| Course | HW425 Health and Wellness Programming - Design and Administration |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 3 |
| Paper type | Program objectives |
| Length | About 900 words, 6 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 HW425 Unit 3
From "Get People Healthier" to Five Testable Statements: Unit 3 Program Objectives for a Grocery Chain's Diabetes Prevention Program
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HW425: Health and Wellness Programming - Design and Administration
Unit 3 Program Objectives
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
Tallgrass Market and its program are composite; the evaluation framework and prevention research cited are real.
From Request to Goal
The owners' original request was: "Do something to get our people healthier." The needs assessment found that 41 percent of surveyed employees were at high risk for prediabetes and only 9 percent had ever been told. The program goal follows from that finding:
Goal: Reduce the risk of type 2 diabetes among Tallgrass Market employees at high risk.
A goal states a broad direction. Objectives make it measurable. Each objective below names who, what change, how much and by when, and each is followed by a decision rule.
Why These Five
The objectives follow the RE-AIM framework, which asks evaluators to look beyond effectiveness to reach, adoption, implementation and maintenance (Glasgow et al., 1999). A program that works for the few who attend but reaches no one at risk would fail the owners' purpose. The five objectives therefore cover reach, attendance, activity, weight and the link to clinical care.
The Objectives
1. Reach. By the end of month four, enroll 90 eligible employees across six cohorts, at least 15 of them from overnight crews.
Decision rule: met if enrollment records show 90 or more enrollees with a risk score of 5 or higher or a prior prediabetes diagnosis, including 15 or more from overnight crews; partly met if 70 to 89 enrollees or 10 to 14 overnight; not met below that.
2. Attendance. By the end of month six, 65 percent of enrollees will attend at least 9 of the first 16 sessions.
Decision rule: met if 65 percent or more of all enrollees, counting anyone who dropped out as not attending, reach nine sessions; the denominator is every person who attended a first session.
3. Physical activity. At month six, at least half of those still enrolled will report an average of 150 minutes or more of moderate physical activity per week over the prior four weeks.
Decision rule: met if 50 percent or more of active participants' activity logs average 150 minutes or more; activity is self-reported, and the report will say so.
4. Weight. By month twelve, participants will achieve an average weight loss of at least 5 percent of starting weight.
Decision rule: met if the average loss among everyone who attended a first session is 5 percent or more, with anyone missing at month twelve counted as having no change; completers' results will be reported separately and labeled.
5. Clinical connection. By month twelve, at least 60 percent of enrollees will report having discussed their diabetes risk with a clinician.
Decision rule: met if 60 percent or more answer yes on the month-twelve survey; this measures conversation, not diagnosis.
Every objective carries its own denominator and its own rule for counting people who leave, so that no result can be made to look better after the fact by quietly dropping the participants who struggled.
How the Objectives Fit Together
The five objectives are meant to be read as a chain. Reach comes first, because a program that enrolls the wrong people, or too few of them, cannot achieve anything else. Attendance comes next, because participants who stop coming cannot benefit from the curriculum. Activity and weight measure the changes the curriculum aims for. The clinical connection objective links the program to the health system, so that employees at risk are not left to manage that risk alone. If an early link in the chain fails, the later objectives become harder to interpret, and the evaluation will report them in that order for that reason.
Why 5 Percent
The weight objective follows the National Diabetes Prevention Program's lifestyle goal of 5 to 7 percent weight loss, which comes from the original prevention trial (Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group, 2002). Fewer than four in ten participants in the national program's evaluation reached the 5 percent mark, and the group's mean loss fell somewhat short of it (Ely et al., 2017). The Tallgrass target is therefore ambitious, and the evaluator should expect that it may be only partly met.
Who Wrote the Objectives
The objectives were drafted by the HR benefits specialist with the retail dietitian and reviewed by two store managers and a crew lead from the overnight shift. The crew lead's review changed one objective: the original draft set a single reach target for the whole chain, and the crew lead pointed out that overnight stockers would be outnumbered and overlooked unless they had a target of their own.
Why the Overnight Target
The needs assessment found that overnight stockers were the group least reached by the survey and the least likely to hear about any program. Setting a separate target of 15 overnight enrollees prevents the program from meeting its reach objective entirely with day staff, who are easier to recruit.
Measures Deliberately Omitted
None of the five objectives covers health plan costs. Diabetes prevented in year one would not appear as lower claims for several years, and a one-year program cannot measure that. Blood sugar measures such as A1c are also absent, since the program will not collect blood samples.
References
Diabetes Prevention Program Research Group. (2002). Reduction in the incidence of type 2 diabetes with lifestyle intervention or metformin. New England Journal of Medicine, 346(6), 393-403. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa012512
Ely, E. K., Gruss, S. M., Luman, E. T., Gregg, E. W., Ali, M. K., Nhim, K., Rolka, D. B., & Albright, A. L. (2017). A national effort to prevent type 2 diabetes: Participant-level evaluation of CDC's National Diabetes Prevention Program. Diabetes Care, 40(10), 1331-1341. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc16-2099
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.89.9.1322
Reading the HW 425 Unit 3 instructions
The objectives unit asks students to write measurable objectives for a program based on their needs assessment. Prompts typically expect a goal, several objectives covering process and outcomes, and a rationale linking each to the evidence. Each objective needs four parts: the group it covers, the shift expected, its size and its date. Include process objectives, such as reach and attendance, as well as outcomes. Set targets from published evidence where possible, and say when a target is ambitious. Define how each will be measured and how people who leave will be counted. Note any important measures left out and why. Consider separate targets for groups the needs assessment found hard to reach. Three to four pages, often with a table, is typical.
How the HW 425 Unit 3 example is put together
The owners' request is quoted, and a goal is drawn from the needs assessment. A short section explains why the objectives follow RE-AIM. Five numbered objectives follow, each with a decision rule. The highlighted sentence explains why every rule fixes its denominator. A section shows how the objectives form a chain from reach to weight. Another explains the 5 percent target against national results, where fewer than four in ten reached it. A short note records who drafted and reviewed the objectives and how a crew lead's comment created the overnight target, which a further section justifies. The document ends by naming the measures left out, plan costs and blood sugar.
HW425 Unit 3 rubric: what earns full points
HW425 objectives rubrics usually score how measurable and specific each objective is: group, shift, size and date all present. Coverage of both process and outcome objectives is a second criterion. Points go to linking targets to evidence and to the needs assessment. Clear measurement methods, including how dropouts are handled, are often scored under evaluation readiness. A rationale that explains choices and omissions earns credit for critical thinking. Formatting and citations complete the rubric. Objectives such as improving employee health, with no number or date, and outcome targets with no stated denominator typically lose most of their points. Graders also check that targets are plausible against published results rather than chosen to sound impressive.
HW425 Unit 3 help: mistakes that cost points
Objectives in this course often name a change but leave out the amount or the deadline, which makes them impossible to evaluate. Another weakness is writing only outcome objectives, so the evaluator cannot tell whether a disappointing result came from poor reach or a weak program. Students frequently set targets with no evidence behind them. Denominators are rarely defined, which lets results be flattered later by counting only completers. Hard-to-reach groups are folded into a single overall target. If you have a needs assessment and a goal but your objectives feel vague, share both with us, and a writer can help you rewrite each with a decision rule. A crew lead or frontline reviewer can often spot an objective that would leave a whole group out.
Get an HW425 Unit 3 example written to your instructions
Bring your needs assessment findings, the goal stated or implied in your Unit 3 prompt, and the rubric. Every objective comes back naming its population, the change, the amount and the deadline, with a line beneath it stating the data and threshold an evaluator would use. Long-term outcomes are labeled honestly. Free for a first request; 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 HW425 papers and BS in Health and Wellness samples
- HW425 Unit 1: Failed Program Post
- HW425 Unit 2: Needs Assessment
- HW425 Unit 4: Program Design Document
- HW425 Unit 5: Budget and Resource Plan
- HW425 Unit 6: Seminar Reflection
- HW425 Unit 7: Recruitment and Marketing Plan
- HW425 Unit 8: Implementation Timeline
- HW425 Unit 9: Evaluation Plan
- HW425 Unit 10: Program Proposal
- HW420 Unit 3: Self-Assessment Reflection
- HD420 Unit 3: Behavior Theory Application
- HW410 Unit 3: Stress Assessment
- HD440 Unit 3: Community Assessment Summary
HW425 Unit 3 questions, answered
How many objectives should a program have?
Enough to cover reach, delivery and change, usually four to seven. Fewer tends to leave out either the process or the outcome side; many more produces objectives nobody will actually evaluate. If a target matters to the funder, it deserves an objective, and if no one would ever check it, it probably does not.
What if I cannot find a baseline for an objective?
Say so and identify the earliest data point that could serve, such as the intake survey or the first session's weigh-in. Objectives built on a baseline collected at enrollment are common in workplace programs. What costs marks is an objective whose starting point is never mentioned, so a reader cannot tell what change it promises.
Can an objective extend beyond the program year?
Yes, if it is labeled that way. Long-term outcomes such as fewer diagnoses often take years to show, and a proposal that ignores them can look as if it promises nothing important. State the timeframe honestly, name the data that would eventually test it, and make clear the first-year evaluation will not.
Where can I find a free HW425 Unit 3 sample paper?
This page holds a complete Unit 3 program objectives document with five testable objectives and decision rules for a grocery chain's prevention program, plus APA references.
Why does each objective need a decision rule?
A decision rule fixes in advance how the objective will be judged and who counts in the denominator, so results cannot be made to look better afterward by dropping participants who struggled.