| Course | HLTH 8815 Gerontology & Healthy Aging |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 10 |
| Paper type | Peer reply set |
| Length | About 380 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 8815 Week 10
Week 10 Replies: Who Can Use the Program?
Three Peer Replies Asking Which Abilities Each Proposal Takes for Granted: A Telehealth Check-In Line, a Riverside Walking Group and a Volunteer Ride Service for Older Residents
Reply to Theo
Theo, your telehealth check-in line would let older residents talk with a nurse weekly without leaving home, which addresses transportation directly. It assumes residents can hear and speak clearly by phone or video and can use the technology. Lam et al. (2020), using national data from 2018, estimated that about 38% of older adults were not ready for video visits and about 20% were not ready even for telephone visits, mainly because of hearing or communication difficulties, dementia or inexperience with technology. Those groups overlap heavily with the people who most need a check-in. Who would your line exclude, and could you test the assumption by asking a sample of eligible residents to complete one trial call?
Reply to Lucia
Lucia, a riverside walking group is appealing and well supported: Hanson and Jones (2015) found in a systematic review and meta-analysis that walking groups had wide-ranging health benefits and good adherence. Your proposal assumes participants can walk the path's length, manage its surface and reach the river. The path you describe is gravel with no benches for the first mile, and the nearest bus stop is half a mile away. That excludes people who use walkers or need to rest, and anyone who cannot get there. Could you offer a shorter loop near the parking lot with benches, and survey interested residents about how far they can walk without stopping?
Reply to Malcolm
Malcolm, a volunteer ride service addresses a real gap. Chihuri et al. (2016) pooled studies of older adults who gave up the car and reported poorer health and social function afterward, along with close to twice the odds of depressive symptoms. Your service assumes riders can schedule rides 48 hours ahead, walk from the curb to the car and get in without help. People who have stopped driving because of physical limits may struggle with the last two, and people with memory problems may struggle with the first. Would offering door-through-door assistance for some riders, and a reminder call the day before, widen who can use it? A short pilot that tracks requests turned down for these reasons would tell you.
References
Chihuri, S., Mielenz, T. J., DiMaggio, C. J., Betz, M. E., DiGuiseppi, C., Jones, V. C., & Li, G. (2016). Driving cessation and health outcomes in older adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 64(2), 332-341. https://doi.org/10.1111/jgs.13931
Hanson, S., & Jones, A. (2015). Is there evidence that walking groups have health benefits? A systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 49(11), 710-715. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2014-094157
Lam, K., Lu, A. D., Shi, Y., & Covinsky, K. E. (2020). Assessing telemedicine unreadiness among older adults in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA Internal Medicine, 180(10), 1389-1391. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.2671
HLTH 8815 Week 10 instructions, in plain terms
Students reply to classmates' proposed programs by examining the abilities each program assumes. Faculty expect each reply to name a specific assumption, explain who it would exclude and cite evidence on how common that limitation is or why it matters. The strongest replies credit the proposal's strengths before identifying the assumption, point to concrete features of the design or setting, and suggest a practical way to test the assumption. Faculty value replies that vary in structure and adapt the course's framework to each program rather than repeating a template. Replies should remain constructive, focusing on how the program could reach more people. Expect to write three replies this week, each a few short paragraphs with its own source and a question at the end.
How the HLTH 8815 Week 10 example is put together
The reply to Theo credits the telehealth line for addressing transportation, names the assumption that residents can hear and use technology, and cites Lam and colleagues on unreadiness for video and telephone visits before proposing a trial call. The reply to Lucia credits walking groups with Hanson and Jones's review, then identifies the gravel path, the lack of benches and the distant bus stop and suggests a shorter loop and a survey. The reply to Malcolm cites Chihuri and colleagues on driving cessation, names three assumptions about scheduling, walking to the curb and getting into the car, and suggests door-through-door help, reminder calls and a pilot tracking declined requests.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 8815 Week 10 rubric
Each reply is judged on whether it names a real assumption and shows who would be left out. Generic suggestions to consider accessibility do little. Strong replies point to a feature of the design or setting, cite evidence on the relevant limitation and propose a way to test whether the assumption holds. Crediting the proposal's strengths first keeps the tone constructive. Graders look for accurate reporting of sources and for adaptation of the course's capacity framework to each program. A closing question in each reply invites the classmate to act. If the three replies read alike, graders assume a template; tailoring each to its program avoids that.
HLTH 8815 Week 10 help from the desk
Peer replies on program proposals often praise the idea or suggest more funding. To write stronger replies, read each proposal and list what a participant must be able to do to use it: hear, travel, walk a distance, book ahead, use a device. Pick the assumption most likely to exclude people. Find evidence on how common that limitation is. Point to the feature of the program that creates the barrier. Suggest a change and a simple way to test it. End with a question. Vary your replies so each fits its program. Replies to the proposals in your own thread can be written to these points.
Get a HLTH 8815 Week 10 example written to your instructions
Copy over the posts your section assigns for response, along with the reply guidelines and rubric. The set that comes back credits each proposal, turns it into the actions a participant must take, names the capacity every action assumes, and asks something answerable. The classmates and their programs were written for the sample. Back in 24 to 48 hours, first set free.
More HLTH 8815 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8815 Week 1: Functional Definition Post
- HLTH 8815 Week 2: Diagnosis or Function Post
- HLTH 8815 Week 3: Older Adult Function Profile
- HLTH 8815 Week 4: Multimorbidity Program Memo
- HLTH 8815 Week 5: Care Setting Comparison
- HLTH 8815 Week 6: Aging Framing Critique
- HLTH 8815 Week 7: Disability Measurement Memo
- HLTH 8815 Week 8: Hidden Caregiving Analysis
- HLTH 8815 Week 9: Meals Access Service Review
- HLTH 8815 Week 11: Non-Driver Synthesis Brief
- HLTH 8745 Week 10: Behavioral Trial Critique
- HLTH 8701 Week 10: Attribution Across Cultures Post
- HLTH 8574 Week 10: Evidence Origin Peer Replies
- HLTH 8573 Week 10: Age-Specific Peer Replies
HLTH 8815 Week 10 questions, answered
Why ask the same question in all three replies?
Because the question is the course's core method, and applying it three times shows it working across different programs. The replies still differ in content: hearing and devices for telehealth, benches and transit for the walk, booking and curbside waiting for rides. Together they reveal that each program moves a barrier rather than removing it, which none of the three could show alone.
How many replies does the week require?
It varies by section, and your discussion rubric sets the number and length. The sample includes three because a set shows the method across programs, but each reply stands alone and could be submitted by itself. If your section asks for two, the reply to the ride service is usually the strongest, since it finds an assumption inside a program designed to remove them.
Is it fair to question a program for what participants cannot do?
The replies do not fault participants or even the programs; they identify what a design takes for granted so the classmate can decide whether to adjust it. Each reply opens with what the proposal does well. Putting the assumption to the classmate as something checkable keeps the exchange collegial and focused on design rather than on anyone's ability.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8815 Week 10 sample paper?
You can read the full Week 10 reply set on this page, three replies asking which abilities a telehealth line, a walking group and a ride service take for granted, with three references.
How many older adults were not ready for telehealth?
Using 2018 national data, Lam and colleagues estimated that about 38% of older adults were not ready for video visits and about 20% were not ready for telephone visits, mainly because of hearing or communication difficulties, dementia or inexperience with technology.