| Course | HS895 Doctoral Project IV: Communication and Dissemination |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Audience analysis |
| Length | About 840 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS895 Unit 2
Six Groups and the One Belief Each Would Need to Move: A Unit 2 Audience Analysis for a Finished Gonadal Shielding Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS895: Doctoral Project IV: Communication and Dissemination
Unit 2 Audience Analysis
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The network, its staff and the study's results are composite and shown as placeholders; the sources cited are real.
Why an Audience Analysis Rather Than a List
A stakeholder list names who is affected. An audience analysis asks, for each group, what it controls, what it already believes, what it needs to hear and in what form. The study found that radiographers who still shield know the guidance has changed but act from habit, from parents' and colleagues' expectations and from cues in the room. Dissemination aimed at knowledge would therefore miss. Each profile below is built around the belief that most needs to shift and the evidence from the study that could shift it, an approach consistent with linking determinants to the kinds of change likely to work (Michie et al., 2011).
Group One: The Imaging Operations Director
Controls: room setup, equipment placement and network protocols. Already believes: the shielding question was settled when the protocol changed in [2021], and any remaining shielding is a training issue. Belief to move: that the problem is knowledge. Evidence: in the survey, routine shielders and others scored almost identically on knowledge, while automatic decisions and room cues separated them. Form: a one-page executive summary with a single decision.
Group Two: Site Supervisors
Controls: daily routines, staff assignments and how complaints are handled. Already believes, from interviews: shielding is harmless and avoids conflict with parents. Belief to move: that leaving shields in place is a neutral choice. Evidence: interviewees described reaching for shields that hang at hand height without deciding to, and several worried more about a parent's complaint than about guidance. Form: a short brief with specific changes and who owns each.
Group Three: Staff Radiographers
Controls: the moment of the examination. Already believes: most know the guidance; many shielders believe shielding shows care for children. Belief to move: that removing the shield signals carelessness. Evidence: interviewees linked shielding to professional identity, and the anatomy evidence shows shields often miss young girls' ovaries (Fawcett et al., 2012). Form: a ten-minute huddle presentation with a script for parents.
For radiographers, the belief to move is not what the guidance says but what removing a shield says about them.
Group Four: Radiography Educators
Controls: what students learn and what they see modeled on placement. Already believes: many still teach shielding as part of patient care, as an international survey found shortly before the change (Shanley & Matthews, 2018). Belief to move: that teaching shielding is the safe default. Evidence: the study's finding that habits, once learned, persist even among informed radiographers. Form: a presentation at the regional educators' meeting and a short article for program directors.
Group Five: The Professional Society and Its Members
Controls: continuing education and position statements. Already believes: the guidance has been communicated. Belief to move: that communication of guidance is enough. Evidence: the gap between knowledge and practice in the survey. Form: a conference abstract and poster, then a journal article.
Group Six: Parents and Families
Controls: their questions and complaints. Already believes, from interviews: a shield protects their child. Belief to move: none directly; parents are described here, not targeted, because the change is made by clinicians, and parents are best reached through radiographers' explanations. Form: a short, plain script radiographers can use when asked.
Messages That Would Backfire
The analysis also notes what not to say. Telling radiographers that shielding is "wrong" or "outdated" could provoke defensiveness among the many who see it as care, and the interviews suggest identity is at stake. Telling the director that the protocol "failed" invites the reply that it was never meant to change habits alone. Telling parents that shields are "useless" may alarm them about earlier examinations. Each message is reframed instead around what the evidence supports: that removing shields from the room's default setup and preparing a calm explanation for parents fits current guidance and protects image quality.
Sequence
The groups are not reached all at once. The director comes first, since setup changes need approval. Supervisors follow once a decision exists to implement. Staff radiographers hear the findings in site huddles as supervisors introduce the change, so that the message arrives with a practical step attached. Educators, the society and journals follow over the next year on their own calendars.
Priorities
Ranking by control over the practice, rather than by rank in the organization, puts the operations director and site supervisors first, then staff radiographers, then educators, the society and journal readers. Parents are reached through radiographers, not directly.
Limits
Profiles of the director, educators and society are based on the student's knowledge and published work, not on study data. The parent profile rests on radiographers' accounts, not on parents' own words, and a later study asking parents directly could change how that group is approached.
References
Fawcett, S. L., Gomez, A. C., Barter, S. J., Ditchfield, M., & Set, P. (2012). More harm than good? The anatomy of misguided shielding of the ovaries. The British Journal of Radiology, 85(1016), e442-e447. https://doi.org/10.1259/bjr/25742247
Michie, S., van Stralen, M. M., & West, R. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6, 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
Shanley, C., & Matthews, K. (2018). A questionnaire study of radiography educator opinions about patient lead shielding during digital projection radiography. Radiography, 24(4), 328-333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.radi.2018.04.001
The Purdue Global HS895 Unit 2 instructions
The second unit typically asks candidates to analyze the audiences for their findings in more depth than the first unit's post, often four to six pages. For each audience, instructors expect what it controls, what it currently believes or values, what it needs to hear and in what form. Evidence from the study itself, such as interview material about a group, strengthens a profile. Many prompts ask candidates to rank audiences and to explain the order in which they will be approached. Recognizing messages that could provoke resistance is often rewarded. Audiences that should be described but not targeted directly, such as patients in a clinician-led change, need a clear rationale.
How the HS 895 Unit 2 example is put together
The analysis explains how it differs from a stakeholder list and why knowledge-focused messages would miss. Six profiles follow, each with control, current belief, belief to move, evidence and format; the staff profile ties the belief to professional identity and anatomy evidence, and the highlighted sentence states it. Educators are linked to survey evidence on teaching. The society and journal readers are grouped. Parents are described but not targeted. A section lists three messages that would backfire and their reframing. Sequence, priorities by control and the limits of profiles based on the student's knowledge close the paper. Each profile is kept to a short paragraph so the six can be compared side by side.
Where the points sit in the HS895 Unit 2 rubric
Audience analyses are usually assessed on depth of each profile, use of evidence, clarity of the belief or behavior to change, appropriateness of formats and the logic of priorities. Depth often carries the most points, rewarding profiles that go beyond role descriptions to beliefs and constraints. Evidence earns credit when profiles draw on the study's data or published research rather than assumption. Clarity rewards naming one belief per audience that the findings could shift. Formats score well when matched to how each audience makes decisions. Priority logic, especially ranking by control and dependency, shows strategic thinking. Clear organization and accurate citations complete the grade. Analyses that anticipate resistance and plan around it often stand out.
Common HS895 Unit 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
A frequent weakness is profiles that describe job titles without saying what the group believes or controls. Another is choosing the same format, often a presentation, for every audience. Some candidates target patients directly for a change clinicians must make. Others ignore audiences who might resist, which leaves the plan unprepared. Messages that blame the audience, calling a practice outdated or wrong, can provoke defensiveness. If your findings concern a different group of professionals, perhaps pharmacists or community health workers, send your results summary, and an audience analysis can be prepared that names the belief each group would need to move. Treating every audience as needing the same evidence misses how differently each group decides.
Get an HS895 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Tell us who might act on your finished project and what each group seems to believe now, even as rough guesses. Add the Unit 2 prompt and rubric for HS895. Profiles in the sample start from belief, draw on your own findings wherever they describe an audience, and label every inference. The first custom sample is free and takes 24-48h. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HS895 papers and DHSc samples
- HS895 Unit 1: Dissemination Audience Discussion Post
- HS895 Unit 3: Executive Summary
- HS895 Unit 4: Practice Recommendation Brief
- HS895 Unit 5: Conference Abstract
- HS895 Unit 6: Poster Draft
- HS895 Unit 7: Seminar Reflection
- HS895 Unit 8: Manuscript Draft
- HS895 Unit 9: Defense Presentation
- HS895 Unit 10: Dissemination Plan
- HS810 Unit 2: Discussion Board Post
- HS880 Unit 2: Low Survey Response Discussion Post
- HS820 Unit 2: Estonia Health System Profile
- HS865 Unit 2: Literature Search Strategy Log
HS895 Unit 2 questions, answered
What is the difference between an audience analysis and a stakeholder list?
A stakeholder list names who is affected. An audience analysis goes further, recording what each group believes, which evidence it trusts, what format it reads and which channel reaches it. Those later questions are the ones that shape an artifact. A manager and a radiographer may both be stakeholders, yet they need different documents built from the same finding.
Can study findings describe an audience?
When the study's participants belong to that audience, yes. Interview material from radiographers is direct evidence about what radiographers believe, and using it keeps profiles grounded. Quote pseudonymized belief statements rather than identifiable extracts, and check that consent covered reporting of that kind. Where no data describe a group, label the profile as inference and state what it rests on.
Should patients or families be treated as an audience?
They can be described without being targeted. In a change that clinicians make, patients and families are affected but not asked to act, so their section usually sets a tone rule rather than a persuasive message. Where families would receive material directly, such as an explanation card, plain language and a respectful frame matter more than any argument.
Where can I find a free HS895 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page holds the complete Unit 2 audience analysis, profiling six groups that influence gonadal shielding and the belief each would need to change.
Why are parents described but not targeted?
Because the change is made by clinicians. Parents are best reached through radiographers' explanations, using a script prepared for that moment.