| Course | HLTH 6413 Fundamentals in Health Education |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Intervention proposal |
| Length | 1,320 words, about 5 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Ed.S. in Public Health Education |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6413 Module 6
Water First Families: A Research-Based Proposal to Reduce Sugary Drinks and Restore Trust in Water Among Families of an Eastern Kentucky County
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH6413: Fundamentals in Health Education
Module 6 Assignment
Instructor Name
April 6, 2026
Summary
Water First Families is a two-year program for the families of children in the four elementary schools of a composite eastern Kentucky coalfield county. In a 2025 parent survey, 58% of parents reported a daily sugary drink for their child and 41% kept their children off tap water at home. The program aims to reduce children's and parents' sugary drink intake by making safe water trusted, available and customary. It combines free water testing with filters or safe alternatives, filtered bottle-filling stations in schools, a community campaign through churches, schools and youth sports, three months of home water delivery with coaching for high-intake families and water-first practices at school and county events. The two-year cost is $148,600.
Need and Evidence
Nationally, energy from sugary drinks has fallen sharply since the early 2000s (Marriott et al., 2019), but intake remains high in parts of rural Appalachia, where adults aged 22 to 38, the parents of young children, drink the most (Norman-Burgdolf et al., 2021). In the county, habit, caffeine, hospitality, low prices and distrust of water sustain consumption. The strongest evidence for change comes from environmental approaches: a Cochrane review rated as moderate certainty the evidence linking more low-calorie drinks at home, and multicomponent community campaigns, with lower sugary drink intake or sales (von Philipsborn et al., 2019). Home delivery of noncaloric drinks nearly eliminated sugary drink intake among adolescents in one trial, though the effect on weight faded after deliveries stopped (Ebbeling et al., 2012). School water promotion increased water intake in a cluster trial in German elementary schools (Muckelbauer et al., 2009). Distrust of tap water, which is associated with lower water intake in some groups (Onufrak et al., 2012), is the barrier most particular to this region and has not been addressed in trials.
Theory
The program applies social cognitive theory, which emphasizes self-efficacy, outcome expectations, observational learning and the environment (Bandura, 2004), within an ecological frame that recognizes influences at individual, family, organizational, community and policy levels (McLeroy et al., 1988). Water testing and filters change the home environment and correct the outcome expectation that water is unsafe. Coaching builds parents' confidence through small successes. The campaign supplies models from local families and changes what is served in community settings. School and event practices change the environment beyond the home.
Goal and Objectives
The goal is that families of elementary school children in the county drink water as their everyday drink and reserve sugary drinks for occasional use. By the end of year two, the program aims to reduce the share of children drinking a sugary drink daily from 58% to 45%, reduce the share of parents unwilling to let children drink tap water from 41% to 25% among families whose water tests safe, increase children's reported daily water intake by at least one glass, test at least 400 household water sources, install bottle-filling stations in all four elementary schools by the end of year one, enroll 30 churches, teams and organizations in water-first events and complete home delivery and coaching with 120 high-intake families.
Components
Component 1, water testing and trust: the health department offers free testing for household wells and taps, explains results at a home visit or by phone, provides a filter pitcher or faucet filter where water is safe but distrusted and bottled water with referral to repair programs where it is not. Component 2, school water stations: filtered, chilled bottle-filling stations with posted test results and a reusable bottle for every student. Component 3, community campaign: water-first messages written with parents, delivered by pastors, coaches, teachers and extension agents, with practical supports such as coolers of water at ballgames. Component 4, home delivery and coaching: three months of delivered water for families with high intake, with four coaching calls on replacing drinks, handling children's requests and managing caffeine. Component 5, water-first events: schools, churches and the county agree to serve water by default at events they control and to stop promoting sugary drinks at them.
Partners and Roles
The county health department leads, with a health educator directing the program and environmental health staff handling testing. The school district provides stations and classroom time. The extension office co-leads the campaign steering group. The health center's dental clinic refers families and counsels on drinks and tooth decay. Churches, youth sports leagues and the water district serve on the steering group. Parents recruited from each school review messages and help run events.
Timeline
Months 1 to 3: hire a part-time coordinator, form the steering group, write messages with parents and begin water testing. Months 4 to 6: install stations in two schools, launch the campaign at back-to-school events and begin home delivery for the first 40 families. Months 7 to 12: install the remaining stations, continue testing and delivery, recruit organizations to water-first events and conduct the first-year survey. Months 13 to 24: continue all components, add the second and third groups of 40 families, analyze results, report to partners and prepare the sustainability plan.
Budget
The two-year budget is $148,600. Personnel, a half-time coordinator for two years, accounts for $62,400. Water testing for 400 sources at $45 each is $18,000. Filters and replacement cartridges for an estimated 250 households cost $15,000, and bottled water for households with unsafe water is budgeted at $6,000. Four bottle-filling stations with installation cost $16,000, and reusable bottles for 1,450 students cost $5,800. Home delivery for 120 families at $110 each is $13,200. Campaign materials and event coolers cost $7,200, and evaluation, including survey printing and analysis support, costs $5,000. The district contributes installation labor, and the health department contributes the educator's and environmental health staff's time in kind.
Ethical Safeguards
The program will never describe water as safe without a test, will share all results with families, will provide bottled water and referral when water is unsafe and will not accept funding tied to beverage companies. Messages will avoid images of children's bodies or teeth and will be reviewed by parents. Participation in evaluation will never be a condition of receiving testing, filters or delivery, and all data will be reported without identifying families.
Evaluation
The evaluation is organized by RE-AIM (Glasgow et al., 1999). For reach, the team counts the families tested and enrolled and their share of all eligible families, separately for each school and water source. Effectiveness is measured with the parent survey at baseline and the end of each year in the county and in a comparison county with a similar economy, comparing how often children and parents have sugary drinks, how much water they drink and whether they trust it. Because water testing is the least tested component, the survey adds questions that let the team see whether families who received results and filters changed more than those who did not. Adoption counts schools, churches and teams using water-first practices; implementation tracks stations installed, tests completed and coaching calls made; maintenance examines practices one year after support ends.
Sustainability
Several components are designed to last beyond the grant. Stations remain in schools, and the district will add filter replacement to its maintenance budget. Water-first event practices, once adopted as written policies by schools and churches, need no ongoing funding. Water testing can continue through the health department's existing environmental health fees with a subsidy for low-income families. Home delivery is time-limited by design; its role is to start habits that the other components support.
Conclusion
Water First Families addresses the determinants found in this course with interventions supported by research, adapted to the county and built around the barrier most particular to the coalfields. By making safe water trusted and available at home, at school and at community events, it gives families a realistic alternative to the sugary drinks that have become the default.
References
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660
Ebbeling, C. B., Feldman, H. A., Chomitz, V. R., Antonelli, T. A., Gortmaker, S. L., Osganian, S. K., & Ludwig, D. S. (2012). A randomized trial of sugar-sweetened beverages and adolescent body weight. New England Journal of Medicine, 367(15), 1407-1416. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1203388
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
Marriott, B. P., Hunt, K. J., Malek, A. M., & Newman, J. C. (2019). Trends in intake of energy and total sugar from sugar-sweetened beverages in the United States among children and adults, NHANES 2003-2016. Nutrients, 11(9), Article 2004. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu11092004
McLeroy, K. R., Bibeau, D., Steckler, A., & Glanz, K. (1988). An ecological perspective on health promotion programs. Health Education Quarterly, 15(4), 351-377. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818801500401
Muckelbauer, R., Libuda, L., Clausen, K., Toschke, A. M., Reinehr, T., & Kersting, M. (2009). Promotion and provision of drinking water in schools for overweight prevention: Randomized, controlled cluster trial. Pediatrics, 123(4), e661-e667. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2008-2186
Norman-Burgdolf, H., DeWitt, E., Cardarelli, K. M., Gillespie, R., Slone, S., & Gustafson, A. (2021). Sugar-sweetened beverage consumption among adults in rural Appalachia. Preventive Medicine Reports, 24, Article 101642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101642
Onufrak, S. J., Park, S., Sharkey, J. R., & Sherry, B. (2012). The relationship of perceptions of tap water safety with intake of sugar-sweetened beverages and plain water among US adults. Public Health Nutrition, 17(1), 179-185. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1368980012004600
von Philipsborn, P., Stratil, J. M., Burns, J., Busert, L. K., Pfadenhauer, L. M., Polus, S., Holzapfel, C., Hauner, H., & Rehfuess, E. (2019). Environmental interventions to reduce the consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages and their effects on health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Article CD012292. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD012292.pub2
What the HLTH 6413 Module 6 instructions ask for
The final HLTH 6413 module frequently asks for a complete, research-based intervention proposal. Prompts typically expect the need, the evidence and theory behind the intervention, goals and measurable objectives, the components and activities, partners and roles, a timeline, a budget, attention to ethics, an evaluation plan and sustainability. Draw on each earlier module rather than starting fresh, and make sure the intervention addresses the determinants and barriers you identified. Where a component lacks direct evidence, say so and explain how the evaluation will test it. Follow any format or length your instructor sets. A budget with unit costs and a timeline with months are common requirements, so include them even if the prompt mentions them briefly.
How the HLTH 6413 Module 6 example is put together
A summary gives the program in one paragraph with key figures. A need and evidence section combines national trends, Appalachian research and a systematic review, noting where evidence is missing. A theory section ties each component to a construct from social cognitive theory within an ecological frame. Goals and measurable objectives follow, then five components described in operational detail, partners and roles and a month-by-month timeline. An itemized budget adds to the stated total. Sections on ethical safeguards, a RE-AIM evaluation with a comparison county and sustainability complete the proposal before a short conclusion. Figures used in the summary, objectives and budget match one another, which graders often check.
Reading the HLTH 6413 Module 6 rubric
Proposals are generally graded on completeness, coherence and feasibility. Rubrics tend to reward proposals in which every required section is present, objectives are measurable, components follow from evidence and theory and the budget adds up. Graders often look for an evaluation that can test the intervention's weakest links and for honest labeling of untested parts. Attention to ethics, partners and sustainability shows specialist-level thinking. Consistency with earlier modules and APA 7 citations for every study behind the program complete a convincing final paper. A proposal that a real agency could fund and carry out, with partners who have agreed to specific roles, tends to earn the highest marks.
HLTH 6413 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost points
Final proposals often read as a list of activities without a thread tying them to the needs and evidence. If you need help turning your course work into a coherent proposal, writing measurable objectives or building a budget that adds up, a writer is available for it. Share the modules you have written with the prompt; the Module 6 proposal a writer prepares will connect each component to your findings, present a realistic plan and budget and describe how you will know it worked. If your instructor provides a grant template, the proposal will follow it section by section. We can also check your figures for consistency across modules.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official American College of Education document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HLTH 6413 and Ed.S. in Public Health Education sample papers
- HLTH 6413 Module 1: Lifestyle Determinants Paper
- HLTH 6413 Module 2: Theories and Principles Paper
- HLTH 6413 Module 3: Intervention Evaluation Paper
- HLTH 6413 Module 4: Ethics in Practice Analysis
- HLTH 6413 Module 5: Competencies and Roles Paper
- HLTH 6483 Module 3: Outbreak Investigation Analysis
- HLTH 6483 Module 1: Epidemiological Data Analysis
- HLTH 6473 Module 1: Revenue Source Analysis
- HLTH 6443 Module 6: Technology Leadership Plan
HLTH 6413 Module 6 questions, answered
What does HLTH6413 Module 6 usually ask for?
HLTH6413 frequently closes with a research-based intervention proposal that brings together the determinants, theory, evidence, ethics and professional roles from the course.
What sections should an intervention proposal include?
Typically a summary, need and evidence, theory, goals and objectives, components, partners, timeline, budget, ethical safeguards, evaluation and sustainability.
How do I justify an untested component?
Explain the reasoning from your needs assessment, label it as untested and build the evaluation so it can show whether the component worked.
Where can I find a free HLTH 6413 Module 6 sample paper?
The complete Module 6 proposal, Water First Families, is on this page, with objectives, five components, a $148,600 budget and a RE-AIM evaluation for coalfield families.
How detailed should the budget be?
Each line should show a quantity and a unit price so a reviewer can recompute the total, with in-kind contributions shown separately.