PUBH 6641 Week 5 Logic Model Example

Applied Project in Public Health Walden University Free custom sample in 24 to 48h

This PUBH 6641 Week 5 logic model example lays out on one page how Marlow County's cream-testing effort moves from resources to activities, outputs and outcomes, and argues for every link in a narrative. Walden PUBH 6641 asks students to make their project's reasoning visible, and the brief follows the Kellogg Foundation's guide in separating planned work, which the health department controls, from intended results, such as women stopping use and regulators acting, which it can only seek. The narrative names the weakest link, that knowing a cream is contaminated may not be enough to stop using it, and explains why replacement moisturizers and three-month follow-up are in the model. Assumptions, external factors and the model's monthly use are covered. MPH students will see a logic model treated as a working tool.

CoursePUBH 6641 Applied Project in Public Health
WeekWeek 5
Paper typeLogic model brief
LengthAbout 680 words, 5 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolWalden University
ProgramMaster of Public Health (MPH)
UpdatedOctober 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 6641 Week 5

1

Every Activity Owes a Result: A One-Page Logic Model and Narrative for One County's Free Cream-Testing Program, Built on the Kellogg Foundation's Guide

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 6641: Applied Project in Public Health

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title treats each activity as a debt to a result, which is how the narrative tests every arrow in the model.
2

Every Activity Owes a Result: A One-Page Logic Model and Narrative for One County's Free Cream-Testing Program, Built on the Kellogg Foundation's Guide

The Model

Table 1

Logic Model for the Skin Cream Mercury Screening Project

ColumnContent |
ResourcesEnvironmental health specialist (30% time); two community health workers; borrowed portable analyzer from state laboratory; state laboratory confirmatory testing; partner sites; translated materials; replacement moisturizers |
ActivitiesTrain staff on the analyzer; hold 12 screening events; screen creams privately; give results and advice; arrange confirmatory testing; refer women to doctors; report brands to the state; follow up by phone |
OutputsAt least 300 creams screened; screening log; data summary; follow-up contacts within 14 days; brand reports to the state |
Short-term outcomesWomen with contaminated creams know their result and are advised to stop; local contamination rate known |
Intermediate outcomesAt least 70% of women with confirmed contaminated creams stop using them; state acts on reported brands |
Long-term outcomesLower mercury exposure among women and households in the two neighborhoods |

Note. Columns follow the foundation's logic model guide (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004); outcome targets match the objectives memo.

Planned Work and Intended Results

The Kellogg guide separates planned work, the resources and activities a program controls, from intended results, the outputs and outcomes it hopes to produce (W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 2004). The separation matters here because the project controls screening but not what women decide afterward, and it controls reporting but not what regulators do. The model makes that boundary visible by placing everything the department can promise on the left and everything it can only seek on the right.

What this page is doingNaming where the project's control ends explains why some targets are stated as outcomes rather than promises.
3

Arguing for Each Link

Resources to activities: the borrowed analyzer is what makes on-the-spot screening possible. Without it, every cream would have to be mailed to the laboratory, and women would wait weeks for a result.

Activities to outputs: holding events at trusted partner sites, such as clinics and community centers, is how 300 creams can be reached. The number depends on attendance, which is the link most at risk.

Outputs to short-term outcomes: a woman who receives her result in private, with an explanation in her language, can understand it. A screening log alone produces nothing for her; the conversation does.

Short-term to intermediate outcomes: knowing a cream contains mercury is necessary but not sufficient for stopping. Women may keep using a product they value, especially if no alternative is offered. That is why the model includes replacement moisturizers as a resource, and why follow-up three months later is the measure of this link.

Intermediate to long-term outcomes: stopping use ends exposure from that cream. A Sacramento woman's poisoning after seven years of twice-daily use (Mudan et al., 2019) shows why ending exposure early matters. The long-term outcome is not measured in this project, since it would require biological testing, but the model names it so readers see the purpose.

Assumptions

The model rests on three assumptions: that some local creams contain mercury, which international testing makes likely (Hamann et al., 2014); that women will bring creams to a free, private screening; and that the state will lend the analyzer when needed. Each is tested early. If the first four events find almost no contaminated creams, the project will report that finding, which is itself useful, and consider whether to continue.

Keeping the Model in Use

The model is not a one-time diagram. It will be printed on the back of the project's weekly status sheet, and at each monthly check-in the specialist will mark which links are on track. If events draw fewer women than planned, the activities-to-outputs link is flagged and the response, such as adding evening sessions, is noted next to it. When the year closes, the evaluation report will use the same columns, so readers can see which links held and which did not. A model used this way keeps the project honest about its own assumptions.

External Factors

Online purchasing, changes in regulation and community attitudes about skin lightening could all affect results. The model does not control them, but the evaluation will note them.

References

Hamann, C. R., Boonchai, W., Wen, L., Sakanashi, E. N., Chu, C.-Y., Hamann, K., Hamann, C. P., Sinniah, K., & Hamann, D. (2014). Spectrometric analysis of mercury content in 549 skin-lightening products: Is mercury toxicity a hidden global health hazard? Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 70(2), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.050

Mudan, A., Copan, L., Wang, R., Pugh, A., Lebin, J., Barreau, T., Jones, R. L., Ghosal, S., Lee, M., Albertson, T., Jarrett, J. M., Lee, J., Betting, D., Ward, C. D., De Leon Salazar, A., Smollin, C. G., & Blanc, P. D. (2019). Notes from the field: Methylmercury toxicity from a skin lightening cream obtained from Mexico, California, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(50), 1166-1167. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6850a4

W. K. Kellogg Foundation. (2004). Logic model development guide. https://wkkf.issuelab.org/resource/logic-model-development-guide.html

The Walden PUBH 6641 Week 5 instructions

Logic model assignments ask students to represent their project's theory of change in a standard chain linking a program's inputs to its work, its products and the changes it hopes for, and to explain the reasoning behind it. Prompts often name a guide, such as the Kellogg Foundation's, and ask for a narrative justifying the links between columns. Assumptions and external factors are often required. A one-page model plus two pages of narrative is typical. Instructors reward models whose columns match the project's objectives and resources exactly, narratives that argue for each link rather than restating the table, and honesty about which links are weakest and how the project will respond.

How this PUBH 6641 Week 5 example is built

The brief presents the model as a table and then explains the guide's distinction between planned work and intended results. The narrative takes each link in turn, from resources to activities through to long-term outcomes, and explains what makes it work and where it could fail. It identifies the step from knowing to stopping as the weakest. A section lists three assumptions and how each will be tested early. Short sections cover external factors and how the model will be used during the year. The model's outcome targets use the same numbers as the objectives memo, so the two documents can be read side by side.

PUBH 6641 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks

Logic models are graded on completeness, coherence, alignment and reasoning. Completeness means every column is filled. Coherence means each column leads to the next. Alignment means outputs and outcomes match the project's objectives. Reasoning credit comes from a narrative that justifies links and identifies weak points. Correct use and citation of the guide is expected. Graders also reward models that distinguish what the program controls from what it influences, and penalize models whose outcomes promise more than the activities could achieve. Narratives that admit the weakest link and add a resource or activity to strengthen it, as with replacement products here, show the model shaped the project. Testing assumptions early, before the full program runs, is a further sign of a working model rather than a diagram. Graders notice when long-term outcomes are named but honestly marked as unmeasured.

PUBH 6641 Week 5 help from the desk

Students often fill each column with long lists and leave the arrows unexplained. Keep each column short. For every link, write one sentence saying why the earlier item should lead to the later one. Find the weakest link and add something to the project to strengthen it. Write down every assumption and an early test for each, and borrow your objectives' exact wording. A tailored version is available if you pass along your rubric and topic. Draw the model on paper first and read each arrow as a "because" sentence. If a sentence sounds weak, the link needs support. Keep the model to one page so readers can see it whole.

Get a PUBH 6641 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Include the Week 5 prompt, rubric and your objectives memo, and each outcome box is numbered to one of your objectives. The model returns within 24-48h in an editable format, a first request free. The library branches, clinics and realtors pictured belong to an invented county, not to any agency you work with.

Request this week free All PUBH 6641 weeks Finished samples

More PUBH 6641 papers and MPH samples

PUBH 6641 Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 6641 Week 5 sample paper?

The Week 5 logic model and narrative appear above, for a skin cream mercury screening project.

What are the columns of a logic model?

Inputs, what the program does, what it produces and the changes it seeks over time.

What is the weakest link in this model?

The step from women knowing their cream is contaminated to actually stopping its use.

Why are replacement moisturizers included?

Offering an alternative is expected to make stopping a valued product more likely.

How will the model be used during the project?

It will be reviewed monthly, with each link marked as on track or flagged with a response.