| Course | HLTH 6800 Health Education and Promotion Capstone |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 7 |
| Paper type | Argument audit |
| Length | About 640 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 7
Argument Audit: Every Section of the Draft Checked Against the Claim That Postnatal Peer Contact Should Replace Added Prenatal Classes at the Washington County WIC Clinic
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6800: Health Education and Promotion Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Argument Audit: Every Section of the Draft Checked Against the Claim That Postnatal Peer Contact Should Replace Added Prenatal Classes at the Washington County WIC Clinic
The Claim as the Draft Now Argues It
After five weeks of revision, the draft argues: hour for hour, scheduled peer contact from the hospital stay through week 6 keeps more Washington County WIC mothers breastfeeding than added prenatal classes would, and it reaches the initiation problem through the bedside visit. The proposal claimed only the first half. The second half entered during integration, when the needs assessment had to be reconciled, and the audit treats it as part of the claim.
Audit Table
Table 1
Section-by-Section Audit of the Week 6 Draft
| Section | What it should establish | Evidence carrying it now | Verdict | Action taken | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Introduction | The county's two-stage gap and the decision the clinic faces | County initiation data; statewide survey data | Supports | Initiation figure moved to the first paragraph | |
| 2. Support after birth | Help given after birth lowers stopping, and peers can give it | Gavine et al. (2022); Patnode et al. (2025) | Supports | None | |
| 3. Prenatal classes alone | Classes on their own have not lengthened breastfeeding | Lumbiganon et al. (2016) | Supports | Added the review's exclusion rule so the limit is stated | |
| 4. Transfer to Delta mothers | The closest trial population shows an early, fading effect | Pugh et al. (2010) | Partly supports | Rewritten to admit no rural Delta trial exists | |
| 5. Integration | Earlier work, reconciled, supports the claim | Rewritten assessment, plan and texts | Supports | Terms aligned with Section 2 | |
| 6. RE-AIM comparison | Postnatal contact is stronger on reach, implementation and maintenance | Glasgow et al. (1999); clinic staffing figures | Partly supports | Maintenance argument flagged for new evidence | |
| 7a. Hospital policy subsection | Baby-friendly hospital steps improve initiation | Hospital practice studies | Does not belong | Cut; the clinic does not control hospital policy | |
| 7b. Discussion and limits | The claim holds with stated limits | Sections 2 to 6 | Supports | Objection on class reach moved up | |
Seven sections support or partly support the claim; one subsection was removed because it argued an adjacent question.
What the Audit Found
The pattern was drift toward the hospital. Over three revisions, the discussion had grown a subsection on baby-friendly hospital practices, including skin-to-skin contact and rooming-in. The material was accurate and well sourced, but it argued that the hospital should change, which is a different capstone. The claim concerns where a WIC clinic places its counselors' time, and the bedside visit is the only part of the hospital stay the clinic controls. The subsection was cut, and one sentence in Section 1 now notes that hospital practices also matter and fall outside the scope.
The audit also exposed a weak spot in Section 6. The maintenance argument rested on the clinic's staffing figures from my program plan, with no outside evidence that postnatal schedules survive after their first year. The scale-up review by Chapman et al. (2010) speaks to this, and it has been added as the source to carry the argument, with the limit that it describes programs at national scale rather than single clinics.
Section 4 received a partial verdict because the Baltimore trial is the nearest match to the county's population yet differs in two ways: it was urban, and its team offered far more contact than a small clinic can. The section now says so in its first paragraph rather than in the limitations chapter.
Changes Made Because of the Audit
1. Subsection 7a removed and a one-line scope note added to the introduction.
2. Chapman et al. (2010) added to Section 6 as evidence for maintenance.
3. Section 4 opens with the two differences between the Baltimore trial and the county.
4. The objection that classes reach more women per hour moved to the start of the discussion, since it is the strongest one.
References
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
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
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 7 instructions ask for
An audit week sits late in the course: a systematic check that every section still supports the same claim after weeks of revision. Students usually submit a table or an annotated pass through the draft, plus short passages on what the audit found and what changed. The table lists each section, the claim it is supposed to establish, the evidence currently carrying it and a verdict such as supports, partly supports or does not belong, with a column recording the action taken. One passage restates the central claim as the draft now argues it, which often differs from the proposal. Another reports the pattern the audit uncovered. The document exists to find fault with the draft, not to defend it.
How the HLTH 6800 Week 7 example is put together
The sample's opening passage restates the claim and explains that a second half, reaching initiation through the bedside visit, entered during integration. The audit table covers eight sections and subsections. Five receive a verdict of supports, two partly support, and a subsection on baby-friendly hospital practices does not belong because it argues that the hospital should change, an adjacent question. The findings passage names this drift toward the hospital, explains that the maintenance argument relied only on clinic staffing figures and reports that a scale-up review was added to carry it. It also explains why the transfer section received a partial verdict. Four numbered changes close the audit.
Reading the HLTH 6800 Week 7 rubric
Audits are graded on rigor and candor. Faculty reward tables that cover every section, state what each should establish and give verdicts that include partial support and removal, not only approval. An action column showing what was done about each finding earns credit. Restating the claim as it now stands, and admitting how it moved, shows maturity. The pattern passage carries weight because drift toward an adjacent question is the most common late-term problem, and naming it shows the writer can see the whole draft. Audits that defend every section signal that no real audit occurred. Evidence entries should be specific sources, not general labels. Clear formatting aids grading.
Common HLTH 6800 Week 7 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Audits often lose credit by approving every section, which suggests the writer read for comfort rather than fault. Another common problem is listing verdicts without recording what changed. Some students also skip restating the claim, so the audit has no fixed standard. To build a stronger audit, write your claim as the draft now argues it. List every section and subsection in a table. For each, write what it should establish and what evidence carries it now. Give an honest verdict, including "does not belong" where needed. Record the action taken. Then look for the pattern behind several findings and name it. If you need an argument audit of your own capstone draft, our team can help.
Get a HLTH 6800 Week 7 example written to your instructions
A completed HLTH 6800 Week 7 audit is here in full, table, findings and revision log together. A draft a student has written stays that student's document; this desk does not audit, mark up or edit submitted work. 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 1: Capstone Claim Discussion Post
- HLTH 6800 Week 2: Peer Counseling Capstone Proposal
- HLTH 6800 Week 3: Argumentative Capstone Outline
- HLTH 6800 Week 4: Breastfeeding Evidence Synthesis
- HLTH 6800 Week 5: Coursework Integration Section
- HLTH 6800 Week 6: Structured Capstone Peer Review
- HLTH 6800 Week 8: Capstone Abstract With Notes
- HLTH 6800 Week 9: Full Capstone Draft
- HLTH 6800 Week 10: Capstone Defense Brief
- HLTH 6800 Week 11: Final Capstone Paper
- HLTH 6475 Week 7: Program Resource Plan
- HLTH 6412 Week 7: New Parent Channel Plan
- HLTH 6405 Week 7: Healthcare Ethics Code Application
- HLTH 6362 Week 7: Prenatal Syphilis Testing Handout
HLTH 6800 Week 7 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6800 Week 7 sample paper?
A complete Week 7 argument audit with a section-by-section table for a breastfeeding peer counseling capstone, with six references, is set out below in full.
What did the HLTH 6800 Week 7 audit find?
A drift toward hospital policy in the discussion, a maintenance argument resting only on clinic staffing figures and a transfer section that needed to admit no rural Delta trial exists.
Which section was cut?
A subsection on baby-friendly hospital practices, because it argued that the hospital should change rather than how the clinic should place counselor time.
How did the claim change since the proposal?
It added that the bedside visit reaches the county's low initiation as well as duration, a point that entered when the needs assessment was reconciled.
What verdicts does the audit table use?
Supports, partly supports and does not belong, each paired with the action taken on the draft.