| Course | MPH 505 Public Health Education and Program Oversight |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Health education materials paper |
| Length | About 1,031 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 505 Module 5
Words That Work: Designing Health Education Materials for Adults With Prediabetes
Student Name
Master of Public Health Program, Aspen University
MPH 505: Public Health Education and Program Oversight
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Words That Work: Designing Health Education Materials for Adults With Prediabetes
Health education succeeds only when people can understand and use what they receive. Materials written at a high reading level, crowded with terms or poorly matched to a community's culture leave many people behind. This paper describes how the county's diabetes prevention program designed its materials for Spanish-speaking adults with prediabetes, drawing on national health literacy evidence, plain language principles and a universal precautions approach.
The Literacy Challenge
When the federal education department last measured health literacy nationally, in 2003, more than a third of adults scored in the two lowest of its four levels, where following dosing directions or making sense of a short leaflet becomes difficult. Hispanic adults posted the lowest average scores of any group, and those who grew up speaking only Spanish before they started school fared worst of all (Kutner et al., 2006).
Universal Precautions
Because it is impossible to tell who has limited health literacy by looking, the program treats every participant as if they might. The universal precautions toolkit from the federal health quality agency recommends clear spoken and written communication, teach-back to confirm understanding, and making materials and settings easy to navigate for everyone (Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2024).
Plain Language Principles
The federal plain language guidelines tell writers to picture their audience, lead with the point that matters most, prefer everyday words and the active voice, keep sentences brief and split long text into chunks under helpful headings (Plain Language Action and Information Network, 2011). The same principles apply in Spanish, where materials must be written originally or carefully adapted rather than literally translated.
The Materials Plan
The team planned five materials, summarized in the table.
| Material | Purpose | Format | Reading target |
|---|---|---|---|
| Risk test card | Invite screening at church and community events | Wallet card, 7 yes/no questions | Grade 5 |
| Session handouts | Reinforce each class topic | One page, pictures, 3 key points | Grade 6 |
| Healthy plate guide | Show portions with familiar foods | Laminated placemat with photos | Mostly images |
| Radio scripts | Raise awareness and prompt screening | 60-second segments with a promotora | Spoken, conversational |
| Text reminders | Prompt attendance and activity | Short weekly messages | Grade 4 |
Writing in Spanish
A bilingual health educator wrote the materials in Spanish first, using everyday words common in the local community rather than formal or regional terms. For example, the handouts use the local word for sweetened fruit drinks and avoid medical terms such as glucemia in favor of azúcar en la sangre. An English version was then written for family members who prefer English.
Visuals and Layout
Photos show local residents cooking and walking, taken with permission at community events. The plate guide uses photos of real portions of rice, beans and tortillas. Each handout has large type, plenty of white space and no more than three key points. Numbers are kept simple, such as a single step count rather than several goals at once.
Readability Checks
Readability formulas were used as a rough guide, aiming for about a sixth-grade level, but the team did not rely on formulas alone because they miss unfamiliar words and confusing layouts. A health literacy checklist covering content, layout, visuals and cultural fit was applied to every item.
Pretesting With the Community
Twelve residents, recruited through promotoras, reviewed drafts in two small groups. They were asked to explain each handout in their own words and to say what they would do after reading it. Several changes followed: a picture of a salad was replaced with a picture of a familiar vegetable soup, a risk card question about body mass index was replaced with a question about waist size, and the word 'prediabetes' was paired with a plain explanation everywhere it appeared.
Teach-Back in Sessions
Lifestyle coaches will close each session by asking participants to explain one key point in their own words, such as how to fill half the plate with vegetables. When participants cannot explain, the coach re-teaches using a different example. Teach-back checks the coach's clarity, not the participant's intelligence, and is framed that way.
Cultural Fit
Materials frame healthy eating as a way to keep enjoying traditional meals with small changes, not as giving up family foods. Messages emphasize protecting one's family and staying able to work, values residents named in focus groups. Faith leaders reviewed the radio scripts and suggested connecting health to caring for the body as a gift.
Numbers and Risk
Numeracy is part of health literacy, and many adults find percentages and risk statistics confusing. Materials therefore avoid percentages where possible and use natural frequencies and pictures instead. For example, instead of saying that lifestyle change lowers risk by more than half, the handout shows that for every ten people like the reader who would develop diabetes, fewer than five do if they take part in the program.
Digital Channels
Most participants have mobile phones, but data plans and comfort with apps vary. The program chose text messages rather than an app because texts work on any phone and need no download. Messages are short, use no links and come from a local number that participants can reply to. A pilot of weekly texts found that participants liked receiving reminders on the morning of class.
Evaluating Materials
The program will evaluate materials as well as the program. Coaches will record questions participants ask repeatedly, which may point to unclear handouts. At the end of each cohort, participants will rate each material for how easy it was to use. Materials that score poorly will be revised before the next cohort, so the set improves over time.
Accessibility
Materials also serve participants with low vision or limited reading ability. Handouts use at least 14-point type and high contrast, and key messages are available as short audio recordings that coaches can send by text. The plate guide works without any reading at all.
Conclusion
Materials for this program were designed around real literacy levels, written in everyday Spanish, built on plain language and universal precautions, tested with residents and revised based on what they said. The result is a set of tools that participants can understand, remember and use, which is the whole purpose of health education.
References
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. (2024). AHRQ health literacy universal precautions toolkit (3rd ed.). https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/improve/precautions/index.html
Kutner, M., Greenberg, E., Jin, Y., & Paulsen, C. (2006). The health literacy of America's adults: Results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf
Plain Language Action and Information Network. (2011). Federal plain language guidelines. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/
What the MPH 505 Module 5 instructions ask for
Health education is at the heart of MPH 505, and since Aspen reserves this module's wording for the classroom, this example focuses on creating materials a priority population can understand and use. Materials assignments often ask you to design or critique health education materials, justify their format and reading level, and describe how you would test them. Confirm whether you must produce the actual materials as an appendix or only describe them. Use health literacy evidence to justify choices. Write for the audience's language and culture from the start rather than translating at the end. Plan pretesting with real members of the population and say what you would change based on their responses.
Inside the MPH 505 Module 5 example
About 1,000 words are spread across fifteen headings in this sample, with a four-column materials plan table. It opens with the literacy challenge, universal precautions and plain language, then tables five materials. Sections on writing in Spanish, visuals and layout, readability checks, pretesting with residents, teach-back and cultural fit follow, together with numbers and risk, digital channels, evaluating materials and accessibility. The note alongside the literacy section explains that national data justify every later design choice. The conclusion restates that materials were built around real literacy levels, tested with residents and revised, which is the point of health education. Changes made after pretesting are described one by one so a reader can see what residents actually found confusing.
Where the marks sit in the MPH 505 Module 5 rubric
Materials papers are commonly assessed on use of health literacy evidence, appropriateness for the audience, clear design principles, a pretesting plan and cultural fit. This sample cites the national adult literacy assessment, the federal quality agency's universal precautions toolkit and the federal plain language guidelines in APA format. The materials table sets reading targets for each item. Pretesting is described with specific changes made, which shows the process was real. Sections on numeracy and accessibility go beyond reading level. Graders reward papers that treat materials as tools to be tested and improved rather than finished products. Specific examples of revised wording, rather than general claims of clarity, earn the most credit here.
MPH 505 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
A common mistake is aiming only for a low reading level score and ignoring layout, images, numbers and cultural meaning. Another is translating English materials word for word. Some papers skip pretesting or describe it without any resulting changes. Show at least one example of wording before and after revision. Explain how teach-back will be used. If you would like feedback on a draft handout, a tutor can review it against a health literacy checklist and suggest plain alternatives for technical terms. Close by saying how you will know whether the materials helped people act. Ask a friend outside health care to read your draft; if they stumble, so will your audience.
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 MPH 505 and Master of Public Health sample papers
- MPH 505 Module 1: Community Needs Assessment
- MPH 505 Module 2: Planning Models and Behavior Theory
- MPH 505 Module 3: Goals, Objectives and Logic Model
- MPH 505 Module 4: Selecting an Evidence-Based Intervention
- MPH 505 Module 6: Program Implementation Plan
- MPH 505 Module 7: Program Evaluation Plan
- MPH 505 Module 8: Final Program Proposal
- MPH 540 Module 6: Public-Private Health Partnerships
- MPH 520 Module 3: Incident Command and Mass Casualties
- MPH 570 Module 4: Public Health Data Sources
- MPH 503 Module 6: Individual Liberty Versus the Common Good
MPH 505 Module 5 questions, answered
What does MPH 505 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's MPH 505 covers developing a public health education program, so designing materials for a priority population is a typical assignment. Check the prompt in your classroom.
What is a universal precautions approach to health literacy?
Communicating clearly with everyone, rather than trying to identify who has limited health literacy, and confirming understanding with methods such as teach-back.
Why pretest health education materials?
Pretesting with members of the priority population reveals confusing words, images and messages before materials are produced.
Where can I find a free MPH 505 Module 5 sample paper?
Above, in full, with a plan for five materials, reading targets for each and the changes residents asked for during pretesting.
How do you design health education materials in MPH 505 Module 5?
Start from the audience's literacy, language and culture, use plain language and clear visuals, set reading targets, pretest with community members and revise based on what they say.