| Course | HW315 Models for Health and Wellness |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 2 |
| Paper type | Model comparison paper |
| Length | About 1,160 words, 7 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | BS in Health and Wellness |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HW315 Unit 2
Every Workday, Hardly Any Day Off: A Unit 2 Model Comparison Paper on One Server's Blood Pressure Pill
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HW315: Models for Health and Wellness
Unit 2 Model Comparison Paper
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The server, her medication and her routine are composite; the four models are described from their originators' work, and the adherence study cited is real.
The Case
Danielle, a composite 34-year-old server at a busy downtown restaurant, was prescribed a once-daily blood pressure medication eight months ago after readings of about 150 over 95 at a pharmacy kiosk and two clinic visits. She works five evening shifts a week. On workdays she takes the pill at about two in the afternoon, with the late lunch she eats before every shift, from a bottle she keeps in her work bag. On her two days off, she sleeps late, eats at irregular times and often spends the day at her sister's house. A pharmacy refill record shows that she fills the prescription roughly every 39 days for a 30-day supply. Asked about it, she says, "I believe in the pill. I just don't think about it on Sundays."
The puzzle is simple to state: her beliefs, her intention and her knowledge are the same every day, but her behavior differs by setting. A useful model should explain that difference.
Model One: Health Beliefs
Janz and Becker's (1984) review of this model accounts for action through perceived susceptibility, severity, benefits and barriers as the person judges them, plus cues and, in its revised form, confidence. Applied to Danielle, susceptibility and severity are high: her mother had a stroke at sixty. Benefits are accepted. Barriers are low, since the pill costs little and causes no side effects she notices. Self-efficacy is high; she takes it reliably most of the week.
The model's only candidate for the split is cues to action. On workdays, the late lunch and the work bag act as cues; on days off, there are none. That is a reasonable observation, but the model treats cues as triggers for a decision about a threat, not as the scaffolding of a routine. It describes the missing cue but has little to say about why a cue matters more than beliefs that are already strong.
Verdict: the model fits her beliefs and cannot explain the split except through a construct it leaves underdeveloped.
Model Two: Stages of Change
Prochaska and Velicer's (1997) model sorts people into stages of change, from precontemplation through action and maintenance, and describes the processes that move them. Danielle has taken the pill for eight months and intends to continue, which places her in action moving toward maintenance.
The model's difficulty is that stages describe a person, not a setting. Danielle is not in maintenance on Wednesday and precontemplation on Sunday. Processes such as stimulus control, which involves arranging cues in the environment, fit her workday pattern well, but the model offers no reason why one person's behavior would split by day while her stage stays the same.
Verdict: the model labels her readiness accurately and has no place for the split itself.
Model Three: Planned Behavior
Ajzen's theory predicts behavior from intention, which depends on attitude, subjective norms and perceived behavioral control, with perceived control also acting directly on behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Danielle's attitude is favorable, her family supports the medication and her intention is strong.
The theory's strength here is perceived behavioral control. On workdays, control is high in a concrete sense: the bottle is in her bag and the lunch is at a fixed time. On days off, the bottle is at home while she is at her sister's, so actual control is lower even though she would say she could take it any time. Perceived control can forecast behavior on its own only insofar as it tracks the control a person really has (Ajzen, 1991).
The Theory of Planned Behavior comes closest to explaining Danielle's split, because it allows the same intention to produce different behavior when actual control over the act changes from one setting to another.
Verdict: the theory explains the split through actual control, though it says little about why her perceived control does not drop on days off.
Model Four: Social Cognitive Theory
This framework treats a person, what they do and where they do it as shaping one another continuously, and it gives confidence, expected outcomes, learning by watching and self-management the leading roles (Bandura, 2004). Its emphasis on the environment fits the case: workdays provide structure, a fixed lunch and a bag that travels with her, while days off provide none. It also adds something the other models lack. Each workday dose taken with lunch is a small, reinforced repetition in a stable context, which over months produces a habit tied to that context. Research on hypertensive patients found that medication-taking habit strength predicted adherence more strongly than treatment beliefs did (Phillips et al., 2013).
Verdict: the theory explains the split well through environment and learned routine, but its breadth makes it less precise than Planned Behavior.
What Each Model Would Have a Coach Do
The models also differ in what they would lead a wellness coach to try. A coach guided by the Health Belief Model might spend time on Danielle's risk of stroke, which she already accepts. A coach guided by the Transtheoretical Model might treat her as being in maintenance and focus on preventing relapse in general. A coach guided by Planned Behavior would look at where the bottle is on her days off. A coach guided by Social Cognitive Theory would help her build a cue into her days off that works as well as her pre-shift lunch. Only the last two address the problem she actually has.
Comparison
Each model was asked the same question: why does the day of the week change the behavior when beliefs do not?
1. Health Belief Model: explains her beliefs; explains the split only weakly, through absent cues.
2. Transtheoretical Model: explains her stage; cannot explain a split within one stage.
3. Theory of Planned Behavior: explains the split through actual behavioral control; strongest single account.
4. Social Cognitive Theory: explains the split through environment and habit; adds the learning process the others lack.
Conclusion
The Theory of Planned Behavior offers the strongest account of Danielle's split, since it allows a constant intention to produce different behavior when control changes with the setting. Social Cognitive Theory adds the reason her workdays succeed: a repeated routine in a stable context. Neither the Health Belief Model nor the Transtheoretical Model is wrong about Danielle; each simply answers a question other than the one her pill bottle poses. Together, the two stronger accounts suggest a practical step a wellness coach could discuss with her, such as a second bottle kept where she spends her days off or a fixed cue on those days, while leaving any medication question to her prescriber.
References
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2), 179-211. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T
Bandura, A. (2004). Health promotion by social cognitive means. Health Education & Behavior, 31(2), 143-164. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198104263660
Janz, N. K., & Becker, M. H. (1984). The health belief model: A decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11(1), 1-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/109019818401100101
Phillips, L. A., Leventhal, H., & Leventhal, E. A. (2013). Assessing theoretical predictors of long-term medication adherence: Patients' treatment-related beliefs, experiential feedback and habit development. Psychology & Health, 28(10), 1135-1151. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2013.793798
Prochaska, J. O., & Velicer, W. F. (1997). The transtheoretical model of health behavior change. American Journal of Health Promotion, 12(1), 38-48. https://doi.org/10.4278/0890-1171-12.1.38
HW315 Unit 2 instructions, in plain terms
The comparison unit asks students to apply two or more behavior change models to one case and judge which explains it best. Prompts commonly want a case summary, a section per model that defines its constructs and applies them, a comparison and a reasoned conclusion. Choose or identify the central puzzle in the case first, then ask each model the same question about it. Define constructs in each model's own terms, cited to an original or standard source. End each model's section with a clear statement of what it explains and what it cannot. Compare the models side by side, and choose a winner unless the case truly splits. Note practical implications briefly. Around six pages, in APA style, suits most versions of this prompt.
How the HW 315 Unit 2 example is put together
A one-paragraph case opens with Danielle's prescription, her shift routine, her days at her sister's house and a refill record showing about 39 days per 30-day supply. Four model sections follow, each applying constructs to her details and ending with a verdict. The health belief section finds only cues to explain the split, the stage section finds no place for a setting, the planned behavior section explains it through actual control, and the highlighted sentence names that model the strongest. Social Cognitive Theory adds a habit study of hypertensive patients. A section imagines what a coach guided by each model would try, a four-line comparison ranks the models, and the conclusion pairs the two strongest with a practical step.
Where the points sit in the HW315 Unit 2 rubric
HW315 comparison rubrics usually give the largest share of points to analysis: whether each model is applied accurately and whether the comparison reaches a justified conclusion. Accuracy of construct definitions, cited to sources, is a separate criterion. The quality of the case application matters, so specific details from the case should appear in every section. Organization earns points when the reader can follow a consistent test across models. A clear conclusion, with reasons, is often weighted heavily. APA formatting and plain writing make up the remainder. Papers that describe each model in textbook terms without applying it, or that end by declaring all models useful, tend to lose most of their analysis points.
HW315 Unit 2 help from the desk
Comparison papers frequently turn into four mini-summaries of the models, with the case mentioned only at the start. Another weakness is asking each model a different question, so the comparison is unfair. Some students pick a winner without explaining what the losers missed. Definitions copied from a glossary, rather than from Ajzen, Bandura or the model's originators, cost points under sources. Conclusions that hedge, saying every model has strengths, read as avoiding the assignment. Practical implications are often omitted, though they show the comparison matters. If you have a case and a list of models but cannot see the central puzzle, tell us the case and the assigned models, and the comparison can be organized around a single question all of them face.
Get an HW315 Unit 2 example written to your instructions
Some Unit 2 prompts name the models and supply a case; others leave both open. Send whichever version your section uses, with the rubric. A case you choose yourself can be used instead. The paper applies each model to one described person and commits to a verdict with reasons, ready inside 24-48h, and your first request is free. 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 HW315 papers and BS in Health and Wellness samples
- HW315 Unit 1: Model Test Post
- HW315 Unit 3: Behavior Analysis
- HW315 Unit 4: Readiness Assessment
- HW315 Unit 5: Barrier Identification Exercise
- HW315 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HW315 Unit 7: Motivational Strategy Plan
- HW315 Unit 8: Social Support Analysis
- HW315 Unit 9: Intervention Design
- HW315 Unit 10: Wellness Model Portfolio
- HW310 Unit 2: Modality Description Paper
- HD499 Unit 2: Project Scope Proposal
- HD480 Unit 2: Audience Segmentation Profile
- HD460 Unit 2: Implementation Checklist
HW315 Unit 2 questions, answered
How many models should a comparison paper include?
As many as the prompt names; two is common and four is not unusual. More models mean less depth per model, so where the choice is open, two or three applied thoroughly usually beat four applied thinly. Whatever the number, each must be tested against the same case and the same question, or the comparison collapses into summaries.
Is it acceptable to conclude that two models explain the case equally well?
Occasionally, but it needs more justification than a choice, not less. Most cases hinge on a single feature, and the model that captures it usually deserves the verdict. If two genuinely tie, the paper should show they explain different parts of the behavior and say which part matters more for changing it, which is a choice in disguise.
Where do I find the original sources for each model?
Most textbooks cite them: Rosenstock and later Becker for the Health Belief Model, Prochaska and DiClemente for the Transtheoretical Model, Ajzen for Planned Behavior, Bandura for Social Cognitive Theory. Citing the originator alongside the course text shows the definitions came from the source. A library database search on the author's name and the model usually finds the foundational article quickly.
Where can I find a free HW315 Unit 2 sample paper?
This page presents a complete Unit 2 model comparison paper applying four behavior models to a server's blood pressure pill, with a ranking, margin notes and APA references.
Which model explains why she misses the pill on days off?
The Theory of Planned Behavior comes closest, because it allows the same intention to produce different behavior when actual control changes, and her pill bottle travels with her only on workdays.