| Course | HEP 456 Health Promotion Program Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Background and significance section |
| Length | About 439 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Arizona State University |
| Program | BS in Health Education and Health Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HEP 456 Module 1
Arthritis and Inactivity Among Older Adults in Maricopa County: Background and Significance for the Walk With Ease Mesa Evaluation
Student Name
BS in Health Education and Health Promotion, Arizona State University
HEP 456: Health Promotion Program Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Arthritis and Inactivity Among Older Adults in Maricopa County: Background and Significance for the Walk With Ease Mesa Evaluation
The Health Problem
Arthritis covers about 100 conditions affecting the joints and surrounding tissues and is a leading cause of activity limitation, disability and chronic pain in the United States (Fallon et al., 2023). The program addresses arthritis among adults aged 55 and older together with the physical inactivity that often follows it, since joint pain discourages movement and lack of movement worsens stiffness, strength and mood.
Magnitude Nationally
National survey data for 2019 through 2021 put diagnosed arthritis at 21.2% of adults, roughly 53.2 million people (Fallon et al., 2023), and nearly nine in ten of them were 45 or older.
Magnitude in Maricopa County
In the 2025 PLACES release, which models 2023 survey data, 23.5% of Maricopa County adults reported arthritis, and 20.4% said they had done no physical activity outside work during the previous month (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2025). Because the county has a large and growing population of retirees, the number of residents living with arthritis is likely to rise.
| Measure | Maricopa County, 2023 | 95% CI |
|---|---|---|
| Arthritis, crude | 23.5% | 21.7 to 25.4 |
| No leisure-time physical activity | 20.4% | 17.7 to 23.4 |
| Any disability | 29.2% | 26.2 to 32.4 |
| Mobility disability | 12.5% | 10.9 to 14.4 |
Groups Most Affected
Nationally, age-standardized arthritis prevalence was higher among women than men, among veterans than nonveterans and among non-Hispanic White adults than Hispanic or Asian adults (Fallon et al., 2023). Arthritis is especially common among adults who also have heart disease, diabetes or a disability, so many older Maricopa residents carry it alongside other chronic conditions.
Consequences
People with arthritis report more pain, poorer function and more work and activity limitations. Inactivity compounds these effects and raises the risk of heart disease, diabetes and falls. The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans advise adults with chronic conditions, including arthritis, to stay as active as their condition permits, aiming for 150 or more minutes of moderate-intensity activity weekly (Piercy et al., 2018).
Why a Walking Program Fits
Walking needs no equipment, can be adjusted to joint pain and can be done in groups or alone. In an observational evaluation of the Arthritis Foundation's six-week Walk With Ease program, 462 adults with arthritis improved on pain, fatigue, stiffness, strength, balance and walking pace, with no adverse events (Callahan et al., 2011). That evidence makes Walk With Ease Mesa a reasonable program to evaluate locally.
Sources Used for This Form
The earlier student's plan supplied the program description; the prevalence figures, consequences and evidence above were checked against the current sources listed below.
References
Callahan, L. F., Shreffler, J. H., Altpeter, M., Schoster, B., Hootman, J., Houenou, L. O., Martin, K. R., & Schwartz, T. A. (2011). Evaluation of group and self-directed formats of the Arthritis Foundation's Walk With Ease Program. Arthritis Care & Research, 63(8), 1098-1107. https://doi.org/10.1002/acr.20490
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2025). PLACES: Local data for better health, county data, 2025 release [Data set]. https://data.cdc.gov/500-Cities-Places/PLACES-Local-Data-for-Better-Health-County-Data-20/swc5-untb
Fallon, E. A., Boring, M. A., Foster, A. L., Stowe, E. W., Lites, T. D., Odom, E. L., & Seth, P. (2023). Prevalence of diagnosed arthritis: United States, 2019-2021. MMWR. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 72(41), 1101-1107. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7241a1
Piercy, K. L., Troiano, R. P., Ballard, R. M., Carlson, S. A., Fulton, J. E., Galuska, D. A., George, S. M., & Olson, R. D. (2018). The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans. JAMA, 320(19), 2020-2028. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.14854
Reading the HEP 456 Module 1 assignment instructions
Module 1 in HEP 456 starts the Program Evaluation Plan with Section 4, the background and significance of the health problem, worth 24 points with a separate 10-point quiz. You complete the summary form in Module 1 for the program you chose from the instructor's list, drawing first on the earlier student's plan and filling any gaps from public sources. The form is shared with your student partner, so it should let someone with no background understand the problem quickly. The course's AI policy allows tools for clarifying concepts or finding sources but not for writing content you submit, so the answers must be your own. Think of this section as the briefing an evaluator would want on day one of a contract: the nature of the problem, its size, the people it affects and why this program could reasonably help.
Inside the HEP 456 Module 1 example
The sample defines the health problem in two sentences and states the population. National and county magnitude sections give figures with years and sources, and a small table shows Maricopa County estimates with confidence intervals. A section on groups affected uses national disparities data, a consequences section links arthritis to activity guidelines, and a section on fit cites an evaluation of the program model. A closing note states where the information came from. Because the evaluator did not design the program, the sample keeps opinions out and lets the data and studies carry the argument. Each heading answers one question from the summary form, which makes grading easy.
Where the marks sit in the HEP 456 Module 1 rubric
Section 4 is worth 24 points. Readers check that each question on the summary form is answered, that magnitude is given at national and local levels with sources, that affected groups and consequences are described and that the problem is clearly the one the program addresses. Marks drop when figures lack years or sources, when the student copies the earlier plan without checking it, when local data are missing and when the section drifts into the evaluation design that belongs to later modules. Instructors also notice whether the local data match the program's actual setting; a county figure for a city program is acceptable when the student says so and explains why it is the closest available.
HEP 456 Module 1 help from the desk
Read the earlier student's plan first and list what it already answers. Check every figure it uses against a current source. Add county data from a public data set. Keep the section focused on the problem, not the program. Write for your partner, who has never seen the program. Save your sources; the final plan needs a full reference list. If your program's problem is hard to measure locally, the desk can suggest public data sets. When the earlier plan uses an old statistic, replace it with the newest release and note the change for your partner. Prefer government data sets and peer-reviewed reports over news stories.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Arizona State University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More HEP 456 and BS in Health Education and Health Promotion sample papers
- HEP 456 Module 2: Section 5: Introduction to the Program
- HEP 456 Module 3: Section 6: Stakeholders, Evaluation Objectives and Questions
- HEP 456 Module 4: Section 7: Participant Recruitment, Consent Form and Consent Process
- HEP 456 Module 5: Sections 8 and 9: Evaluation Design and Pre-Post Survey
- HEP 456 Module 6: Sections 10 and 11: Evaluation Timeline and Communication Plan
- HEP 456 Module 7: Final Program Evaluation Plan
- HEP 386 Module 4: Module 4 Assignment: Literature Review First Draft
- HEP 251 Module 5: Harm Reduction Program Rationale: A Mobile Outreach Van for West Phoenix
- HEP 454 Module 4: Assignment 4: Intervention Design
- HEP 466 Module 3: Module 3 Artifact: Program Budget Presentation
HEP 456 Module 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HEP 456 Module 1 sample paper?
The full Section 4 background on arthritis and inactivity for a walking program evaluation is on this page.
What does Section 4 of the HEP 456 evaluation plan cover?
The background and significance of the health problem the program addresses, answered on the Module 1 summary form.
Do I write about my own program in HEP 456?
No; you evaluate a program chosen from the instructor's list, built from an earlier student's plan.
How common is arthritis in the United States?
About 21.2% of adults, 53.2 million people, reported diagnosed arthritis from 2019 to 2021.
Can I use AI on the HEP 456 summary form?
The syllabus allows AI for clarifying concepts and finding sources, not for writing the content you submit.