| Course | INHE 1005 Foundations of Integrative Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Discussion post |
| Length | About 590 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Discussion post, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 1005 Week 1
Week 1 Discussion: Introductions and a Working Definition
Two Sentences on Where It Started, the Rest on What I Will Mean: An Opening Post Fixing a Working Definition of Integrative Health for the Term
My interest started when my grandmother's physical therapist suggested tai chi classes after her hip replacement and her surgeon agreed to it in the same visit note. That was the first time I saw two kinds of care planned together instead of one being tolerated by the other.
Through Week 11, my working meaning of "integrative health" will be conventional care and complementary approaches planned together, by people who share information, around one person's goals. The core of that working definition comes from the federal research agency on this subject, whose description of integrative health turns on coordination between mainstream and complementary care (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [NCCIH], 2021). The word I am leaning on is "coordinated." Under my definition, a person who sees an acupuncturist on Tuesday and a physician on Thursday, with neither knowing about the other, is using complementary care alongside conventional care, but that is not integrative health. The tai chi plan was integrative because the therapist and the surgeon both wrote it into the same record.
Two things are deliberately left out of my definition. First, it says nothing about whether a complementary approach works. That question matters, but it belongs to the evidence weeks later in the course, and folding it into the definition would make every argument circular. Second, it does not depend on where care happens. A clinic with "integrative" on its sign is not integrative under my definition unless the coordination actually happens.
The topic matters because so many people already combine approaches. Federal survey data put complementary approach use among American adults at 19.2% in 2002 and 36.7% twenty years later (Nahin et al., 2024). Most of that use is not coordinated with anyone, which is exactly the gap my definition is built to notice.
My question for classmates: does requiring coordination make the definition too narrow to describe what most people actually do?
Reply to Danielle
Danielle, your definition focuses on treating the whole person, and I like that it names mind, body and social life instead of only symptoms. I wonder, though, whether "whole person" can carry the definition by itself. Engel (1977) argued decades ago that medicine should account for psychological and social factors alongside biology, and his model is now taught in conventional programs too. If whole-person care is the test, then a primary care physician who asks about stress and housing is practicing integrative health without any complementary approach at all. Maybe that is fine, but it means your definition and mine would sort the same visits differently. Would you count that physician's visit as integrative?
Reply to Marcus
Marcus, I agree with you that the field is moving toward "whole person health" as an organizing idea. The director of the national center has written that research should study how multiple parts of a person's health interact rather than testing single therapies one at a time (Langevin, 2021). Where I would push back is your example of a yoga studio offering nutrition advice. Under my definition that is two complementary approaches combined, but with no conventional care in the plan, so I would not call it integrative. I can see an argument that my definition makes conventional care the anchor, which some people in this field would reject. What would you say holds a plan together if it is not the link to conventional care?
References
Engel, G. L. (1977). The need for a new medical model: A challenge for biomedicine. Science, 196(4286), 129-136. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.847460
Langevin, H. M. (2021). Moving the complementary and integrative health research field toward whole person health. The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 27(8), 623-626. https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2021.0255
Nahin, R. L., Rhee, A., & Stussman, B. (2024). Use of complementary health approaches overall and for pain management by US adults. JAMA, 331(7), 613-615. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2023.26775
National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. (2021). Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: What's in a name? https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name
The Walden INHE 1005 Week 1 instructions
Opening discussions in an introductory integrative health course usually ask students to introduce themselves and explain what draws them to the field. Many prompts also ask for a first attempt at defining integrative health, sometimes using a reading from the week. Replies to classmates are typically required by a later deadline and should do more than agree. Instructors use this thread to see whether students can move from personal interest to a usable idea. Posts that spend most of their length on biography, or that offer a definition broad enough to include anything, tend to earn less than posts that commit to something specific. A number of instructors also want to know which reading shaped the first definition, and most expect the definition to be revisited at the end of the course, so precision now pays off in the final week.
How the INHE 1005 Week 1 example is put together
The post opens with a short story about a grandmother's tai chi plan written into the same record by two providers. It then states a working definition, ties it to the federal research center's wording and explains that "coordinated" is the key word, with a case that fails it. A paragraph names two things the definition leaves out on purpose. A national survey figure shows why the gap matters. A question to classmates closes the main post. Two replies follow, one testing a whole-person definition against a conventional physician's visit and one questioning whether two complementary approaches combined make care integrative. The main post stays near six hundred words, and each reply runs close to one hundred and fifty, so the whole thread reads quickly while still committing to something.
INHE 1005 Week 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Credit on a first post usually goes to the definition more than the introduction. Committing to a specific meaning, naming the word it depends on and showing a case it excludes earn the largest share. Grounding the definition in a course-level source is rewarded, and the federal center's wording does that here. Explaining what is left out shows the writer understands that definitions work by exclusion. A real statistic, correctly cited, supports the point about uncoordinated use. Replies earn their marks by engaging each classmate's idea with a case that tests it and by ending with a genuine question. APA citations in the post and replies are checked as well. Posts that name a case outside their own definition show instructors that the student already thinks in boundaries.
INHE 1005 Week 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Keep the personal part to two or three sentences and move quickly to what you think integrative health means. Choose one word your definition depends on and give an example that falls outside it. Use your week's reading to anchor the definition. Say what your definition deliberately leaves out. In replies, test a classmate's definition with a specific case instead of praising it. If you are unsure how to turn an interest into a definition, we can write a sample post from your own starting point. Save your post, because you will probably compare it with your final view in Week 11.
Get a INHE 1005 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the thread prompt, the reply minimum the section counts, and any reading it points to, and an initial post plus replies in that shape comes back to you. The first one built to order costs nothing and returns inside 24 to 48 hours. Personal health details are never asked for at this desk and never appear in what is written.
More INHE 1005 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 1005 Week 2: Definition Paper
- INHE 1005 Week 3: Term Audit
- INHE 1005 Week 4: Field Overview
- INHE 1005 Week 5: Role Profile
- INHE 1005 Week 6: Boundary Rule Post
- INHE 1005 Week 7: Source Evaluation
- INHE 1005 Week 8: Approach Profile
- INHE 1005 Week 9: Whole Person Concept Brief
- INHE 1005 Week 10: Position Paper
- INHE 1005 Week 11: Closing Reflection
- INHE 2001 Week 1: Boundary Post
- INHE 2002 Week 1: Coaching Definition Post
INHE 1005 Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 1005 Week 1 sample paper?
Both the opening post and the two replies are reproduced here, fixing a working definition of integrative health for the whole term.
How much of the post should be personal introduction?
About two sentences; the rest should develop a definition.
What makes care integrative in this example?
Coordination: providers know about each other's part and plan around one set of goals.
Does the definition say whether complementary approaches work?
No. Evidence of effect is kept for later weeks so the definition does not become circular.
How should I reply to classmates?
Test their definition with a specific case and ask a real question, as both replies here do.