| Course | HEP 456 Health Promotion Program Evaluation |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 6 |
| Paper type | Evaluation timeline and communication plan |
| Length | About 516 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 6
Timing and Telling: The Evaluation Timeline and Communication Plan for Walk With Ease Mesa
Student Name
BS in Health Education and Health Promotion, Arizona State University
HEP 456: Health Promotion Program Evaluation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Timing and Telling: The Evaluation Timeline and Communication Plan for Walk With Ease Mesa
10. Evaluation Timeline
The template's Gantt bars are shown here as the months each activity runs. Program cohorts start every six weeks from January to November 2027.
Key dependencies: no survey can start until the IRB decision and consent materials are final, and analysis begins only after the last cohort's posttest in late November.
| Activity | Months active | Lead |
|---|---|---|
| Stakeholder meetings | November 2026, January 2027, July 2027, January 2028 | Evaluator |
| CITI training for data collectors | November 2026 | Evaluator |
| IRB submission and review | November to December 2026 | Evaluator and instructor |
| Survey pretest and Spanish translation | December 2026 | Evaluator and community health worker |
| Pretest and posttest surveys | January to November 2027 | Data collectors |
| Attendance logs and fidelity checks | January to November 2027 | Walk leaders and evaluator |
| Exit calls with dropouts | January to November 2027 | Evaluator |
| Interim process summary | June 2027 | Evaluator |
| Data cleaning and analysis | December 2027 to January 2028 | Evaluator |
| Final report and presentations | January to February 2028 | Evaluator and stakeholders |
11. Brief Communication Plan
Findings matter only when they reach decision makers in a form they can act on. The CDC's 2024 framework ends its six steps with acting on findings and asks evaluators to plan for use from the start (Kidder et al., 2024).
| Audience | What they need to know | Format | Messenger | When |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| City of Mesa parks and recreation leadership | Reach, cost per completer, change in walking and pain, recommendation to continue | Two-page brief and 15-minute presentation | Evaluator with center managers | February 2028 |
| Active adult center managers | Attendance by season, room and scheduling issues | Meeting and interim summary | Evaluator | June 2027 and February 2028 |
| Walk leaders | Fidelity results, reasons for dropout, what to change | Team huddle and one-page tip sheet | Program planner | June 2027 and February 2028 |
| Participants | What the group achieved together and what changes are coming | Large-print one-page summary in English and Spanish, read aloud at a reunion walk | Walk leaders and participant stakeholders | February 2028 |
| Referring clinicians | Who benefited and how to refer | Short email with a referral card | Primary care nurse stakeholder | February 2028 |
| Spanish-speaking older adults in Mesa | Program results and how to join | Spanish radio segment or church bulletin item | Community health worker | Spring 2028 |
Principles for the Messages
All products will lead with what was found and what will change, show numbers as simple percentages and avoid technical terms. Limitations of the one-group design will be stated plainly in the brief and the full report, and Mesa's results will be set beside the change reported in the program model's earlier multisite evaluation (Callahan et al., 2011) so leaders can judge whether they are typical. Each product will be framed around what its audience values, a lesson borrowed from social marketing (Grier & Bryant, 2005). Participants will see results before they appear in public materials, as respect for the people who gave their time.
Checking Use
Three months after the final report, the evaluator will ask the city and the center managers which recommendations they adopted, and the answer will be added to the program's records.
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
Grier, S., & Bryant, C. A. (2005). Social marketing in public health. Annual Review of Public Health, 26, 319-339. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.26.021304.144610
Kidder, D. P., Fierro, L. A., Luna, E., Salvaggio, H., McWhorter, A., Bowen, S.-A., Murphy-Hoefer, R., Thigpen, S., Alexander, D., Armstead, T. L., August, E., Bruce, D., Clarke, S. N., Davis, C., Downes, A., Gill, S., House, L. D., Kerzner, M., Kun, K., . . . Young, K. (2024). CDC program evaluation framework, 2024. MMWR. Recommendations and Reports, 73(6), 1-37. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7306a1
Reading the HEP 456 Module 6 assignment instructions
Module 6 in HEP 456 produces Sections 10 and 11 of the Program Evaluation Plan as two documents. Section 10, worth 20 points, is a timeline of the evaluation on the course's Gantt chart template, covering every activity from preparation through reporting. Section 11, worth 28 points, is a brief communication plan describing who will receive the findings, what each audience needs, in what format, from whom and when. Both go to your partner for review. Build the timeline from the activities already in Sections 6 through 9 so nothing appears that the plan has not described. A realistic timeline also leaves room for slow IRB decisions and holidays, and a good communication plan reaches people beyond the funder, including the participants who supplied the data.
How this HEP 456 Module 6 example is built
The sample's timeline table marks each activity by month across fifteen months, from training and IRB review through surveys, analysis and reporting, and a note names the two key dependencies. The communication plan opens with the reason for planning use early, then gives a table of six audiences with needs, formats, messengers and timing. Short sections set principles for the messages and a way to check whether recommendations were adopted. Each row of the timeline names who leads the activity, and the communication table assigns a trusted messenger to each audience, including participants and the Spanish-speaking community rather than only the city.
HEP 456 Module 6 rubric: what earns full marks
Section 10 earns 20 points and Section 11 earns 28. Readers check that the timeline includes preparation, data collection, analysis and reporting in a realistic order and that it matches the program's schedule. For the communication plan they look for several distinct audiences, messages tailored to each, appropriate formats and messengers and attention to participants and the community, not only funders. Marks drop when timelines skip IRB review or analysis and when communication plans list one report for everyone. Strong communication plans also include a step to check whether findings were used, and strong timelines show realistic time for IRB review and analysis rather than squeezing both into a single month.
HEP 456 Module 6 help: mistakes that cost marks
Work backward from the date your final report is due. Put IRB review and survey pretesting before any data collection. Add an interim check so problems can be fixed. For communication, list everyone who can act on findings and ask what each would want to know. Choose messengers your audiences trust. Include participants. If your Gantt chart feels crowded, the desk can help group activities. Check your timeline against the program's real start dates. For each audience, write one sentence they should remember. Plan products that fit the audience's reading habits, such as large print for older adults. Keep each product short enough to read in one sitting.
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 1: Section 4: Background and Significance of the Health Problem
- 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 7: Final Program Evaluation Plan
- HEP 454 Module 3: Assignment 3: Mission, Goals and Objectives
- HEP 452 Module 6: Module 6 Assignment: Policy Brief Final Draft
- HEP 386 Module 3: Module 3 Assignment: Literature Review Data Collection
- HEP 251 Module 5: Harm Reduction Program Rationale: A Mobile Outreach Van for West Phoenix
HEP 456 Module 6 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HEP 456 Module 6 sample paper?
Both sections, a month-by-month timeline and a six-audience communication plan, appear in full here.
What goes on the HEP 456 Gantt chart?
Every evaluation activity by month, from training and IRB review through data collection, analysis and reporting.
What should a brief communication plan include?
Audiences, what each needs to know, formats, messengers and timing.
Should participants receive evaluation results?
Yes; a plain summary for participants respects their contribution and supports use.
How many points are Sections 10 and 11 worth?
Section 10 is worth 20 points and Section 11 is worth 28.