HLTH 6800 Week 10 Capstone Defense Brief Example

Course	HLTH 6800 Health Education and Promotion Capstone
Week	Week 10
Paper type	Defense brief
Length	About 730 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 6800 Week 10

Defense Brief: Five Objections to Moving WIC Peer Counselor Time to the First Six Postpartum Weeks in Washington County, Each in Its Strongest Form, With Answers and One Concession

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 6800: Health Education and Promotion Capstone

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title signals that objections are stated at full strength and that one is conceded, which is what separates a defense brief from a restatement of the paper.

Defense Brief: Five Objections to Moving WIC Peer Counselor Time to the First Six Postpartum Weeks in Washington County, Each in Its Strongest Form, With Answers and One Concession

How the Brief Is Ordered

Objections run from the one I least want to face to the one most easily answered. Each is stated as its strongest proponent would put it, followed by a response that points to where the evidence sits in the paper.

What this page is doingPutting the hardest objection first shows the reader that the writer is not hiding it.

Objection 1: The Evidence Does Not Reach Rural Black Mothers in the Delta

Strongest form. "Your case rests on a Hartford trial of Latina mothers, a Baltimore trial in a city, observational WIC data from Maryland and Texas, and reviews dominated by high-income countries. Not one study enrolled rural Black mothers in the Mississippi Delta, where distance, transport, work in shift jobs and family norms around infant feeding may all differ. You are borrowing an effect from populations your mothers do not belong to."

Response. The objection is largely correct, and the paper concedes it. The nearest population is the Baltimore trial, in which 87% of WIC-eligible mothers were African American, and its effect was real at 6 weeks but not significant at 12 or 24 weeks (Pugh et al., 2010). That result supports early contact and limits what the claim promises. Its weight comes from consistency rather than from any single match: support after birth reduced stopping across 116 trials without differences by type of supporter (Gavine et al., 2022).

Concession. The claim is therefore stated as the better bet for this clinic, not as a proven effect for this population, and the final paper recommends that the clinic track six-week breastfeeding among the first mothers served.

Objection 2: Classes Reach More Women per Hour

Strongest form. "One counselor running a class for twelve women reaches in two hours what your schedule reaches in one mother's six contacts. With a fixed budget, the class is simply more efficient."

Response. Efficiency depends on what is counted. If the outcome is attendance, classes win. If it is mothers still breastfeeding, the pooled evidence shows no clear effect of prenatal education offered alone on exclusive breastfeeding at 3 months (Lumbiganon et al., 2016). An hour that does not change the outcome is not efficient at any scale. The RE-AIM section adds that class attendance during pregnancy depends on transport and work schedules, while phone contact after birth does not.

Objection 3: The County's Real Gap Is Starting, and Postnatal Support Does Not Change That

Strongest form. "Half of county newborns get no breast milk before discharge. The Task Force evidence report found no effect of support interventions on initiation. Your schedule treats the smaller problem."

Response. The Task Force review did find no effect on initiation (Patnode et al., 2025). The schedule answers this with timing rather than denial: it begins with a bedside visit before discharge, and in Texas WIC data, peer contact during the hospital stay was most strongly associated with starting among first-time mothers (Campbell et al., 2014). The Hartford trial, which began before birth and continued around delivery, reduced the share who never started (Chapman et al., 2004). The claim holds, but the bedside visit is not optional.

Objection 4: The Schedule Depends on a Hospital the Clinic Does Not Control

Strongest form. "If the delivery hospital will not admit WIC counselors to the postpartum unit, your first contact disappears, and with it the answer to Objection 3."

Response. This is a real adoption risk, and the paper names it in the RE-AIM section. If bedside access is refused, the fallback is a call within 24 hours of discharge, and the paper states that the initiation argument weakens in that case.

Objection 5: The Program Will Not Last

Strongest form. "Pilot schedules thrive while a champion is present and fade when she leaves."

Response. A review of peer counseling scale-up found that such programs can be sustained within national maternal and child health systems (Chapman et al., 2010). That evidence concerns systems, not one clinic, so the paper treats maintenance as the weakest RE-AIM dimension and proposes tracking completed contacts monthly.

What the Brief Changes in the Final Paper

Objections 1 and 3 move into the discussion in full. The concession on transfer becomes a sentence in the abstract. The fallback for hospital access joins the schedule as a footnote to Table 1.

References

Campbell, L. A., Wan, J., Speck, P. M., & Hartig, M. T. (2014). Women, Infant and Children (WIC) peer counselor contact with first time breastfeeding mothers. Public Health Nursing, 31(1), 3-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/phn.12055

Chapman, D. J., Damio, G., Young, S., & Pérez-Escamilla, R. (2004). Effectiveness of breastfeeding peer counseling in a low-income, predominantly Latina population: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 158(9), 897-902. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.158.9.897

Chapman, D. J., Morel, K., Anderson, A. K., Damio, G., & Pérez-Escamilla, R. (2010). Breastfeeding peer counseling: From efficacy through scale-up. Journal of Human Lactation, 26(3), 314-326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890334410369481

Gavine, A., Shinwell, S. C., Buchanan, P., Farre, A., Wade, A., Lynn, F., Marshall, J., Cumming, S. E., Dare, S., & McFadden, A. (2022). Support for healthy breastfeeding mothers with healthy term babies. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (10), Article CD001141. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001141.pub6

Lumbiganon, P., Martis, R., Laopaiboon, M., Festin, M. R., Ho, J. J., & Hakimi, M. (2016). Antenatal breastfeeding education for increasing breastfeeding duration. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (12), Article CD006425. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006425.pub4

Patnode, C. D., Senger, C. A., Coppola, E. L., & Iacocca, M. O. (2025). Interventions to support breastfeeding: Updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA, 333(17), 1527-1537. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.27267

Pugh, L. C., Serwint, J. R., Frick, K. D., Nanda, J. P., Sharps, P. W., Spatz, D. L., & Milligan, R. A. (2010). A randomized controlled community-based trial to improve breastfeeding rates among urban low-income mothers. Academic Pediatrics, 10(1), 14-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2009.07.005

What the HLTH 6800 Week 10 instructions ask for

Late in the course, the argument is tested rather than extended. The defense brief states the strongest objections a knowledgeable reader in health education and promotion would raise and answers each. It is built in pairs: the objection stated first, in the form its strongest proponent would use and at enough length to be recognizable, followed immediately by a response resting on evidence already in the paper. Objections are ordered by force, with the one the writer least wants to face placed first. Where an objection cannot be fully answered, the brief concedes and says what the concession does to the claim. Common objections concern transferability, feasibility in the setting, cost, equity of reach and durability.

Inside the HLTH 6800 Week 10 example

The sample explains its ordering, then presents five pairs. The first objection, that the evidence does not reach rural Black mothers in the Delta, is stated in a skeptic's voice and answered with the Baltimore trial and the consistency of pooled results, followed by an explicit concession. The second, on the efficiency of classes, is answered by distinguishing attendance from mothers still breastfeeding. The third, on initiation, is answered by the bedside visit and two studies showing effects when contact came at or before delivery. The fourth, on hospital access, receives a fallback plan, and the fifth, on durability, a limited answer from the scale-up review. A closing section lists three changes for the final paper.

HLTH 6800 Week 10 rubric: what earns full marks

Defense briefs are graded on the fairness of each objection and the evidence in each response. Faculty reward objections stated at full strength, in a voice a real critic would recognize, and penalize straw versions. Responses should point to specific evidence in the paper rather than restate the claim. Placing the hardest objection first shows confidence and honesty. Concessions earn credit when they are explicit and when the brief says how the claim changes as a result. Covering transferability, feasibility, cost, equity and durability shows awareness of the field's usual challenges. A short list of changes carried into the final paper links the brief to the next assignment. Accurate citations complete the work.

Common HLTH 6800 Week 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Defense briefs often fall short by stating weak objections that are easy to dismiss, which convinces no one. Another common problem is answering an objection by repeating the claim more firmly. Some students also bury their hardest objection at the end or leave it out. To write a stronger brief, ask a classmate or colleague what would make them reject your claim. Write each objection as that person would say it. Order them by how much they threaten the claim. Answer each with evidence from your paper and say where it sits. Concede where you must and restate the claim accordingly. If you need a defense brief that tests your own capstone, our writers can prepare one.

Get a HLTH 6800 Week 10 example written to your instructions

A worked HLTH 6800 Week 10 defense brief sits here, objections written at full strength before any answer. Comments an instructor or a site supervisor put in writing stay private to whoever received them, and no sample gets built from them. Send the prompt and the rubric your section posted; the first custom sample is free and comes back in 24-48h.

More HLTH 6800 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples

HLTH 6800 Week 10 questions, answered

Where can I find a free HLTH 6800 Week 10 sample paper?

A complete Week 10 defense brief with five objections and responses on WIC breastfeeding peer counseling, with seven references, is provided free on this page.

What objection comes first in the HLTH 6800 Week 10 brief?

That no study has enrolled rural Black mothers in the Mississippi Delta, so the evidence is borrowed from other populations.

What does the brief concede?

That the claim is the better bet for this clinic rather than a proven effect for its population, and that the clinic should track six-week breastfeeding locally.

How does the brief answer the initiation objection?

With the bedside visit, since the Hartford trial and Texas WIC data found effects on starting when contact came at or before delivery.

What happens if the hospital refuses counselor visits?

The bedside visit becomes a call within 24 hours of discharge, and the brief admits the initiation argument weakens in that case.