| Course | INHE 2001 Fundamentals of Health Education and Behavior |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Theory application |
| Length | About 570 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | BS in Integrative Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for INHE 2001 Week 2
The Behavior First, the Model Second: Applying the Health Belief Model to Skipped Goggles and Free-Poured Disinfectant on a Hospital Housekeeping Crew
Student Name
Walden University
INHE 2001: Fundamentals of Health Education and Behavior
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
The Behavior First, the Model Second: Applying the Health Belief Model to Skipped Goggles and Free-Poured Disinfectant on a Hospital Housekeeping Crew
The Problem in Behavioral Terms
Among the evening housekeepers at the hospital where I work, two behaviors keep showing up in supervisors' notes. When a jug of concentrated disinfectant runs empty at the dilution station, staff often swap it without putting on the splash goggles that hang beside the dispenser. And when the dispenser is slow, some fill spray bottles by pouring concentrate directly and topping up with tap water. Over three months, the department logged two eye-splash incidents, both during a jug change. The behavior to change is specific: wear goggles for every jug change, and fill bottles only through the dispenser. Hospital cleaning staff handle disinfectants across many tasks every shift (Saito et al., 2015), so these two moments are frequent, not rare.
The Model Chosen
Under the Health Belief Model, protective action becomes more likely when they see themselves as susceptible to a harmful outcome, see that outcome as serious, believe the action brings benefits and see few barriers to taking it, with cues to action and later self-efficacy added to the model (Janz & Becker, 1984; Rosenstock, 1974). I chose it because the crew's own explanations, gathered in short conversations during shift, were mostly about beliefs: whether a splash could really happen, and whether goggles were worth the hassle.
Applying Each Construct
Perceived susceptibility attaches well. Several housekeepers said splashes "happen to the day crew," who handle more jug changes, which suggests the evening crew sees itself as less at risk.
Perceived benefits attach partly. Staff agreed goggles prevent eye injury, but several said the dispenser makes free-pouring unnecessary only when it works properly, so the benefit of using it depends on its condition.
Perceived barriers attach strongly. Goggles fog, sit on a hook that is often empty after the day shift, and slow a task done dozens of times a night. The dispenser takes nearly a minute to fill a large bottle. These are the clearest explanations of the behavior.
Cues to action attach. The two incidents were discussed at a safety minute, and staff mentioned the goggle hooks as a reminder when they were stocked.
Self-efficacy attaches weakly; no one doubted they could put goggles on.
The Construct With Nothing to Attach To
Perceived severity found nothing. In every conversation, no one described what an eye splash from concentrated disinfectant could do, and no one said it would be minor either. I cannot claim the crew underrates severity; I simply have no information. Rather than inventing a finding, I report severity as an assumption: the plan will assume staff may not know how serious a concentrate splash can be, and the needs assessment next week will test that assumption directly.
What the Application Suggests
The model points mostly to barriers and benefits, not to fear. That fits a meta-analysis of the model, which found perceived benefits and barriers the most consistent predictors of behavior, with severity and susceptibility weaker (Carpenter, 2010). Education that only stresses how bad eye injuries are would aim at the weakest part of the model and at a belief I have not yet shown is missing. Education that addresses barriers, such as anti-fog goggles and a refill routine for the hooks, along with the benefit of using the dispenser, matches what the crew actually said.
References
Carpenter, C. J. (2010). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of health belief model variables in predicting behavior. Health Communication, 25(8), 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2010.521906
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818401100101
Rosenstock, I. M. (1974). Historical origins of the health belief model. Health Education Monographs, 2(4), 328-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019817400200403
Saito, R., Virji, M. A., Henneberger, P. K., Humann, M. J., LeBouf, R. F., Stanton, M. L., Liang, X., & Stefaniak, A. B. (2015). Characterization of cleaning and disinfecting tasks and product use among hospital occupations. American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 58(1), 101-111. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22393
Reading the INHE 2001 Week 2 instructions
Theory application papers ask students to choose a health behavior theory and apply it to a specific problem. Prompts usually ask students to describe the problem, explain the theory's constructs and show how each applies, often with implications for an education program. Length is typically two to three pages. Instructors watch for the order: a problem stated in behavioral terms first gives the theory something to explain. Papers that describe the theory at length and then attach it to a vague problem, or that claim every construct fits, usually receive less credit. Some prompts let students choose between two or three named theories, and the choice itself should be justified by what the group says about the behavior.
How this INHE 2001 Week 2 example is built
The paper opens with two observable behaviors, the incident count and why the moments are frequent. The model is introduced in one paragraph with its classic sources. Each construct then gets a short paragraph saying what it attaches to in the crew's own explanations: susceptibility, benefits, barriers, cues and self-efficacy in turn. A section reports perceived severity as having nothing to attach to and turns it into a labeled assumption. A final section uses meta-analytic evidence to argue that education should address barriers and benefits rather than fear. The crew's explanations come from short conversations during shifts, and the paper says so, so the reader knows the evidence is informal. Each construct's paragraph opens with its name and a verdict on how well it attaches.
Where the marks sit in the INHE 2001 Week 2 rubric
Instructors generally reward a problem stated as observable behavior before the theory, and this paper's opening secures that. Accurate explanation of the model, with its original sources, earns a solid share. Applying constructs one at a time to real data is where most of the credit sits. Reporting a construct that found nothing, instead of inventing support, is often what separates strong papers. Using a meta-analysis to weigh constructs shows the student can go beyond describing a theory. Implications that follow from the analysis, not from the model's general reputation, complete the paper. Being open that the evidence is informal, and saying where it came from, adds credibility rather than weakening the paper.
Common INHE 2001 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Write down the behavior you want to change as something you could watch someone do. Collect what the group actually says about it before choosing a theory. Then apply each construct to that evidence, one at a time. If a construct has nothing to attach to, say so and label it an assumption. Let the strongest constructs shape your implications. If your draft explains the theory well but never touches your problem, we can draft a sample application using your setting. Say where your evidence came from, even if it is only conversation; instructors prefer honesty to inflated data.
Get a INHE 2001 Week 2 example written to your instructions
Send the prompt, the model your section assigns and the problem it points at, and a mapped application in this shape returns to you. The opening custom piece costs nothing, returned within 24 to 48 hours. Details a workplace treats as internal stay where they are, and none are requested.
More INHE 2001 papers and BS in Integrative Health samples
- INHE 2001 Week 1: Boundary Post
- INHE 2001 Week 3: Needs Assessment
- INHE 2001 Week 4: Audience Analysis
- INHE 2001 Week 5: Objective Set
- INHE 2001 Week 6: Construct Comparison Post
- INHE 2001 Week 7: Teaching Plan
- INHE 2001 Week 8: Materials Draft
- INHE 2001 Week 9: Peer Critique Replies
- INHE 2001 Week 10: Evaluation Plan
- INHE 2001 Week 11: Plan Audit Reflection
- INHE 2002 Week 2: Scope Memo
- INHE 1005 Week 2: Definition Paper
INHE 2001 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free INHE 2001 Week 2 sample paper?
This page carries it whole, a Health Belief Model reading of goggles skipped by a hospital housekeeping crew.
Why state the problem before naming the model?
So the model has something specific to explain and cannot be fitted after the fact.
Which construct attached most strongly?
Perceived barriers: fogging goggles, empty hooks and a slow dispenser.
What happens to a construct with no evidence?
It is reported as an assumption for the needs assessment to test.
What does the meta-analysis add?
It shows benefits and barriers predict behavior more consistently than severity or susceptibility.