Example

Course	HLTH 6475 Health and Wellness Education Program Planning, Implementation and Evaluation
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Logic model
Length	About 740 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 6475 Week 3

Logic Model for Mental Health First Aid Courses in One West Virginia County: From Two Instructors and Sixteen Courses to Adults Who Help Someone in Distress, With the Arrows Explained

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 6475: Health and Wellness Education Program Planning, Implementation and Evaluation

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the start and end of the chain and promises the arrows, which this assignment values more than tidy boxes.

Logic Model for Mental Health First Aid Courses in One West Virginia County: From Two Instructors and Sixteen Courses to Adults Who Help Someone in Distress, With the Arrows Explained

Reading the Model

The model runs left to right in five columns: inputs, activities, outputs, short-term outcomes and intermediate outcomes. Each row follows one strand of the program. The terms match the objective set: "course" means one complete Mental Health First Aid training, "trainee" means an adult who completes it and "helping" means using the course's action plan with someone in distress.

What this page is doingFixing the vocabulary first keeps the model consistent with the objectives written the week before.

The Model

Table 1

Twelve-Month Logic Model, Four Strands

Strand	Inputs	Activities	Outputs	Short-term outcomes (by course end)	Intermediate outcomes (by month 3 after) \|
Recruitment	Coordinator time; partner lists from schools, churches, emergency services and employers	Outreach meetings and sign-up drives with each partner group	Registrations by priority group	Courses filled with priority-group adults	Trained adults spread across the settings where distress is encountered \|
Training	Two certified instructors; course manuals; meeting rooms donated by partners	Sixteen courses, in person and blended	320 trainees certified	Higher knowledge and confidence scores at course end	Trainees recognize distress and act in daily life \|
Local resource link	County crisis and treatment contact list	A wallet card of local and national help lines given to every trainee	Cards distributed	Trainees know where to refer someone	Referrals reach local services \|
Follow-up	Coordinator time; text and call system	Three-month follow-up contact with each trainee	Follow-up contacts completed	Trainees report helping behavior	Program learns which groups help most and adjusts recruitment \|

Terms match the objective set; outputs are counts the program reports, and outcomes are changes in trainees.

The Arrows

The training strand uses the two formats the program offers nationally, a day-long in-person session or a short online module followed by a half-day session (Mental Health First Aid USA, n.d.).

Recruitment to training. Courses only produce change if the right people attend. The arrow from partner outreach to filled courses assumes that schools, churches, emergency services and employers will release their people for a day or half day. If partners do not, the training strand produces certificates for whoever is available, not for the people most likely to meet someone in distress.

Training to short-term outcomes. Completing the course is an output; higher knowledge and confidence are outcomes. Pooled trial results show gains in what trainees know, in how well they spot a mental disorder and in their confidence, with effects in the small to moderate range lasting as long as six months (Morgan et al., 2018), which supports this arrow.

Short-term to intermediate outcomes. The weakest arrow in any training program runs from what people know to what they do. The same review found a small increase in the amount of help trainees provided, while changes in the quality of that help were unclear (Morgan et al., 2018). The model therefore includes a follow-up strand that measures helping directly instead of assuming it.

Resource link to referrals. Knowing where to send someone matters only if services exist and can be reached. With nearly a quarter of county adults, 24.1%, reporting frequent mental distress in the 2023 county figures (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025) , demand may outrun what local services can absorb; the model treats referral as an intermediate outcome rather than a promise.

Using the Model at Mid-Year

The model is a working tool, not a cover page. The coordinator will review it at the mid-year point against what has actually happened: whether partners filled courses, whether gains appeared at course end and what the first follow-ups show. If an arrow is failing, for example if trainees report few chances to help, the model shows where to look, in this case at whether the right people are being recruited.

Assumptions and External Factors

The model assumes partners will host courses and release staff, that instructors can be certified and retained for a year and that trainees can be reached by text or phone three months later. External factors include weather, which can cancel rural courses, and service capacity, which the program does not control.

What the Model Omits

There is no column for population-level change in mental distress. A training program reaching 320 adults in a county of about 17,000 adults cannot be expected to shift the county rate within a year, and the model does not draw an arrow it cannot defend.

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

Mental Health First Aid USA. (n.d.). Take Mental Health First Aid. National Council for Mental Wellbeing. https://www.mentalhealthfirstaid.org/take-a-course/

Morgan, A. J., Ross, A., & Reavley, N. J. (2018). Systematic review and meta-analysis of Mental Health First Aid training: Effects on knowledge, stigma, and helping behaviour. PLOS ONE, 13(5), Article e0197102. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0197102

The Walden HLTH 6475 Week 3 instructions

The third week asks for a logic model, usually a one-page diagram or table with a short narrative. The model runs from inputs through activities and outputs to outcomes, and every row should be traceable from left to right. The narrative is where most of the credit lies: students explain each arrow, why a resource should lead to an activity, an activity to an output and an output to an outcome, citing evidence where it exists and naming weak links where it does not. Terms should match the objective set exactly. Assumptions and external factors that could break an arrow should be stated. Leaving out outcomes the program cannot reach shows judgment, and so does naming which arrow rests on the thinnest evidence. Sources include intervention evidence and program guidance in APA format.

Inside the HLTH 6475 Week 3 example

The model begins by fixing three terms shared with the objective set. A four-row table follows: recruitment from partner lists to filled courses, training from two instructors to higher knowledge and confidence, a verified resource card to referrals and follow-up calls to reported helping. The arrows section explains that recruitment assumes partners release people, that training gains are supported by a review of 18 trials, that the step to helping is weaker in the evidence and therefore measured directly, and that referral depends on service capacity given the county's 24.1% distress rate. A section on using the model at mid-year, assumptions and an omitted population-change column follow.

HLTH 6475 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks

Logic models are graded on traceable arrows and consistent terms. Faculty read each strand across and reward narratives that justify each link with evidence or name it as an assumption. Mixing outputs and outcomes costs marks. Matching the vocabulary of the objective set shows coherence across assignments. Identifying the weakest link, typically from knowledge to behavior, and planning to measure it demonstrates realism. Stating assumptions and external factors earns credit. Omitting outcomes the program cannot affect shows discipline. A single legible table aids grading. APA citations for evidence and program guidance complete the requirements for this week's model.

Common HLTH 6475 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Logic models often lose credit for neat boxes with unexplained arrows, or for outcome columns that list activities. Another common problem is including long-term population outcomes the program could never measure. Some students also use different terms in the model and the objectives. To build a stronger model, copy the terms from your objectives. Fill one strand at a time across all columns. Under the table, write a paragraph for each key arrow saying why it should hold and what evidence supports it. Name the weakest arrow and how you will check it. List your assumptions. If you need a logic model for your own program, our writers can prepare one.

Get a HLTH 6475 Week 3 example written to your instructions

A worked HLTH 6475 Week 3 logic model waits here, diagram and narrative together, with the weak link named rather than hidden. Program budgets, partner agreements and internal figures from a real site remain the student's own to supply. The desk writes to the prompt and rubric you send; your first custom sample costs nothing and lands in 24-48h.

More HLTH 6475 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples

HLTH 6475 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 6475 Week 3 sample paper?

A complete Week 3 logic model for county Mental Health First Aid training, with a four-strand table, arrow explanations and three references, is posted here.

What strands does the HLTH 6475 Week 3 model include?

Recruitment, training, a local resource card and three-month follow-up, each traced from inputs to intermediate outcomes.

Which arrow is the weakest?

The step from knowledge and confidence to actually helping someone, which trial evidence supports only weakly, so the model measures helping directly.

Why is referral treated as an intermediate outcome?

Because referral depends on whether local services can respond, which the program does not control.

Why is there no column for population change?

A program reaching 320 adults in a county of about 17,000 adults cannot be expected to shift the county distress rate within a year.