| Course | NR 394 Transcultural Nursing |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Health promotion plan |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | RN-to-BSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NR 394 Week 7
Talking About the Measles Vaccine Where Mothers Already Meet: A Health Promotion Plan for a Somali Women's Group
Student Name
College of Nursing, Chamberlain University
NR 394: Transcultural Nursing
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Talking About the Measles Vaccine Where Mothers Already Meet: A Health Promotion Plan for a Somali Women's Group
The Target
The target of this plan is the Somali mothers of children under two who attend a weekly women's group held at a community center next to a mosque in south Minneapolis. The group meets on Wednesday mornings, usually with 20 to 30 women, many with young children, and is run by a Somali community health worker employed by a local clinic. The plan's single goal is that children of mothers in the group get the combined measles vaccine, the MMR, for the first time between 12 and 15 months of age, as the national childhood schedule recommends (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2024), and their second dose on schedule. The target was chosen because the cultural group analysis showed that coverage with the first dose among Somali children in the county fell to 35.6 percent in 2014 and that an outbreak followed in 2017 (Hall et al., 2017), and because mothers are the family members most often responsible for children's clinic visits.
Findings the Plan Rests On
Finding 1: Fear that the vaccine causes autism spread through personal networks and was reinforced by visiting vaccine opponents (Hall et al., 2017).
Finding 2: Information carried by trusted community members is more persuasive than written material from clinics.
Finding 3: Many women prefer to discuss health with women and in their own language.
Finding 4: Somali women in Minnesota have described worries they did not raise with clinicians and expectations that differed from those of the health care system (Pavlish et al., 2010).
Finding 5: Health decisions about children are often made with husbands and extended family.
Interventions, Each Tied to a Finding
Intervention 1, a listening session before any teaching (Findings 1 and 4): At the first Wednesday meeting, the community health worker and a Somali-speaking nurse ask the mothers what they have heard about the measles vaccine and what worries them, and write the questions down without answering yet. Owner: community health worker. When: first meeting, 30 minutes. Why it fits: mothers whose worries are heard first are more likely to hear information later; the session also tells the team which fears are most common in this group.
Intervention 2, answering the questions the mothers asked (Findings 1 and 2): At the second meeting, a Somali-speaking pediatric nurse answers the questions from the first session, one by one, including the autism question, explaining in plain terms that large studies have not found a link and describing what measles itself does to young children. Owner: clinic nurse. When: second meeting, 40 minutes. Why it fits: the answers respond to this group's own questions rather than to a generic script.
Intervention 3, a trusted voice (Finding 2): At the third meeting, a respected Somali mother who vaccinated her own children and, with his agreement, the imam of the adjacent mosque speak briefly about their decisions. Owner: community health worker, who invites them. When: third meeting, 20 minutes. Why it fits: the community's own networks carried the fear and can carry reassurance.
Intervention 4, bringing the family in (Finding 5): Mothers receive a short Somali-language audio message, recorded by the pediatric nurse, that they can share with husbands and relatives on their phones. Owner: clinic nurse. When: after the third meeting. Why it fits: decisions are often shared, and many families prefer spoken to written information.
Intervention 5, making the visit easy (all findings): Mothers who decide to vaccinate can book a clinic appointment on the spot with the community health worker, at a clinic with Somali-speaking female staff, with bus fare provided. Owner: community health worker. When: at every meeting. Why it fits: intention fades if the next step is hard.
What the Plan Does Not Do
The plan does not lecture, distribute pamphlets as its main method, or treat mothers' concerns as ignorance. It also does not set a target for every mother to vaccinate. Some will decide not to, and the plan respects that decision while keeping the door open: the community health worker will offer to revisit the question at later meetings and will make sure unvaccinated families know the signs of measles and whom to call. Pressure from outsiders has historically increased mistrust in this community, and a plan that produced fewer vaccinations but more trust would still be worth running again.
Preparing the Team
The plan depends on the people delivering it more than on its content. Before the first meeting, the clinic nurse and the community health worker will meet for an hour to agree on three things. First, how to respond when a mother repeats a claim the nurse knows to be false: by thanking her for raising it, explaining what the evidence shows in plain words, and never implying that she was foolish to worry. Second, how to handle questions they cannot answer on the spot, which is to write them down and bring the answer to the next meeting rather than guess. Third, what they will not do, which includes collecting names of families who decline and discussing individual children's vaccination status in front of the group. The community health worker knows the group and will lead; the nurse's role is to answer clinical questions when asked. Both will wear ordinary clothes rather than clinic uniforms, at the suggestion of the group's organizer, so that the sessions feel like part of the group's usual meeting rather than a clinic visit.
Evaluation
The plan will be evaluated with counts the clinic and the group already have. The primary measure is the number of children under two of mothers attending the group who receive a first dose of the vaccine within three months of the sessions, taken from the state immunization information system with parental consent, compared with the number in the three months before. A secondary measure is the number of appointments booked through the community health worker at the meetings. A third, qualitative, measure is what mothers say at the listening session repeated three months later: whether their questions have changed. The plan will be repeated with the next group of mothers if at least some families who had been undecided choose to vaccinate and if mothers report that the sessions felt respectful.
References
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Child and adolescent immunization schedule by age: Recommendations for ages 18 years or younger, United States. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/imz-schedules/child-adolescent-age.html
Hall, V., Banerjee, E., Kenyon, C., Strain, A., Griffith, J., Como-Sabetti, K., Heath, J., Bahta, L., Martin, K., McMahon, M., Johnson, D., Roddy, M., Dunn, D., & Ehresmann, K. (2017). Measles outbreak: Minnesota April-May 2017. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 66(27), 713-717. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6627a1
Pavlish, C. L., Noor, S., & Brandt, J. (2010). Somali immigrant women and the American health care system: Discordant beliefs, divergent expectations, and silent worries. Social Science & Medicine, 71(2), 353-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2010.04.010
The Chamberlain NR 394 Week 7 instructions
In Week 7 the group you studied becomes the audience for a culturally appropriate health promotion plan. The checklist generally covers a target population and setting, the health issue, cultural findings that shape the plan, interventions with rationale, the people and resources involved, evaluation and APA references. Choose one narrow group in one setting and justify it with figures. List the findings the plan rests on. Tie every intervention to at least one finding, with an owner, a time and a place. Start by listening, not teaching. Say what the plan deliberately avoids. Prepare the people who will deliver it. Evaluate with counts that already exist.
Inside the NR 394 Week 7 example
The target section describes the Wednesday morning women's group and links it to falling vaccine coverage. Five findings follow, including fear of autism spread through networks, the persuasiveness of trusted community members and the role of husbands and extended family. Intervention 1 is a listening session led by a community health worker and a Somali-speaking nurse. Intervention 2 answers those questions one by one at the next meeting. Intervention 3 brings a mother who vaccinated and, with his agreement, the imam. Intervention 4 is a Somali-language audio message for families. Intervention 5 offers booking on the spot at a clinic with Somali-speaking female staff. The plan rejects lectures and targets, prepares the team and counts first doses.
NR 394 Week 7 rubric: what full points look like
Health promotion plan rubrics in NR 394 typically score the target population, use of cultural findings, culturally appropriate interventions, feasibility, collaboration with community members, evaluation and APA. The link between findings and interventions is weighted most, and the plan earns it by numbering each finding and citing it beside every intervention. Target definition is credited for one group in one setting with supporting figures. Cultural appropriateness scores through listening first, Somali-speaking female staff and trusted voices. Feasibility and collaboration earn points through named owners, times and the community health worker. Evaluation is met with first-dose counts the clinic already keeps. Hall and colleagues, Pavlish and colleagues and the CDC schedule support the plan.
NR 394 Week 7 help: mistakes that cost points
The heaviest deduction goes to a plan any nurse could have written without the assessment, with interventions that would suit anyone. Another loss is a target as broad as a whole community, which leaves nowhere specific for anything to happen. Students also rely on pamphlets, treat concerns as ignorance or set a goal of full compliance that ignores the mothers' right to decide. Plans with no one assigned to deliver them are hard to credit for feasibility. Three to five interventions are usually enough if each is tied to a finding. A presentation needs the same links visible on its slides. If your group and health issue differ, send your Week 6 findings and an NR 394 plan can be tied to them one by one.
Get a NR 394 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the instructions, the rubric, and whether your section wants a paper or a presentation. A custom NR 394 Week 7 example is written to that format and returned inside 24-48h, free the first time, complete with speaker notes if slides are what your classroom is asking you for.
More NR 394 papers and RN-to-BSN samples
- NR 394 Week 1: Cultural Misreading Discussion Post
- NR 394 Week 2: Cultural Competence Self-Assessment
- NR 394 Week 3: Cultural Assessment Interview Write-Up
- NR 394 Week 4: Blood Refusal Transcultural Case
- NR 394 Week 5: Doing the Month Culture Care Plan
- NR 394 Week 6: Somali American Group Analysis
- NR 394 Week 8: Reflection
- NR 395 Week 7: Professional Issue Analysis
- NR 393 Week 7: Mary Breckinridge Leader Profile
- NR 436 Week 7: Policy Brief
- NR 361 Week 7: Wound Measurement Informatics Proposal
NR 394 Week 7 questions, answered
Does the plan have to be feasible on a real unit?
Grades say yes even where the rubric is quiet about it. A plan requiring a full time interpreter on every shift and a new clinic room is one nobody reads twice. Constraints are worth naming inside the document, because a writer who states what is unavailable and then designs around it is demonstrating precisely the judgment this course sets out to build.
Is a presentation graded differently from a paper?
The content standard is identical and the delivery is not. Slides carry headings, one finding with its intervention, and an image where it helps; the notes carry reasoning, citations and the fit argument. Sections asking for recorded audio grade the spoken version as well, so those notes end up closer to a script than to a set of reminders.
How many interventions are enough?
Three or four done properly beat eight listed. Each needs a finding, an owner, a fit argument, a barrier and a measure, which is roughly a page of genuine work, so a plan with eight thin entries shows less than one with three complete ones. Where a count is specified, meet it and take the depth out of nothing else.
Where can I find a free NR 394 Week 7 sample paper?
The complete Week 7 plan for Somali mothers at a women's group, with the target, five findings, five linked interventions, what the plan avoids, team preparation, evaluation and three references, can be read on this page.
Why does the NR 394 Week 7 plan start with a listening session?
Because fears about the vaccine spread through personal networks and women had worries they did not raise with clinicians, so hearing their questions first lets the next session answer them directly.