HLTH 8242 Week 5 Kit Return Barrier Analysis Example

Course	HLTH 8242 Changing Health Behavior: Theory and Practice
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Barrier analysis
Length	About 750 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for HLTH 8242 Week 5

Barrier Analysis: Why Mailed Stool Test Kits Do Not Come Back in a Composite Clinic Network, Five Barriers Sorted by Integrated Behavioral Model Construct and Ranked by How Often They Recur and How Movable Each Is

Student Name

Walden University

HLTH 8242: Changing Health Behavior: Theory and Practice

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title ties every barrier to a construct and names the two ratings used to rank them, which turns a list of complaints into a design input.

Sources

This analysis combines two kinds of evidence. The first is a set of interview themes from Fallbrook clinic network outreach staff, who called patients whose kits had not been returned after 30 days; the interviews and their themes are invented for this course example, and no real patient is described. The second is published research on barriers to colorectal cancer screening, which allows the themes to be checked against what other populations report. Each barrier is assigned to a construct in the integrated behavioral model, chosen in the previous memo, so that it points to something an intervention could change (Montano & Kasprzyk, 2015).

What this page is doingLabeling the interview themes as invented, and pairing them with published studies, keeps the analysis honest about its evidence.

The Barriers

Table 1

Five Barriers to Kit Return by Construct, Recurrence and Movability

Barrier	Construct	How often it recurs in the themes	Movability	Rank \|
Kit put aside and forgotten	Salience	Most common	High: prompts and reminders reach it directly	1 \|
Unsure how to collect the sample	Knowledge and skill	Common	High: instructions and demonstration	2 \|
Disgust or embarrassment at handling stool	Experiential attitude	Common	Moderate: reframing and reassurance help some	3 \|
No one I know does this test; spouse discourages it	Perceived norms	Less common	Moderate: descriptive norm messages	4 \|
Doubt that a stool test is accurate or needed without symptoms	Instrumental attitude	Less common	Low to moderate: beliefs are harder to shift	5 \|

Recurrence is judged from the composite themes; movability is judged from the published evidence on techniques that target each construct.

Salience and Skill Explain More Than Attitude

The two most common barriers are not about beliefs. Patients describe putting the kit in a drawer intending to do it later, then forgetting. Others say the instructions were confusing, especially about how much sample to collect and how to keep it off the toilet water. In the integrated behavioral model, salience and skill are among the factors that determine whether an intention becomes behavior. Many of these patients already intend to complete the test, so raising intention would add little; making the task visible and doable would add much more.

Published evidence is consistent with this. In a mixed-methods study of primary care patients, fear and the bowel preparation were the most cited barriers to screening overall, but focus groups also raised lack of information, time and access (Jones et al., 2010). Those findings concerned all screening methods, including colonoscopy, so the bowel preparation barrier does not apply to stool tests; the information and time barriers do.

Experiential Attitude and Norms

Disgust or embarrassment is the third barrier. It is an experiential attitude, a feeling about doing the behavior, distinct from beliefs about whether the test is useful. Patients who find it worthwhile may still avoid it because it is unpleasant. Messages that describe the collection as quick and private, and that use plain illustrations, may reduce this feeling for some patients. Norms are less common but present: some patients say no one they know has done the test, and a few say a spouse discouraged it. A descriptive norm message, stating truthfully how many clinic patients return their kits, could address the first. The second is harder to reach by mail.

Instrumental Attitude

The least common barrier is doubt that a stool test is accurate or needed without symptoms. It ranks last because it is less frequent and because beliefs about medical tests are harder to shift with a mailed message than forgetfulness is with a reminder.

Ratings of Movability

Movability is judged from what is known about techniques that target each construct. Prompts and cues are standard behavior change techniques for salience, and the behavior change technique taxonomy lists them alongside instruction on how to perform a behavior and demonstration of the behavior (Michie et al., 2013). Implementation intentions, plans that specify when and where a person will act, have been shown across many studies to help people act on intentions they already hold (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006), which makes them a good fit for patients who forget.

What the Analysis Implies for Design

The program should lead with salience and skill: a well-timed reminder, a simple picture guide and a prompt to plan when the test will be done. Experiential attitude and norms come next. Instrumental attitude, the classic focus of risk messages, deserves a place but not the lead.

References

Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69-119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1

Jones, R. M., Devers, K. J., Kuzel, A. J., & Woolf, S. H. (2010). Patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening: A mixed-methods analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 38(5), 508-516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2010.01.021

Michie, S., Richardson, M., Johnston, M., Abraham, C., Francis, J., Hardeman, W., Eccles, M. P., Cane, J., & Wood, C. E. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81-95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6

Montano, D. E., & Kasprzyk, D. (2015). Theory of reasoned action, theory of planned behavior, and the integrated behavioral model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice (5th ed., pp. 95-124). Jossey-Bass.

The Walden HLTH 8242 Week 5 instructions

The Week 5 assignment asks students to identify the barriers to their target behavior and analyze them through the constructs of their chosen theory. Each barrier should be assigned to a construct, so that it suggests what an intervention could change. Faculty expect barriers ranked by how common and how changeable they are, with evidence for both judgments. Sources may include published studies and, in a course sample, clearly labeled composite data. The paper should end with implications for design.

How the HLTH 8242 Week 5 example is put together

The sources section labels the interview themes as invented and pairs them with published research, and links each barrier to the integrated behavioral model. Table 1 ranks five barriers by construct, recurrence and movability. A section argues that salience and skill explain more non-return than attitude and checks this against Jones and colleagues' mixed-methods study, noting which of their barriers apply only to colonoscopy. Separate sections discuss experiential attitude and norms, then instrumental attitude. A movability section cites Michie and colleagues' taxonomy for prompts, instruction and demonstration and Gollwitzer and Sheeran on implementation intentions. The closing section sets design priorities: salience and skill first, attitude and norms next, risk beliefs last.

Reading the HLTH 8242 Week 5 rubric

Barrier analyses are graded on whether each barrier points to an action. A list of complaints without constructs, or with constructs assigned loosely, earns limited credit. The rubric rewards clear mapping, a ranking with stated criteria and evidence for movability. Faculty check that published studies are applied carefully to the specific behavior, since many screening barriers concern colonoscopy rather than stool tests. Labeling composite data honestly is required. Design implications should follow from the ranking rather than from preference. Analyses that note when a barrier maps to two constructs, and choose one with a reason, show careful thinking. Faculty also reward honesty about where the evidence for a barrier is thin or comes from a different behavior.

HLTH 8242 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks

Barrier papers often catalog every barrier mentioned in the literature without asking which apply to the specific behavior and population. Others map barriers to constructs but never rank them. Some treat all barriers as equally movable. To write a stronger analysis, gather barriers from your sources and assign each to one construct, noting any secondary link. Judge how often each recurs and how easily a program could change it, with evidence. Rank them. Say what the ranking means for design. When a barrier touches two constructs, pick the main one and say why. Check whether each published barrier actually applies to your behavior, since many screening studies are about colonoscopy. Note where your evidence is thin, and keep any composite material clearly labeled. A barrier analysis for your own behavior and theory can be written for you as a model.

Get a HLTH 8242 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Barrier work depends on the population, so give a general description of the group you are studying and send the prompt, the rubric and any sources you have gathered. The analysis returned for HLTH 8242 maps each barrier onto a construct and ranks them by reach and movability. Expect it in 24 to 48 hours. First one free.

More HLTH 8242 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

HLTH 8242 Week 5 questions, answered

Can a barrier analysis rely on invented interviews?

For a course sample, composite interviews can illustrate the method if they are labeled clearly and never presented as findings. Your own paper should rely on published studies, or on data you are permitted to use, cited properly. The sample separates the two kinds of evidence in its first section so that a reader always knows which claims rest on sources.

What if a barrier maps to more than one construct?

Say so and choose the primary one with a reason. Disgust, for example, affects experiential attitude but might also lower self-efficacy if patients doubt they can handle the sample cleanly. The sample assigns it to attitude and notes the secondary link, which lets the activity map later address both without counting the barrier twice.

Why rate movability?

Because an intervention can only act on what a clinic can change. Mailbox access matters, but a clinic has limited power over housing or postal service, while forgetting and collection doubt respond to reminders and instructions. Rating movability keeps the design focused on what it can realistically shift, and your rubric may reward that realism explicitly.

Where can I find a free HLTH 8242 Week 5 sample paper?

The complete Week 5 barrier analysis is reproduced here, ranking five reasons mailed stool test kits are not returned by construct, recurrence and movability, with four references.

Which barriers does the analysis rank highest?

Forgetting the kit, a salience problem, and uncertainty about how to collect the sample, a knowledge and skill problem, both common and both highly movable through prompts and instruction.