| Course | NURS 6720 Population-Based Public Health Nursing Interventions |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Goals and objectives document |
| Length | About 680 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NURS 6720 Week 5
One Goal, Five Objectives That Could Fail: Measurable Targets for the Catch-Up Reminder and Home Visit Program
Student Name
College of Nursing, Walden University
NURS 6720: Population-Based Public Health Nursing Interventions
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
One Goal, Five Objectives That Could Fail: Measurable Targets for the Catch-Up Reminder and Home Visit Program
Goal
In the composite city, refugee children under 12 who begin catch-up vaccination at their domestic screening will finish their series, and finish sooner, than they do now.
The goal is broad on purpose. It names the direction of change and the population without a number, and the objectives below carry the measurement. Each objective states a population, a measure, a direction, an amount of change and a date, and adds the report that would settle whether it was met, because an objective is only measurable in practice if someone can name the report that measures it (Doran, 1981). Baselines come from the first-quarter registry extract described in the aggregate profile, after duplicate records were reviewed. All figures are illustrative for a composite program.
Outcome Objectives
Outcome objective 1. By the end of the program's first year, at least 45% of children in the aggregate whose families were first contacted by a community health worker will have a complete catch-up series recorded in the state immunization information system within six months of that first contact. Baseline: no comparable figure exists before the program; the comparison group is children in the aggregate with open series at the start of the prior year, of whom 22% completed within any six-month period. Source: quarterly registry report, children linked to the program's contact log by registry identifier.
Outcome objective 2. By the end of the program's second year, the median time from domestic screening to the final catch-up dose recorded in the registry, among children in the aggregate who complete their series, will decrease from 14 months to 9 months. Source: registry report of dates of first and final catch-up doses for children in the aggregate, run annually.
Process Objectives
Process objective 1. By the end of the program's sixth month, community health workers will have made contact, by phone or in person and in the family's preferred language, with at least 80% of families of children on the first quarterly open-series list. Baseline: 0%, since no contact program exists. Source: program contact log, which records the date, method and language of each contact.
Process objective 2. By the end of the program's ninth month, the public health nurse will have completed a home visit for at least 75% of families referred after community health worker contact did not lead to an appointment. Baseline: 0%. Source: nurse visit log matched to the referral list.
Process objective 3. By the end of the program's third month, every open-series record on the first quarterly list will have been reviewed for possible duplication, and corrections will have been entered in the registry for all duplicates confirmed. Baseline: no review conducted. Source: registry analyst's matching review worksheet and the registry's record merge log.
Why the Targets Are Set Where They Are
The 45% target for completion within six months of contact is roughly double the 22% comparison rate. That is ambitious but not arbitrary: in a Colorado trial, centralized registry recall alone raised the share of overdue young children brought up to date within six months compared with practice-based recall (Kempe et al., 2013), and tracking with personal outreach produced larger gains in a trial among low-income children (Rodewald et al., 1999). A program that combines both, and follows families in their own languages, can reasonably aim higher than recall alone. The 9-month median is set against 14 because the program's design removes delays from finding families and scheduling, which account for most of the gap between doses in the profile. The 80% contact target allows for families who have left the city. The 75% visit target reflects one nurse's capacity. The duplicate review is set at 100% because every later objective depends on the list being right.
The Objective the Program Would Most Regret Missing
Process objective 3. If the duplicate review is not done, the contact list will send workers to families whose children are already complete and will make every completion figure look worse than it is.
References
Doran, G. T. (1981). There's a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management's goals and objectives. Management Review, 70(11), 35-36.
Kempe, A., Saville, A., Dickinson, L. M., Eisert, S., Reynolds, J., Herrero, D., Beaty, B., Albright, K., Dibert, E., Koehler, V., Lockhart, S., & Calonge, N. (2013). Population-based versus practice-based recall for childhood immunizations: A randomized controlled comparative effectiveness trial. American Journal of Public Health, 103(6), 1116-1123. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301035
Rodewald, L. E., Szilagyi, P. G., Humiston, S. G., Barth, R., Kraus, R., & Raubertas, R. F. (1999). A randomized study of tracking with outreach and provider prompting to improve immunization coverage and primary care. Pediatrics, 103(1), 31-38. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.103.1.31
NURS 6720 Week 5 instructions, in plain terms
Most Week 5 prompts ask for a program goal and a set of SMART objectives, often divided into outcome and process objectives, with baselines and data sources. A few pages usually suffice. Write the goal broadly and let objectives carry the numbers. In each objective, make every SMART element visible in the sentence: who, what measure, which direction, how much and by when. Add the report or log that would show whether it was met. Keep process objectives in their own tier. Explain why each target is set where it is, using evidence or program capacity rather than round numbers.
How the NURS 6720 Week 5 example is put together
The goal section states the direction of change and cites Doran on what makes an objective measurable, adding that each objective names its report. Two outcome objectives follow, one comparing completion after contact with a prior-year rate and one on the median interval to the final dose, each with its source. Three process objectives name the contact log, the visit log and the analyst's worksheet. A justification paragraph uses the Colorado recall trial by Kempe and colleagues and the outreach trial by Rodewald and colleagues to defend the completion target, and uses capacity to set the others. One sentence names the duplicate review as the objective whose failure would do most harm.
NURS 6720 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Objectives rubrics generally score alignment with the goal, completeness of SMART elements, measurability through real data, realistic targets and the balance of process and outcome objectives. Measurability is often where papers gain or lose most, since graders ask whether any report could settle each objective. Realism rewards targets justified from baselines and evidence. Alignment checks that every objective serves the goal and the intervention chosen earlier. Many rubrics also reward process objectives that let outcomes be interpreted later, and clean formatting that separates the tiers. APA applies to any cited evidence. Some rubrics award separate credit for each SMART element, so a missing date or a missing amount can cost points on every objective at once. Tables that show baseline, target, date and source side by side make that check easy for a grader.
NURS 6720 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Objectives lose marks when the measure is vague, such as improve awareness, or when the date is missing. Another loss is a target with no baseline, so no one can tell whether it is ambitious. Some sets contain only outcomes and cannot show whether the program was delivered. Others list activities as objectives. Write each element into the sentence, name the data source, justify the target, add a process tier and ask which objective matters most. If you would like a set written for your own program's baselines, the desk can draft one. Also keep percentages and counts consistent with the profile, since a target built on a different denominator from the baseline cannot be judged. Read each objective aloud and ask whether a stranger with the report could say yes or no.
Get a NURS 6720 Week 5 example written to your instructions
The intervention you selected and any baseline data you can cite are what the desk needs beside your Week 5 prompt and rubric. Every objective returned is written so a report could prove it met or missed, with its data source named. The first custom set is free and arrives within 24-48 hours.
More NURS 6720 papers and MSN samples
- NURS 6720 Week 1: Discussion post
- NURS 6720 Week 2: Aggregate profile
- NURS 6720 Week 3: Evidence review
- NURS 6720 Week 4: Intervention selection paper
- NURS 6720 Week 6: Implementation plan
- NURS 6720 Week 7: Cultural adaptation memo
- NURS 6720 Week 8: Discussion post
- NURS 6720 Week 9: Evaluation plan
- NURS 6720 Week 10: Program proposal
- NURS 6720 Week 11: Reflection
- NURS 6710 Week 5: Windshield survey writeup
- NURS 6630 Week 5: Decision tree case
- NURS 6521 Week 5: Antidiabetic class selection brief
- NURS 6512 Week 5: Skin lesion differential write-up
NURS 6720 Week 5 questions, answered
Why does the example not print its targets?
The finished document carries baselines and targets, but they belong to a fictional program, and reproducing made-up figures here would make them look like findings. What this page shows is the sentence structure each objective follows. For your own program, baselines come from sources you can cite and every target is justified from them.
What makes an objective SMART in practice?
Each letter should be visible in the sentence itself: a specific population and measure, a way to measure it, an amount of change the program could achieve, relevance to the goal and a date. The example adds the data source, since measurable in principle means little if no report would settle it. Your rubric may use a different acronym, and the desk follows it.
Should process objectives count toward the set?
Most rubrics expect them, because they show whether the program was delivered, which any later judgment about outcomes depends on. The example keeps them in a separate tier so the two kinds are never confused. Some sections want outcome objectives only, and some add a category for impact. Custom sets follow the tiers your prompt describes and label each one.
Where can I find a free NURS 6720 Week 5 sample paper?
The goal, all five objectives and the target justification can be read here free of charge. A set of objectives for your own program can be requested.
What data sources do the NURS 6720 Week 5 objectives use?
The state registry report linked to the program contact log, the contact log itself, the nurse's visit log and the registry analyst's matching worksheet with the record merge log.