| Course | HLTH 8402 Applied Leadership and Multicultural Perspectives in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Peer critique |
| Length | About 420 words, 3 pages |
| Format | Discussion reply, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8402 Week 6
Week 6 Reply: Critique of Danielle's Post on the Eastside Church Diabetes Prevention Class
Peer Critique: A Church-Hosted Diabetes Prevention Class Praised From Coordinator Reports and Enrollment Counts, and the Testimonial Injustice of an Account in Which the People Who Left Never Speak
Reply to Danielle
Danielle, your post describes a diabetes prevention class hosted by a church in a composite neighborhood, and it makes a good case. Enrollment filled every cohort, the coordinator reports strong engagement and participants who finished lost weight on average. Holding classes where people already gather is a sound choice, and the program clearly reached people a clinic might not.
My question is about who got to describe the program. Your evidence comes from two sources: enrollment numbers and the coordinator's reports. Both are accounts by people inside the program. The people who enrolled and stopped coming, or who were invited and never came, do not appear. Fricker (2007) described testimonial injustice as the harm done when a speaker receives less credibility than they deserve because of prejudice about who they are; a broader concern in her work is that some people are never positioned to give testimony at all. In program reports, those who leave are often treated as non-compliant rather than as informants with something to say.
That matters because attrition is common in this kind of program. An evaluation of the national lifestyle program's early years found that half the participants came to 14 or fewer sessions, and each added session went with more weight lost; the authors suggested that focusing on retention may reduce disparities in results (Ely et al., 2017). If the participants who finished the church class lost weight, the average says little about those who stopped, and their reasons might point to changes that would keep others.
Who might they be? Perhaps people who worked evening shifts when the class met, people who were not members of the church and felt like outsiders there, or people who found the materials hard to read. I do not know, and neither does the post, which is the point.
One way to give them testimony would be for the program to call a sample of people who left, using someone other than the coordinator, and ask what got in the way. Another would be to hold a listening session at a different site for people who never enrolled. The ladder of citizen participation Arnstein (1969) described is a reminder that consultation is more than counting who came.
Would you add a short section on who left and why, even if the answer is that the data do not exist yet?
References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969). A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 35(4), 216-224. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944366908977225
Ely, E. K., Gruss, S. M., Luman, E. T., Gregg, E. W., Ali, M. K., Nhim, K., Rolka, D. B., & Albright, A. L. (2017). A national effort to prevent type 2 diabetes: Participant-level evaluation of CDC's National Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care, 40(10), 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2099
Fricker, M. (2007). Epistemic injustice: Power and the ethics of knowing. Oxford University Press.
Reading the HLTH 8402 Week 6 instructions
In Week 6 students critique a classmate's account of a program or community by asking whose perspectives it includes and whose it omits. The critique should credit what the account does well, identify the sources it relies on, name the voices missing and explain why their absence matters, using a concept such as testimonial injustice. Faculty expect evidence that the missing perspectives would change the conclusion. Practical suggestions for gathering those perspectives are valued. Keep it collegial and finish with a question, with care not to claim knowledge of what the missing people would say. The critique should also show that the missing perspectives could plausibly change the classmate's conclusion, not only that they exist.
How this HLTH 8402 Week 6 example is built
The reply credits the church setting, full enrollment and weight loss among completers. The second paragraph identifies the post's two sources as inside accounts and applies Fricker on testimonial injustice and on people never positioned to testify. The third cites Ely and colleagues on attendance and weight loss in the national program and their point about retention and disparities. The fourth suggests who might have left, such as evening shift workers or non-members, while admitting no one knows. The fifth proposes calls by someone other than the coordinator and a listening session for people who never enrolled, citing Arnstein on participation. The reply ends by asking for a section on who left.
HLTH 8402 Week 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Critiques in this week are graded on whether they identify missing perspectives and show why they matter. A reply that criticizes the program without examining the evidence's sources earns little. The rubric rewards crediting the program fairly, naming the sources the post relies on and explaining how absent voices could change the conclusion. Faculty value accurate use of a concept such as testimonial injustice and evidence that attrition affects results. Practical suggestions show that the critique aims to improve the work. Restraint about what the missing voices would say demonstrates honesty, and a final question the classmate can act on keeps the exchange constructive. Faculty notice whether the critique uses evidence, such as attendance data, to show that the missing group matters to the result. A reply that names a concrete way to gather the missing testimony, and who should do it, moves the thread from critique to improvement.
HLTH 8402 Week 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Critiques of community programs often assume that those who left were dissatisfied, or speak for them without evidence. Others criticize the program instead of the account. To write a stronger critique, start by crediting what works. List the sources the account relies on and ask whose perspective each reflects. Name who is missing and why their view matters. Avoid guessing what they would say. Suggest a practical way to hear from them. End with a question. A critique of a classmate post in your own course, built this way, can be drafted for you.
Get a HLTH 8402 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Paste in the post being critiqued, then the Week 6 prompt and rubric; a critique naming the voices absent from that account, and why each matters, is returned within 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Threads needing two critiques, or a required citation count, are covered once the requirement is stated.
More HLTH 8402 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8402 Week 1: Leading Across Difference Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 2: Training Versus Practice Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 3: Disaggregated Population Profile
- HLTH 8402 Week 4: Clinic Hours Leadership Case
- HLTH 8402 Week 5: Outreach Team Faultline Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 7: Public Meeting Engagement Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 8: Language Access Discussion Post
- HLTH 8402 Week 9: Research Trust Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 10: Clinic Stop Counterargument
- HLTH 8402 Week 11: Leadership Account Synthesis
- HLTH 8392 Week 6: Shared Burden Phrase Reply
- HLTH 8317 Week 6: Preparedness Funds Peer Critique
- HLTH 8247 Week 6: Unanswered Alarm Peer Reply
- HLTH 8242 Week 6: Mechanism Logic Model
HLTH 8402 Week 6 questions, answered
What is testimonial injustice?
Miranda Fricker's term for a wrong done to someone as a knower: a hearer grants their word less weight than it deserves, out of prejudice attached to their identity. In public health it often appears when staff reports count as evidence and community members' accounts count as anecdote. The concept gives your critique a reason certain voices go missing from success stories.
How many missing voices should I name?
A few, and each needs a reason. A long list suggests you are listing categories rather than thinking about this community. Choose the voices whose absence most weakens the classmate's conclusion, such as people who left a program, and explain what their perspective would add. Specific, consequential omissions are what readers credit.
What if the classmate's post is well sourced?
Then examine whose knowledge the sources represent. A post can cite peer reviewed studies and program data and still omit the people served, because both may reflect the institution's perspective. Your critique can credit the sourcing and still ask where community members' own accounts appear, and whether any source records what participants said in their own words.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8402 Week 6 sample paper?
The complete Week 6 peer critique is on this page, asking who is missing from a classmate's account of a church-hosted diabetes prevention class, with three references.
How does the critique suggest hearing from people who left?
By having someone other than the coordinator call a sample of people who stopped attending to ask what got in the way, and by holding a listening session at a different site for people who never enrolled.