| Course | INHE 1005 Foundations of Integrative Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 11 |
| Paper type | Reflection |
| Length | About 600 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 1005 Week 11
From "Planned Together" to "Connected in at Least One Direction": A Closing Reflection Setting My Week 1 and Week 11 Definitions Side by Side
Student Name
Walden University
INHE 1005: Foundations of Integrative Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From "Planned Together" to "Connected in at Least One Direction": A Closing Reflection Setting My Week 1 and Week 11 Definitions Side by Side
The Two Definitions
In Week 1, I defined integrative health as two kinds of care "planned together" by providers who share information, centered on a single person's goals. My definition now reads: integrative health is care in which a complementary approach and a person's conventional care are connected in at least one direction, so that at least one provider knows about the other approach and plans around it, with the person's goals as the reference point.
Placed side by side, the definitions share their center. Both still rest on coordination, following the federal research center's distinction between approaches used together with conventional care and those combined deliberately (National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health [NCCIH], 2021). What changed is the strictness of "planned together."
What Moved, and What Moved It
The first change is that coordination can be one-sided. My Week 1 definition required everyone involved to share information. The case that moved me was the edge case in my Week 2 paper: a woman whose nurse practitioner wrote her mindfulness course into her treatment plan, although the course instructor never heard from the clinic. Under my original definition, that case was not integrative at all. Yet the nurse practitioner's plan was clearly different from the parallel use I wanted to exclude. I decided the definition should capture that difference, and "connected in at least one direction" does.
The second change concerns setting. In Week 1, I already said a sign on a building did not make care integrative, but I had not thought about policies. A classmate's reply in the Week 6 discussion described a cancer center where every massage must be ordered by an oncologist. That pushed me to separate the building from the rules that run inside it. My new definition does not mention setting at all, but I now know to ask what policy, not what address, produces the connection.
The third change is not in the definition but in how I will use it. Writing the reflexology profile in Week 8 taught me to report a review's conclusion in its own words. Ernst (2009) wrote that the best evidence available did not demonstrate convincingly that reflexology is effective for any condition, and my first draft had turned that into "reflexology does not work," a stronger claim than the review made. I now keep questions of evidence separate from questions of definition, which my Week 1 post promised but did not yet know how to do.
What Did Not Move
I still think the word "integrative" should describe how care is arranged, not an attitude toward patients. The Week 10 objection that integrative health is a philosophy of whole-person, relationship-centered care (Maizes et al., 2009) made me take that view seriously, and I agree that good integrative care has those qualities. But I am more convinced than in Week 1 that a definition based only on attitude would apply to almost any attentive practitioner and would stop distinguishing anything.
What I Will Carry Forward
Three habits will follow me into later courses. I will describe how a practice relates to a person's other care before I name it. I will test phrases like "whole person" against a case, as in Week 9, instead of using them as praise. And I will report evidence at the strength its authors chose. The field's own direction, toward studying how approaches interact within one person (Langevin, 2021), suggests these habits will matter more as the courses become more applied.
References
Ernst, E. (2009). Is reflexology an effective intervention? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Medical Journal of Australia, 191(5), 263-266. https://doi.org/10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02780.x
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
Maizes, V., Rakel, D., & Niemiec, C. (2009). Integrative medicine and patient-centered care. EXPLORE, 5(5), 277-289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.explore.2009.06.008
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
What the INHE 1005 Week 11 instructions ask for
Final reflections in this course usually ask students to look back at their early work and describe how their understanding of integrative health developed. Prompts often ask students to compare a first-week definition or post with their current thinking and to identify what caused any change. Some ask what students will take into later courses. Instructors look for specific changes linked to specific readings, cases or discussions. Reflections that talk about growth only in broad terms, with nothing concrete behind them, or that claim every view changed, tend to earn less credit. Many prompts also ask students to connect their reflection to the program's later courses, and a specific habit is more convincing than a general goal. Instructors often reread the student's first-week post while grading, so quoting it accurately matters.
How this INHE 1005 Week 11 example is built
The reflection quotes both definitions in full, then notes what they share. Three changes follow, each tied to its source: the one-way coordination rule from the Week 2 edge case, the distinction between buildings and policies from a classmate's Week 6 reply, and a lesson in reporting evidence from a first draft of the reflexology profile. A section on what did not move engages the Week 10 objection. A final section names three habits for later courses and links them to the field's direction. Sources are the center, a review, a patient-centered care article and a research agenda. The reflection runs about two pages and keeps the same first-person voice used in the Week 1 post.
Reading the INHE 1005 Week 11 rubric
Instructors generally reward reflections that show change with evidence. Quoting both definitions secures a large share, because it lets the reader see the change directly. Linking each change to a specific assignment, case or classmate earns the next portion. Admitting an error from a first draft, as with the reflexology review, is credited for honesty. Stating what held firm, with reasons, shows judgment. Forward-looking habits that connect to the field's direction complete a strong reflection. APA citations to sources used earlier in the course are checked. Naming specific weeks and assignments, rather than "the readings," makes the reflection credible. Reflections that state a specific habit, instead of a general intention, are usually rated higher.
INHE 1005 Week 11 help: mistakes that cost marks
Find your earliest written definition or post and quote it. Write your current view in the same form so the two can be compared. For every change, name the reading, case or discussion that caused it. Include something you got wrong and how you noticed. Say what has not changed and why. End with habits you will actually use. If you cannot see how your thinking moved, we can review your earlier work and draft a sample reflection. Name the week and assignment behind each change so your instructor can check it.
Get a INHE 1005 Week 11 example written to your instructions
Send the reflection prompt, the week one piece it points back to and any model your section names, and a finished reflection in that shape returns to you. No charge on the first custom piece, delivered in 24 to 48 hours. The comparison works from those two pieces of writing and nothing else, and no account of your own care is needed.
More INHE 1005 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 1005 Week 1: Working Definition Post
- 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 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 1005 Week 11 sample paper?
The complete Week 11 reflection is above, comparing a Week 1 and Week 11 definition of integrative health.
What changed between the two definitions?
Coordination may now run in one direction, and setting is replaced by policy.
What caused the biggest change?
The edge case in the Week 2 definition paper, where only one provider planned around the approach.
Should a reflection admit mistakes?
Yes. This one names a first draft that overstated a review's conclusion.
What habits does the writer carry forward?
Describing use before labels, testing phrases against cases and reporting evidence at its stated strength.