| Course | DPH 820 Public Health Policy and Advocacy |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Issue framing paper |
| Length | About 1,118 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 820 Module 4
Who Is Responsible? Framing Flavored Tobacco as an Industry Practice, Not a Personal Choice
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 820: Public Health Policy and Advocacy
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Is Responsible? Framing Flavored Tobacco as an Industry Practice, Not a Personal Choice
The same facts can support opposite conclusions depending on how they are framed. If flavored tobacco is framed as a personal choice, the answer is education. If it is framed as an industry practice designed to attract young people, the answer is policy. This paper builds that frame for a composite city's flavor campaign and drafts messages for policymakers, reporters and residents.
Why Framing Matters
Frames are the mental structures that help people interpret information. Dorfman et al. (2005) argue that public health advocates often lose by presenting individual stories that invite blame, and they urge advocates to shift attention from the person to the environment and the practices of corporations that shape it.
Close-Ups and Wide Shots
News stories often frame health as a portrait: one person's experience, which invites viewers to ask what that person did wrong. A wide-angle frame pulls back to show the conditions around the person, such as candy-flavored products displayed at eye level near schools. The campaign will use personal stories only when they are placed inside that wider scene.
The Opposition's Frames
Opponents will use three frames: adult freedom, small business survival and prohibition failure. Each has appeal. The campaign will not ignore them. It will acknowledge adult choice while noting that the ordinance targets products used overwhelmingly to start young people, cite evidence on retail outcomes and distinguish a sales restriction from criminalizing users.
The Campaign's Frames
The table sets out the frames the campaign will use, with a core message, messenger and supporting evidence for each.
| Frame | Core message | Messenger | Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protecting kids | Flavors are how kids start | Pediatricians and parents | About 81% of youth users began with a flavored product |
| Industry targeting | Companies design flavors and place them where kids shop | Youth advisory board | Retail density near schools |
| Fairness | Every neighborhood deserves the same protection | Faith and civil rights leaders | Menthol marketing history |
| It works | Cities that restricted flavors saw fewer youth start | Health officer | New York City evaluation |
Protecting Kids
The strongest frame is protection of children. Among US youth who had used tobacco, about 81% said their first product was flavored (Ambrose et al., 2015). The message, flavors are how kids start, is short, true and backed by national data. Pediatricians and parents are trusted messengers who carry it without seeming to attack adults.
Industry Targeting
Shifting attention from users to sellers is the heart of a wide-angle frame. Young people on the advisory board will photograph displays near schools and describe products with names like cotton candy and blue raspberry. The message places responsibility on those who design and market the products rather than on the teenagers who buy them.
Fairness and Equity
For decades menthol products were marketed heavily in Black neighborhoods. A fairness frame argues that all neighborhoods deserve the same protection, and that exempting menthol would preserve an inequity. Faith and civil rights leaders will lead this message, since they speak from within the communities most affected.
Evidence That It Works
Council members want to know that a policy will achieve its goal. New York City's restriction was followed by fewer young people reporting they had ever tried flavored products or any tobacco (Farley & Johns, 2017). Evidence that a partial national ban led some youth to menthol (Courtemanche et al., 2017) supports including all flavors and product types.
Values Before Facts
Research on persuasion suggests that audiences accept facts more readily when they first hear a value they share. Messages will open with shared values such as protecting children, fairness and local control, then offer one or two facts, then state the solution. Long lists of statistics will be kept for written briefs.
Testing Messages
Messages will be tested in four small group sessions with parents, youth, retailers and older adults. Participants will react to each frame and suggest wording. In the composite test, the protecting kids frame drew the broadest support, while the industry targeting frame energized youth but made some older adults uneasy about seeming anti-business. The final wording therefore leads with protecting kids and keeps the industry frame for youth-led channels.
Avoiding Stigma
Framing must avoid portraying young people who vape, or neighborhoods with many retailers, as problems. Messages will describe products and marketing, not users. Images will show displays and advertising rather than young people vaping, and cessation support will be offered without blame.
Working With Reporters
Reporters need timely local data, a clear story and accessible spokespeople. The campaign will offer a one-page fact sheet, a retailer map and interviews with a pediatrician, a parent and a youth leader. Responding within hours when opponents make claims keeps the campaign's frame in the story.
Frames for Different Audiences
The same ordinance needs different entry points. Council members respond to local data and evidence of effect. Parents respond to protecting children. Faith and civil rights audiences respond to fairness. Retailers respond to clarity and time to adjust. The core frame stays the same, but the first sentence changes with the audience.
Language to Avoid
Some words weaken the frame. Calling the ordinance a ban invites the prohibition counterframe; describing it as ending the sale of candy-flavored products keeps attention on the product. Calling young people addicts stigmatizes them; describing them as targets of marketing keeps attention on the industry. The campaign's style sheet lists preferred and avoided terms.
Responding to Counterframes
When opponents argue that adults deserve choice, the response acknowledges adults and redirects: adults can still buy tobacco, but the city can stop selling products designed to hook kids. When they argue that bans fail, the response points to local evaluation showing lower youth use after a sales restriction. Short, rehearsed replies keep spokespeople on message.
Visual Framing
Images carry frames as strongly as words. Photos of brightly colored vape displays beside candy at checkout counters make the industry targeting frame visible without a single statistic. The youth board will collect such images from stores in each council district, giving members pictures from their own neighborhoods.
Evaluating the Frame
Framing success will be judged by whether news stories use the campaign's language, whether council members repeat its core message and whether opponents are forced to respond on the campaign's terms. A simple content review of local coverage every two weeks will track these signs.
Conclusion
The campaign will frame flavored tobacco as an industry practice that targets young people and deepens inequity, not as a question of personal choice. Protecting kids, industry targeting, fairness and evidence of effect form the core frames, each with a message, messenger and evidence. Tested and carefully worded, these frames prepare the ground for the ask that follows.
References
Ambrose, B. K., Day, H. R., Rostron, B., Conway, K. P., Borek, N., Hyland, A., & Villanti, A. C. (2015). Flavored tobacco product use among US youth aged 12-17 years, 2013-2014. JAMA, 314(17), 1871-1873. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.13802
Courtemanche, C. J., Palmer, M. K., & Pesko, M. F. (2017). Influence of the flavored cigarette ban on adolescent tobacco use. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 52(5), e139-e146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2016.11.019
Dorfman, L., Wallack, L., & Woodruff, K. (2005). More than a message: Framing public health advocacy to change corporate practices. Health Education & Behavior, 32(3), 320-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198105275046
Farley, S. M., & Johns, M. (2017). New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tobacco Control, 26(1), 78-84. https://doi.org/10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2015-052418
What the DPH 820 Module 4 instructions ask for
Aspen lists advocacy aimed at policymakers in its DPH 820 description, and as the fourth module's text is limited to people in the course, this example works through framing an issue. Framing papers typically ask you to explain framing theory, analyze how opponents frame the issue, develop your own frames and messages and show how you would test them. Start with the frame before the words. Anticipate counterframes and prepare replies. Match each message to a trusted messenger. Tie every message to evidence. Test messages with the people you want to reach. Avoid stigmatizing the people most affected. Keep a short list of words your campaign will not use.
Inside the DPH 820 Module 4 example
Framing theory opens the example, followed by close-up and wide-angle frames and the opposition's likely frames. A four-column table then sets out the campaign's frames with message, messenger and evidence. Each frame is developed under its own heading, followed by values before facts, message testing, avoiding stigma and working with reporters. Frames for different audiences, language to avoid, responding to counterframes, visual framing and evaluating the frame come next. A margin comment explains why the choice of frame comes before the choice of words. The conclusion ties the frames to the ask that follows. The table's four frames each receive their own heading, and the later sections show how the same frame opens differently for council members, parents and faith audiences.
DPH 820 Module 4 rubric: what earns full marks
Framing papers are judged on sound use of framing concepts, fair treatment of opposing frames, messages grounded in evidence and a plan for testing. Dorfman, Wallack and Woodruff's work on framing anchors the reference list, which also includes national youth tobacco data, the New York City evaluation and research on menthol substitution, all in APA style. The frames table links every message to a messenger and a source. Counterframes are answered rather than ignored. Stigma is addressed directly. A plan to track news language shows the frame will be evaluated, which graders reward. A short style sheet of preferred and avoided terms shows the author has thought about language at the level of single words.
DPH 820 Module 4 help from the desk
Students often write slogans before deciding on a frame, or attack opponents instead of answering them. Some use images of young people vaping, which stigmatizes the very group they want to protect. Choose a frame that places responsibility where you want policy to act. Prepare short replies to each counterframe. Pick messengers your audience trusts. Test wording with real people. If you are stuck on messages, our tutors can help you draft three versions and choose the strongest. End with the one sentence you want every council member to remember. Read each message aloud, because words that trip your tongue will not stick in a listener's memory. Show drafts to someone outside public health before you finalize them.
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 Aspen 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 DPH 820 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 820 Module 1: Advocacy Roles in Public Health
- DPH 820 Module 2: The Right to Health as a Framework
- DPH 820 Module 3: Consumer Power and Community Voice
- DPH 820 Module 5: Stakeholders, Power and Politics
- DPH 820 Module 6: An Advocacy Plan With Target and Ask
- DPH 820 Module 7: Testimony to a City Council
- DPH 820 Module 8: Funding and Sustaining a Policy
- DPH 850 Module 5: Implementation and Change Management
- DPH 860 Module 8: Chapter 3 of the Project Manuscript
- DPH 801 Module 4: Community Models and Diffusion
- DPH 810 Module 1: Epidemiological Question and Hypothesis
DPH 820 Module 4 questions, answered
What does DPH 820 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 820 covers advocacy to affect policy, and framing a public health issue is a typical assignment. Confirm with your classroom prompt.
What is a wide-angle frame?
A frame that shows the conditions and practices around individuals rather than focusing on individual behavior.
Who makes a good messenger?
Someone the audience trusts and who speaks from experience, such as a pediatrician, parent or youth leader.
Where can I find a free DPH 820 Module 4 sample paper?
This page carries the issue framing paper and its table of frames, messages, messengers and evidence.
How do you frame a public health issue in DPH 820 Module 4?
Shift attention from individual behavior to the conditions and practices around it, pair each message with a trusted messenger and evidence, and test the wording.