Executive Solution Overview
**files (2)** – ## HealthPromotion1.docx – ## HealthPromotionProposal.docx **## HealthPromotion1.docx** 2 **Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome** Anthony Pisani Florida National University Health Promotion & Role Development in Advanced Nursing Practice Dr. Nora H…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
**files (2)**
– ## HealthPromotion1.docx
– ## HealthPromotionProposal.docx
**## HealthPromotion1.docx**
2
**Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome**
Anthony Pisani
Florida National University
Health Promotion & Role Development in Advanced Nursing Practice
Dr. Nora Hernandez-Pupo
July 24, 2026
**Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome**
Nearly 40% of Americans now have metabolic syndrome, which is the co-occurrence of abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, and is more prevalent in older adults and among blacks (Tian et al., 2025). Hispanic and Latino adults are at compounded risk due to the combination of poor access to healthcare and cultural eating habits. These disparities are heightened in Miami-Dade County, where 69.1% of the population is Hispanic or Latino and 54.3% is foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024; Miami-Dade Council, 2025). This proposal addresses metabolic syndrome in Hispanic and Latino adults in Miami-Dade County by implementing a 12-week, bilingual, nurse-led community program to provide screening, nutrition counseling, and structured activity. A realistic and measurable goal is that at least 60% of participants will have a clinically significant decrease in waist circumference or a decrease in systolic blood pressure at the end of the program.
**Vulnerable Population**
The proposed program targets Hispanic and Latino adults 18 and older, who are seeking treatment for obesity, prediabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia in Miami-Dade County. There are a number of risk factors that are often present in this population that increase vulnerability. Low health literacy and limited English skills hinder interpretation of preventative information, and the high prevalence of being uninsured or underinsured leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Limited knowledge of the health system and immigration status further deters regular screening. Some areas in Miami-Dade have obesity rates higher than the average for the county, and access to food and the built environment exacerbate individual risk factors (Miami-Dade Matters, 2025).
These risk factors are not assumptions, but are supported by evidence. There is significant geographic variation in obesity surveillance at the county level, with historically under-resourced communities bearing the heaviest burden of obesity (Miami-Dade Matters, 2025). Census data also show that a large proportion of Miami-Dade households have a primary language other than English, which is known to be a barrier to accessing preventive services (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These conditions collectively make the case for a bilingual, community-based strategy to address the conditions rather than for a program to just change individual behavior.
**Literature Review**
Risica et al. (2021) reported four years of clinical outcomes from the Vida Sana/Healthy Life program, a community clinic-based lifestyle intervention delivered by bilingual community health workers to 641 predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, low-income participants. After an eight week culturally appropriate intervention on diet, physical activity and self-monitoring, there was significant reduction in blood pressure, lipid profile, blood glucose and anthropometric measures. This program mirrors closely the population and delivery model proposed for Miami-Dade and directly supports the community health worker, bilingual model.
MahadziR et al. (2021) performed a scoping review of thirteen group-based lifestyle interventions for metabolic syndrome. Most successful programs were community-based, multidisciplinary, and used trained peer educators; waist circumference and blood pressure were the most consistently improved. The review was concluded that peer support complements and enhances the traditional clinical approach in a meaningful way. This evidence directly supports the use of trained CHWs in conjunction with nurse-led education in the Miami-Dade program.
**Evaluation of Sources**
Both sources offer methodological strengths. Risica et al. (2021) used real-life clinical data from 641 patients and the sample was mostly Hispanic and Spanish speaking, so the results are applicable to the population being proposed for Miami-Dade. Generalizability is supported by the Mahadzir et al.'s (2021) scoping review which synthesizes thirteen interventions in diverse settings and populations, and found structures instead of just one.
Weaknesses remain. Risica et al. (2021) employed a pre-post study design without a randomized control group, meaning that improvements are difficult to distinguish from other effects like regression to the mean or concurrent medical treatments. The review by Mahadzir et al. (2021) only included interventions published up to 2020, and reported that nutrition outcomes were not consistently reported across the interventions, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about the efficacy of nutrition-specific interventions. These sources confirm the proposed model and indicate a need to use a controlled evaluation design in Miami-Dade for strengthening causal evidence.
**Theoretical Model**
The Socio-Ecological Model is the most appropriate guiding model of this proposal. Caperon et al. (2022) have applied it to the context of community engagement in an underserved urban area. This model views health behavior as resulting from the interplay between personal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy influences rather than being purely a personal choice. As shown by Caperon et al. (2022), multiple layers of local engagement with trusted organizations and their members at multiple stages enhanced program relevance and participation for an historically underserved population, applicable also in Miami-Dade.
Individual-level strategies involve nutrition counselling and goal setting, whereas interpersonal-level strategies involve bilingual community health workers and peer support in the application of this model. Organizational-level partnerships with federally qualified health centers and churches provide trusted access points, and community-level efforts address neighborhood food environments and walking opportunities. Policy-level advocacy can help facilitate continued funding and insurance referral pathways. This multi-level approach ensures the program emphasizes personal behavior as well as environmental factors that help increase metabolic risk in Miami Dade County.
**References**
Caperon, L., Saville, F., & Ahern, S. (2022). Developing a socio-ecological model for community engagement in a health programme in an underserved urban area.
_PLoS One_,
_17_(9), e0275092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275092
Mahadzir, M. D. A., Fatt Quek, K., & Amutha Ramadas. (2021). Group-Based lifestyle intervention strategies for Metabolic syndrome: A scoping review and strategic framework for Future research.
_Medicina_,
_57_(11), 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57111169
Miami Dade Council. (2025). Miami-Dade beacon council – market data – demographics. In
_Miami-Dade Beacon Council_. https://www.beaconcouncil.com/demographics/
Miami-Dade Matters. (2025). Miami-Dade matters. In
_www.miamidadematters.org_. https://www.miamidadematters.org/
Risica, P. M., McCarthy, M. L., Barry, K. L., Oliverio, S. P., Gans, K. M., & De Groot, A. S. (2021). Clinical outcomes of a community clinic-based lifestyle change program for prevention and management of metabolic syndrome: Results of the ‘vida Sana/Healthy life’ program.
_PLOS One_,
_16_(4), e0248473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248473
Tian, Z., Soltani, S., Bauersachs, J., Schmidt-Ott, K. M., Melk, A., & Schmidt, B. M. W. (2026). Gender-related and age-related disparities in Prevalence of the Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic syndrome among US adults from 1999-2020: An analysis of the nhanes survey.
_Kidney Medicine_,
_8_(3), 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101234
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). QuickFacts: Miami-Dade county, Florida. In
_Census Bureau QuickFacts_. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/miamidadecountyflorida/PST045225
**## HealthPromotionProposal.docx**
Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2
**Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2-this is the SAME TOPIC that was Approved in WEEK 2 and a continuation of HPP Part 1.**
**This is a continuation of the health promotion program proposal, part one**, which you submitted previously.
Please approach this assignment as an opportunity to integrate instructor feedback from part I and expand on ideas adhering to the components of the MAP-IT strategy. Include necessary levels of detail you feel appropriate to assure stakeholder buy-in.
**Directions**
You have already completed the steps 1-4.
**Do not resubmit part 1.** Make sure you incorporate any suggested revisions or improvements into your submission according to your instructor’s comments.
**To assist in maintaining harmony between Part I and 2 here you have a reminder of the previous paper outline:**
· 1. Describe the health problem. Using data and statistics support your claim that the issue you selected is a problem. What specifically will you address in your proposed health promotion program? Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
· 2. Describe the vulnerable population and setting. What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population? Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
· 3. Provide a review of literature from scholarly journals on evidence-based interventions that address the problem. After completing a library search related to effective interventions for your chosen health promotion activity, you will write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found. You might consult research texts for information on how to write a review of the literature found in your search.
· 4. Select an appropriate health promotion/disease prevention theoretical framework or conceptual model that would best serve as the framework guiding the proposal. Provide a rationale for your selection which includes a discussion of the concepts of the selected model
**For this assignment develop criteria 5-8 as detailed below:**
**You will submit just this section 5-8 as an essay. Please do not resubmit Part 1.**
Use a presentation page. Start the body of content with topic 5.
· 5. Propose a health promotion program using an evidence-based intervention found in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting. Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which includes resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
· Be certain to include a timeline. (3 to 4 paragraphs- you may use bullets if appropriate).
· 6. Thoroughly describe the intended outcomes. Describe the outcomes in detail concurrent with the SMART goal approach.
**The SMART goal statement should be no more than one sentence** (1 paragraph).
· 7. Provide a detailed plan for the evaluation of each outcome. (2-3 paragraphs).
· 8. Thoroughly describe possible barriers/challenges to implementing the proposed project as well as strategies to address these barriers/challenges. (2+ paragraphs).
· Finish the paper with a conclusion paragraph (2 paragraphs) without typing the word "conclusion" before the paragraph.
**Paper Requirements**
This assignment is to be submitted as an essay- with an introduction, questions developed at the graduate level, and a conclusion to summarize and synthesize key points. Remember, your Proposal must be a scholarly paper demonstrating graduate school-level writing and critical analysis of existing nursing knowledge about health promotion.
APA must be strictly followed.
Your final assignment should be minimally 5 pages (excluding title page and references).
Finish the essay with your reference page.
**Please review the Grading Rubric for this Assignment.**
**REFERENCES Must have DOI Numbers for me to look them up- If I am unable to verify the references points will be deducted.**
**Great resource to assist you:** [Reference List: Author/Authors – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/reference_list_author_authors.html)
**Submission**
Text Editor
Press Alt + F10 to access toolbar options
_Word count: 0_
**Drag files here**
Maximum size: 512 MB
**or**
**Details & Information**
Rubric Details
**Maximum Score**
100 points
**Excellent**
The paper demonstrates that the author understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Concepts are integrated into the writer’s own insights. The writer provides concluding remarks that show analysis and synthesis of ideas. All questions are answered thoroughly.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, mostly, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Some conclusions, however, are not supported in the body of the paper. Questions were not fully developed but concepts are explained well.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, to a certain extent, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. There is a lack of development of questions.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The paper does not demonstrate that the author has understood, and applied concepts learned in the course. Cursory integration of knowledge and development of questions.
**10**
**Excellent**
The topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of this assignment. A thesis statement provides direction for the paper, either by a statement of a position or hypothesis. The topic is consistently well thought out, thorough offers insight into the topic, and includes cited evidence to support the topic.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The topic is focused but lacks direction. The paper is about a specific topic, but the writer has not established a position. The topic is somewhat well thought out, offers limited insight into the topic, but does not include cited evidence to support the topic.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The topic is too broad for the scope of this assignment.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The topic is unclear or unrelated to the discussion topic with little or no supporting evidence.
**10**
**Excellent**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in all sections of the paper. Ties together information from all sources. Paper flows from one issue to the next with no headings. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in most sections of the paper. Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The writer has omitted content. Quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas excessively. Sometimes ties together information from all sources. The paper does not flow. Disjointedness is apparent. The author’s writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and/or conclusion in the submission, but not both.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
Cursory discussion in all the sections of the paper or brief discussion in only a few sections It does not tie together information. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing does not demonstrate an understanding of any relationship. There is NO introduction or conclusion in the submission.
**10**
**Excellent**
At least 6 current sources are used and are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. Sources include both general background sources and specialized sources. Special-interest sources and popular literature and acknowledged as such if they are cited. All websites utilized are authoritative. All references complete without DOI number.
**8**
**Satisfactory**
Used 5 current sources, which are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are authoritative. 1 reference incomplete without DOI number.
**6.4**
**Unsatisfactory**
Used 4 current sources which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are credible. 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**4.8**
**Unacceptable**
Fewer than 4 current sources are used which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. Not all websites utilized are credible, and/or sources are not current. More than 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**3.2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. APA level headings incorporated throughout the submission.
**5**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**4**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, or APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**3**
**Unacceptable**
The citation style is inconsistent or incorrect. It does not cite sources. The paper submitted is NOT in APA Format. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 grammatical, spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors The required word count has been met. Similarity index and/or AI use as per university policy.
**12**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 25 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 25%.
**9.6**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 35%.
**7.2**
**Unacceptable**
An unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes. The required word count is more than 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use above 35%.
**## HealthPromotionProposal.docx**
Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2
**Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2-this is the SAME TOPIC that was Approved in WEEK 2 and a continuation of HPP Part 1.**
**This is a continuation of the health promotion program proposal, part one**, which you submitted previously.
Please approach this assignment as an opportunity to integrate instructor feedback from part I and expand on ideas adhering to the components of the MAP-IT strategy. Include necessary levels of detail you feel appropriate to assure stakeholder buy-in.
**Directions**
You have already completed the steps 1-4.
**Do not resubmit part 1.** Make sure you incorporate any suggested revisions or improvements into your submission according to your instructor’s comments.
**To assist in maintaining harmony between Part I and 2 here you have a reminder of the previous paper outline:**
· 1. Describe the health problem. Using data and statistics support your claim that the issue you selected is a problem. What specifically will you address in your proposed health promotion program? Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
· 2. Describe the vulnerable population and setting. What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population? Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
· 3. Provide a review of literature from scholarly journals on evidence-based interventions that address the problem. After completing a library search related to effective interventions for your chosen health promotion activity, you will write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found. You might consult research texts for information on how to write a review of the literature found in your search.
· 4. Select an appropriate health promotion/disease prevention theoretical framework or conceptual model that would best serve as the framework guiding the proposal. Provide a rationale for your selection which includes a discussion of the concepts of the selected model
**For this assignment develop criteria 5-8 as detailed below:**
**You will submit just this section 5-8 as an essay. Please do not resubmit Part 1.**
Use a presentation page. Start the body of content with topic 5.
· 5. Propose a health promotion program using an evidence-based intervention found in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting. Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which includes resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
· Be certain to include a timeline. (3 to 4 paragraphs- you may use bullets if appropriate).
· 6. Thoroughly describe the intended outcomes. Describe the outcomes in detail concurrent with the SMART goal approach.
**The SMART goal statement should be no more than one sentence** (1 paragraph).
· 7. Provide a detailed plan for the evaluation of each outcome. (2-3 paragraphs).
· 8. Thoroughly describe possible barriers/challenges to implementing the proposed project as well as strategies to address these barriers/challenges. (2+ paragraphs).
· Finish the paper with a conclusion paragraph (2 paragraphs) without typing the word "conclusion" before the paragraph.
**Paper Requirements**
This assignment is to be submitted as an essay- with an introduction, questions developed at the graduate level, and a conclusion to summarize and synthesize key points. Remember, your Proposal must be a scholarly paper demonstrating graduate school-level writing and critical analysis of existing nursing knowledge about health promotion.
APA must be strictly followed.
Your final assignment should be minimally 5 pages (excluding title page and references).
Finish the essay with your reference page.
**Please review the Grading Rubric for this Assignment.**
**REFERENCES Must have DOI Numbers for me to look them up- If I am unable to verify the references points will be deducted.**
**Great resource to assist you:** [Reference List: Author/Authors – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/reference_list_author_authors.html)
**Submission**
Text Editor
Press Alt + F10 to access toolbar options
_Word count: 0_
**Drag files here**
Maximum size: 512 MB
**or**
**Details & Information**
Rubric Details
**Maximum Score**
100 points
**Excellent**
The paper demonstrates that the author understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Concepts are integrated into the writer’s own insights. The writer provides concluding remarks that show analysis and synthesis of ideas. All questions are answered thoroughly.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, mostly, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Some conclusions, however, are not supported in the body of the paper. Questions were not fully developed but concepts are explained well.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, to a certain extent, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. There is a lack of development of questions.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The paper does not demonstrate that the author has understood, and applied concepts learned in the course. Cursory integration of knowledge and development of questions.
**10**
**Excellent**
The topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of this assignment. A thesis statement provides direction for the paper, either by a statement of a position or hypothesis. The topic is consistently well thought out, thorough offers insight into the topic, and includes cited evidence to support the topic.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The topic is focused but lacks direction. The paper is about a specific topic, but the writer has not established a position. The topic is somewhat well thought out, offers limited insight into the topic, but does not include cited evidence to support the topic.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The topic is too broad for the scope of this assignment.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The topic is unclear or unrelated to the discussion topic with little or no supporting evidence.
**10**
**Excellent**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in all sections of the paper. Ties together information from all sources. Paper flows from one issue to the next with no headings. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in most sections of the paper. Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The writer has omitted content. Quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas excessively. Sometimes ties together information from all sources. The paper does not flow. Disjointedness is apparent. The author’s writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and/or conclusion in the submission, but not both.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
Cursory discussion in all the sections of the paper or brief discussion in only a few sections It does not tie together information. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing does not demonstrate an understanding of any relationship. There is NO introduction or conclusion in the submission.
**10**
**Excellent**
At least 6 current sources are used and are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. Sources include both general background sources and specialized sources. Special-interest sources and popular literature and acknowledged as such if they are cited. All websites utilized are authoritative. All references complete without DOI number.
**8**
**Satisfactory**
Used 5 current sources, which are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are authoritative. 1 reference incomplete without DOI number.
**6.4**
**Unsatisfactory**
Used 4 current sources which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are credible. 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**4.8**
**Unacceptable**
Fewer than 4 current sources are used which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. Not all websites utilized are credible, and/or sources are not current. More than 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**3.2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. APA level headings incorporated throughout the submission.
**5**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**4**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, or APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**3**
**Unacceptable**
The citation style is inconsistent or incorrect. It does not cite sources. The paper submitted is NOT in APA Format. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 grammatical, spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors The required word count has been met. Similarity index and/or AI use as per university policy.
**12**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 25 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 25%.
**9.6**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 35%.
**7.2**
**Unacceptable**
An unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes. The required word count is more than 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use above 35%.
**## HealthPromotion1.docx**
2
**Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome**
Anthony Pisani
Florida National University
Health Promotion & Role Development in Advanced Nursing Practice
Dr. Nora Hernandez-Pupo
July 24, 2026
**Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome**
Nearly 40% of Americans now have metabolic syndrome, which is the co-occurrence of abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, and is more prevalent in older adults and among blacks (Tian et al., 2025). Hispanic and Latino adults are at compounded risk due to the combination of poor access to healthcare and cultural eating habits. These disparities are heightened in Miami-Dade County, where 69.1% of the population is Hispanic or Latino and 54.3% is foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024; Miami-Dade Council, 2025). This proposal addresses metabolic syndrome in Hispanic and Latino adults in Miami-Dade County by implementing a 12-week, bilingual, nurse-led community program to provide screening, nutrition counseling, and structured activity. A realistic and measurable goal is that at least 60% of participants will have a clinically significant decrease in waist circumference or a decrease in systolic blood pressure at the end of the program.
**Vulnerable Population**
The proposed program targets Hispanic and Latino adults 18 and older, who are seeking treatment for obesity, prediabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia in Miami-Dade County. There are a number of risk factors that are often present in this population that increase vulnerability. Low health literacy and limited English skills hinder interpretation of preventative information, and the high prevalence of being uninsured or underinsured leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Limited knowledge of the health system and immigration status further deters regular screening. Some areas in Miami-Dade have obesity rates higher than the average for the county, and access to food and the built environment exacerbate individual risk factors (Miami-Dade Matters, 2025).
These risk factors are not assumptions, but are supported by evidence. There is significant geographic variation in obesity surveillance at the county level, with historically under-resourced communities bearing the heaviest burden of obesity (Miami-Dade Matters, 2025). Census data also show that a large proportion of Miami-Dade households have a primary language other than English, which is known to be a barrier to accessing preventive services (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These conditions collectively make the case for a bilingual, community-based strategy to address the conditions rather than for a program to just change individual behavior.
**Literature Review**
Risica et al. (2021) reported four years of clinical outcomes from the Vida Sana/Healthy Life program, a community clinic-based lifestyle intervention delivered by bilingual community health workers to 641 predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, low-income participants. After an eight week culturally appropriate intervention on diet, physical activity and self-monitoring, there was significant reduction in blood pressure, lipid profile, blood glucose and anthropometric measures. This program mirrors closely the population and delivery model proposed for Miami-Dade and directly supports the community health worker, bilingual model.
MahadziR et al. (2021) performed a scoping review of thirteen group-based lifestyle interventions for metabolic syndrome. Most successful programs were community-based, multidisciplinary, and used trained peer educators; waist circumference and blood pressure were the most consistently improved. The review was concluded that peer support complements and enhances the traditional clinical approach in a meaningful way. This evidence directly supports the use of trained CHWs in conjunction with nurse-led education in the Miami-Dade program.
**Evaluation of Sources**
Both sources offer methodological strengths. Risica et al. (2021) used real-life clinical data from 641 patients and the sample was mostly Hispanic and Spanish speaking, so the results are applicable to the population being proposed for Miami-Dade. Generalizability is supported by the Mahadzir et al.'s (2021) scoping review which synthesizes thirteen interventions in diverse settings and populations, and found structures instead of just one.
Weaknesses remain. Risica et al. (2021) employed a pre-post study design without a randomized control group, meaning that improvements are difficult to distinguish from other effects like regression to the mean or concurrent medical treatments. The review by Mahadzir et al. (2021) only included interventions published up to 2020, and reported that nutrition outcomes were not consistently reported across the interventions, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about the efficacy of nutrition-specific interventions. These sources confirm the proposed model and indicate a need to use a controlled evaluation design in Miami-Dade for strengthening causal evidence.
**Theoretical Model**
The Socio-Ecological Model is the most appropriate guiding model of this proposal. Caperon et al. (2022) have applied it to the context of community engagement in an underserved urban area. This model views health behavior as resulting from the interplay between personal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy influences rather than being purely a personal choice. As shown by Caperon et al. (2022), multiple layers of local engagement with trusted organizations and their members at multiple stages enhanced program relevance and participation for an historically underserved population, applicable also in Miami-Dade.
Individual-level strategies involve nutrition counselling and goal setting, whereas interpersonal-level strategies involve bilingual community health workers and peer support in the application of this model. Organizational-level partnerships with federally qualified health centers and churches provide trusted access points, and community-level efforts address neighborhood food environments and walking opportunities. Policy-level advocacy can help facilitate continued funding and insurance referral pathways. This multi-level approach ensures the program emphasizes personal behavior as well as environmental factors that help increase metabolic risk in Miami Dade County.
**References**
Caperon, L., Saville, F., & Ahern, S. (2022). Developing a socio-ecological model for community engagement in a health programme in an underserved urban area.
_PLoS One_,
_17_(9), e0275092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275092
Mahadzir, M. D. A., Fatt Quek, K., & Amutha Ramadas. (2021). Group-Based lifestyle intervention strategies for Metabolic syndrome: A scoping review and strategic framework for Future research.
_Medicina_,
_57_(11), 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57111169
Miami Dade Council. (2025). Miami-Dade beacon council – market data – demographics. In
_Miami-Dade Beacon Council_. https://www.beaconcouncil.com/demographics/
Miami-Dade Matters. (2025). Miami-Dade matters. In
_www.miamidadematters.org_. https://www.miamidadematters.org/
Risica, P. M., McCarthy, M. L., Barry, K. L., Oliverio, S. P., Gans, K. M., & De Groot, A. S. (2021). Clinical outcomes of a community clinic-based lifestyle change program for prevention and management of metabolic syndrome: Results of the ‘vida Sana/Healthy life’ program.
_PLOS One_,
_16_(4), e0248473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248473
Tian, Z., Soltani, S., Bauersachs, J., Schmidt-Ott, K. M., Melk, A., & Schmidt, B. M. W. (2026). Gender-related and age-related disparities in Prevalence of the Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic syndrome among US adults from 1999-2020: An analysis of the nhanes survey.
_Kidney Medicine_,
_8_(3), 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101234
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). QuickFacts: Miami-Dade county, Florida. In
_Census Bureau QuickFacts_. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/miamidadecountyflorida/PST045225
**## HealthPromotionProposal.docx**
Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2
**Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2-this is the SAME TOPIC that was Approved in WEEK 2 and a continuation of HPP Part 1.**
**This is a continuation of the health promotion program proposal, part one**, which you submitted previously.
Please approach this assignment as an opportunity to integrate instructor feedback from part I and expand on ideas adhering to the components of the MAP-IT strategy. Include necessary levels of detail you feel appropriate to assure stakeholder buy-in.
**Directions**
You have already completed the steps 1-4.
**Do not resubmit part 1.** Make sure you incorporate any suggested revisions or improvements into your submission according to your instructor’s comments.
**To assist in maintaining harmony between Part I and 2 here you have a reminder of the previous paper outline:**
· 1. Describe the health problem. Using data and statistics support your claim that the issue you selected is a problem. What specifically will you address in your proposed health promotion program? Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
· 2. Describe the vulnerable population and setting. What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population? Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
· 3. Provide a review of literature from scholarly journals on evidence-based interventions that address the problem. After completing a library search related to effective interventions for your chosen health promotion activity, you will write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found. You might consult research texts for information on how to write a review of the literature found in your search.
· 4. Select an appropriate health promotion/disease prevention theoretical framework or conceptual model that would best serve as the framework guiding the proposal. Provide a rationale for your selection which includes a discussion of the concepts of the selected model
**For this assignment develop criteria 5-8 as detailed below:**
**You will submit just this section 5-8 as an essay. Please do not resubmit Part 1.**
Use a presentation page. Start the body of content with topic 5.
· 5. Propose a health promotion program using an evidence-based intervention found in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting. Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which includes resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
· Be certain to include a timeline. (3 to 4 paragraphs- you may use bullets if appropriate).
· 6. Thoroughly describe the intended outcomes. Describe the outcomes in detail concurrent with the SMART goal approach.
**The SMART goal statement should be no more than one sentence** (1 paragraph).
· 7. Provide a detailed plan for the evaluation of each outcome. (2-3 paragraphs).
· 8. Thoroughly describe possible barriers/challenges to implementing the proposed project as well as strategies to address these barriers/challenges. (2+ paragraphs).
· Finish the paper with a conclusion paragraph (2 paragraphs) without typing the word "conclusion" before the paragraph.
**Paper Requirements**
This assignment is to be submitted as an essay- with an introduction, questions developed at the graduate level, and a conclusion to summarize and synthesize key points. Remember, your Proposal must be a scholarly paper demonstrating graduate school-level writing and critical analysis of existing nursing knowledge about health promotion.
APA must be strictly followed.
Your final assignment should be minimally 5 pages (excluding title page and references).
Finish the essay with your reference page.
**Please review the Grading Rubric for this Assignment.**
**REFERENCES Must have DOI Numbers for me to look them up- If I am unable to verify the references points will be deducted.**
**Great resource to assist you:** [Reference List: Author/Authors – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/reference_list_author_authors.html)
**Submission**
Text Editor
Press Alt + F10 to access toolbar options
_Word count: 0_
**Drag files here**
Maximum size: 512 MB
**or**
**Details & Information**
Rubric Details
**Maximum Score**
100 points
**Excellent**
The paper demonstrates that the author understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Concepts are integrated into the writer’s own insights. The writer provides concluding remarks that show analysis and synthesis of ideas. All questions are answered thoroughly.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, mostly, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Some conclusions, however, are not supported in the body of the paper. Questions were not fully developed but concepts are explained well.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, to a certain extent, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. There is a lack of development of questions.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The paper does not demonstrate that the author has understood, and applied concepts learned in the course. Cursory integration of knowledge and development of questions.
**10**
**Excellent**
The topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of this assignment. A thesis statement provides direction for the paper, either by a statement of a position or hypothesis. The topic is consistently well thought out, thorough offers insight into the topic, and includes cited evidence to support the topic.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The topic is focused but lacks direction. The paper is about a specific topic, but the writer has not established a position. The topic is somewhat well thought out, offers limited insight into the topic, but does not include cited evidence to support the topic.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The topic is too broad for the scope of this assignment.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The topic is unclear or unrelated to the discussion topic with little or no supporting evidence.
**10**
**Excellent**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in all sections of the paper. Ties together information from all sources. Paper flows from one issue to the next with no headings. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in most sections of the paper. Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The writer has omitted content. Quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas excessively. Sometimes ties together information from all sources. The paper does not flow. Disjointedness is apparent. The author’s writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and/or conclusion in the submission, but not both.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
Cursory discussion in all the sections of the paper or brief discussion in only a few sections It does not tie together information. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing does not demonstrate an understanding of any relationship. There is NO introduction or conclusion in the submission.
**10**
**Excellent**
At least 6 current sources are used and are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. Sources include both general background sources and specialized sources. Special-interest sources and popular literature and acknowledged as such if they are cited. All websites utilized are authoritative. All references complete without DOI number.
**8**
**Satisfactory**
Used 5 current sources, which are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are authoritative. 1 reference incomplete without DOI number.
**6.4**
**Unsatisfactory**
Used 4 current sources which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are credible. 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**4.8**
**Unacceptable**
Fewer than 4 current sources are used which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. Not all websites utilized are credible, and/or sources are not current. More than 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**3.2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. APA level headings incorporated throughout the submission.
**5**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**4**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, or APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**3**
**Unacceptable**
The citation style is inconsistent or incorrect. It does not cite sources. The paper submitted is NOT in APA Format. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 grammatical, spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors The required word count has been met. Similarity index and/or AI use as per university policy.
**12**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 25 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 25%.
**9.6**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 35%.
**7.2**
**Unacceptable**
An unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes. The required word count is more than 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use above 35%.
**## HealthPromotion1.docx**
2
**Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome**
Anthony Pisani
Florida National University
Health Promotion & Role Development in Advanced Nursing Practice
Dr. Nora Hernandez-Pupo
July 24, 2026
**Health Promotion Community-Based Programs to Prevent Metabolic Syndrome**
Nearly 40% of Americans now have metabolic syndrome, which is the co-occurrence of abdominal obesity, elevated blood pressure, insulin resistance, and dyslipidemia, and is more prevalent in older adults and among blacks (Tian et al., 2025). Hispanic and Latino adults are at compounded risk due to the combination of poor access to healthcare and cultural eating habits. These disparities are heightened in Miami-Dade County, where 69.1% of the population is Hispanic or Latino and 54.3% is foreign-born (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024; Miami-Dade Council, 2025). This proposal addresses metabolic syndrome in Hispanic and Latino adults in Miami-Dade County by implementing a 12-week, bilingual, nurse-led community program to provide screening, nutrition counseling, and structured activity. A realistic and measurable goal is that at least 60% of participants will have a clinically significant decrease in waist circumference or a decrease in systolic blood pressure at the end of the program.
**Vulnerable Population**
The proposed program targets Hispanic and Latino adults 18 and older, who are seeking treatment for obesity, prediabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia in Miami-Dade County. There are a number of risk factors that are often present in this population that increase vulnerability. Low health literacy and limited English skills hinder interpretation of preventative information, and the high prevalence of being uninsured or underinsured leads to delayed diagnosis and treatment. Limited knowledge of the health system and immigration status further deters regular screening. Some areas in Miami-Dade have obesity rates higher than the average for the county, and access to food and the built environment exacerbate individual risk factors (Miami-Dade Matters, 2025).
These risk factors are not assumptions, but are supported by evidence. There is significant geographic variation in obesity surveillance at the county level, with historically under-resourced communities bearing the heaviest burden of obesity (Miami-Dade Matters, 2025). Census data also show that a large proportion of Miami-Dade households have a primary language other than English, which is known to be a barrier to accessing preventive services (U.S. Census Bureau, 2024). These conditions collectively make the case for a bilingual, community-based strategy to address the conditions rather than for a program to just change individual behavior.
**Literature Review**
Risica et al. (2021) reported four years of clinical outcomes from the Vida Sana/Healthy Life program, a community clinic-based lifestyle intervention delivered by bilingual community health workers to 641 predominantly Hispanic, Spanish-speaking, low-income participants. After an eight week culturally appropriate intervention on diet, physical activity and self-monitoring, there was significant reduction in blood pressure, lipid profile, blood glucose and anthropometric measures. This program mirrors closely the population and delivery model proposed for Miami-Dade and directly supports the community health worker, bilingual model.
MahadziR et al. (2021) performed a scoping review of thirteen group-based lifestyle interventions for metabolic syndrome. Most successful programs were community-based, multidisciplinary, and used trained peer educators; waist circumference and blood pressure were the most consistently improved. The review was concluded that peer support complements and enhances the traditional clinical approach in a meaningful way. This evidence directly supports the use of trained CHWs in conjunction with nurse-led education in the Miami-Dade program.
**Evaluation of Sources**
Both sources offer methodological strengths. Risica et al. (2021) used real-life clinical data from 641 patients and the sample was mostly Hispanic and Spanish speaking, so the results are applicable to the population being proposed for Miami-Dade. Generalizability is supported by the Mahadzir et al.'s (2021) scoping review which synthesizes thirteen interventions in diverse settings and populations, and found structures instead of just one.
Weaknesses remain. Risica et al. (2021) employed a pre-post study design without a randomized control group, meaning that improvements are difficult to distinguish from other effects like regression to the mean or concurrent medical treatments. The review by Mahadzir et al. (2021) only included interventions published up to 2020, and reported that nutrition outcomes were not consistently reported across the interventions, limiting the ability to draw conclusions about the efficacy of nutrition-specific interventions. These sources confirm the proposed model and indicate a need to use a controlled evaluation design in Miami-Dade for strengthening causal evidence.
**Theoretical Model**
The Socio-Ecological Model is the most appropriate guiding model of this proposal. Caperon et al. (2022) have applied it to the context of community engagement in an underserved urban area. This model views health behavior as resulting from the interplay between personal, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy influences rather than being purely a personal choice. As shown by Caperon et al. (2022), multiple layers of local engagement with trusted organizations and their members at multiple stages enhanced program relevance and participation for an historically underserved population, applicable also in Miami-Dade.
Individual-level strategies involve nutrition counselling and goal setting, whereas interpersonal-level strategies involve bilingual community health workers and peer support in the application of this model. Organizational-level partnerships with federally qualified health centers and churches provide trusted access points, and community-level efforts address neighborhood food environments and walking opportunities. Policy-level advocacy can help facilitate continued funding and insurance referral pathways. This multi-level approach ensures the program emphasizes personal behavior as well as environmental factors that help increase metabolic risk in Miami Dade County.
**References**
Caperon, L., Saville, F., & Ahern, S. (2022). Developing a socio-ecological model for community engagement in a health programme in an underserved urban area.
_PLoS One_,
_17_(9), e0275092. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0275092
Mahadzir, M. D. A., Fatt Quek, K., & Amutha Ramadas. (2021). Group-Based lifestyle intervention strategies for Metabolic syndrome: A scoping review and strategic framework for Future research.
_Medicina_,
_57_(11), 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/medicina57111169
Miami Dade Council. (2025). Miami-Dade beacon council – market data – demographics. In
_Miami-Dade Beacon Council_. https://www.beaconcouncil.com/demographics/
Miami-Dade Matters. (2025). Miami-Dade matters. In
_www.miamidadematters.org_. https://www.miamidadematters.org/
Risica, P. M., McCarthy, M. L., Barry, K. L., Oliverio, S. P., Gans, K. M., & De Groot, A. S. (2021). Clinical outcomes of a community clinic-based lifestyle change program for prevention and management of metabolic syndrome: Results of the ‘vida Sana/Healthy life’ program.
_PLOS One_,
_16_(4), e0248473. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0248473
Tian, Z., Soltani, S., Bauersachs, J., Schmidt-Ott, K. M., Melk, A., & Schmidt, B. M. W. (2026). Gender-related and age-related disparities in Prevalence of the Cardiovascular-Kidney-Metabolic syndrome among US adults from 1999-2020: An analysis of the nhanes survey.
_Kidney Medicine_,
_8_(3), 101234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xkme.2025.101234
U.S. Census Bureau. (2025). QuickFacts: Miami-Dade county, Florida. In
_Census Bureau QuickFacts_. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/miamidadecountyflorida/PST045225
**## HealthPromotionProposal.docx**
Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2
**Health Promotion Proposal, Part 2-this is the SAME TOPIC that was Approved in WEEK 2 and a continuation of HPP Part 1.**
**This is a continuation of the health promotion program proposal, part one**, which you submitted previously.
Please approach this assignment as an opportunity to integrate instructor feedback from part I and expand on ideas adhering to the components of the MAP-IT strategy. Include necessary levels of detail you feel appropriate to assure stakeholder buy-in.
**Directions**
You have already completed the steps 1-4.
**Do not resubmit part 1.** Make sure you incorporate any suggested revisions or improvements into your submission according to your instructor’s comments.
**To assist in maintaining harmony between Part I and 2 here you have a reminder of the previous paper outline:**
· 1. Describe the health problem. Using data and statistics support your claim that the issue you selected is a problem. What specifically will you address in your proposed health promotion program? Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
· 2. Describe the vulnerable population and setting. What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population? Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
· 3. Provide a review of literature from scholarly journals on evidence-based interventions that address the problem. After completing a library search related to effective interventions for your chosen health promotion activity, you will write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found. You might consult research texts for information on how to write a review of the literature found in your search.
· 4. Select an appropriate health promotion/disease prevention theoretical framework or conceptual model that would best serve as the framework guiding the proposal. Provide a rationale for your selection which includes a discussion of the concepts of the selected model
**For this assignment develop criteria 5-8 as detailed below:**
**You will submit just this section 5-8 as an essay. Please do not resubmit Part 1.**
Use a presentation page. Start the body of content with topic 5.
· 5. Propose a health promotion program using an evidence-based intervention found in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting. Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which includes resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
· Be certain to include a timeline. (3 to 4 paragraphs- you may use bullets if appropriate).
· 6. Thoroughly describe the intended outcomes. Describe the outcomes in detail concurrent with the SMART goal approach.
**The SMART goal statement should be no more than one sentence** (1 paragraph).
· 7. Provide a detailed plan for the evaluation of each outcome. (2-3 paragraphs).
· 8. Thoroughly describe possible barriers/challenges to implementing the proposed project as well as strategies to address these barriers/challenges. (2+ paragraphs).
· Finish the paper with a conclusion paragraph (2 paragraphs) without typing the word "conclusion" before the paragraph.
**Paper Requirements**
This assignment is to be submitted as an essay- with an introduction, questions developed at the graduate level, and a conclusion to summarize and synthesize key points. Remember, your Proposal must be a scholarly paper demonstrating graduate school-level writing and critical analysis of existing nursing knowledge about health promotion.
APA must be strictly followed.
Your final assignment should be minimally 5 pages (excluding title page and references).
Finish the essay with your reference page.
**Please review the Grading Rubric for this Assignment.**
**REFERENCES Must have DOI Numbers for me to look them up- If I am unable to verify the references points will be deducted.**
**Great resource to assist you:** [Reference List: Author/Authors – Purdue OWL® – Purdue University](https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/apa_style/apa_formatting_and_style_guide/reference_list_author_authors.html)
**Submission**
Text Editor
Press Alt + F10 to access toolbar options
_Word count: 0_
**Drag files here**
Maximum size: 512 MB
**or**
**Details & Information**
Rubric Details
**Maximum Score**
100 points
**Excellent**
The paper demonstrates that the author understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Concepts are integrated into the writer’s own insights. The writer provides concluding remarks that show analysis and synthesis of ideas. All questions are answered thoroughly.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, mostly, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. Some conclusions, however, are not supported in the body of the paper. Questions were not fully developed but concepts are explained well.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The paper demonstrates that the author, to a certain extent, understands and has applied concepts learned in the course. There is a lack of development of questions.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The paper does not demonstrate that the author has understood, and applied concepts learned in the course. Cursory integration of knowledge and development of questions.
**10**
**Excellent**
The topic is focused narrowly enough for the scope of this assignment. A thesis statement provides direction for the paper, either by a statement of a position or hypothesis. The topic is consistently well thought out, thorough offers insight into the topic, and includes cited evidence to support the topic.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
The topic is focused but lacks direction. The paper is about a specific topic, but the writer has not established a position. The topic is somewhat well thought out, offers limited insight into the topic, but does not include cited evidence to support the topic.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The topic is too broad for the scope of this assignment.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
The topic is unclear or unrelated to the discussion topic with little or no supporting evidence.
**10**
**Excellent**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in all sections of the paper. Ties together information from all sources. Paper flows from one issue to the next with no headings. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**25**
**Satisfactory**
In-depth discussion and elaboration in most sections of the paper. Mostly, it ties together information from all sources. Paper flows with only some disjointedness. The author’s writing demonstrates an understanding of the relationship among material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and a conclusion in the submission.
**20**
**Unsatisfactory**
The writer has omitted content. Quotations from others outweigh the writer’s own ideas excessively. Sometimes ties together information from all sources. The paper does not flow. Disjointedness is apparent. The author’s writing does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship between material obtained from all sources. There is an introduction and/or conclusion in the submission, but not both.
**15**
**Unacceptable**
Cursory discussion in all the sections of the paper or brief discussion in only a few sections It does not tie together information. Paper does not flow and appears to be created from disparate issues. Headings are necessary to link concepts. Writing does not demonstrate an understanding of any relationship. There is NO introduction or conclusion in the submission.
**10**
**Excellent**
At least 6 current sources are used and are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. Sources include both general background sources and specialized sources. Special-interest sources and popular literature and acknowledged as such if they are cited. All websites utilized are authoritative. All references complete without DOI number.
**8**
**Satisfactory**
Used 5 current sources, which are peer-review journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are authoritative. 1 reference incomplete without DOI number.
**6.4**
**Unsatisfactory**
Used 4 current sources which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. All websites utilized are credible. 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**4.8**
**Unacceptable**
Fewer than 4 current sources are used which are peer-reviewed journal articles or scholarly books. Not all websites utilized are credible, and/or sources are not current. More than 2 references incomplete without DOI number.
**3.2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. APA level headings incorporated throughout the submission.
**5**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, and APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**4**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 incomplete citations and/or quotations, or APA format errors. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**3**
**Unacceptable**
The citation style is inconsistent or incorrect. It does not cite sources. The paper submitted is NOT in APA Format. No headings incorporated other than the title heading.
**2**
**Excellent**
Fewer than 5 grammatical, spelling, capitalization, or punctuation errors The required word count has been met. Similarity index and/or AI use as per university policy.
**12**
**Satisfactory**
More than 5 but fewer than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 25 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 25%.
**9.6**
**Unsatisfactory**
More than 10 grammatical, spelling, capitalization & punctuation errors The required word count is 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use below 35%.
**7.2**
**Unacceptable**
An unacceptable number of spelling and/or grammar mistakes. The required word count is more than 50 words below the minimum required count. Similarity index and/or AI use above 35%.