The page carries a finished NUR 350 Module 6 program plan for a smoke-free housing policy with cessation support, including problem statement, evidence, SMART objectives, activities, a timeline table, an evaluation plan, ethical considerations and references. Searches like "nur 350 module 6 assignment", "nur350 module 6 program plan" and "nur 350 module 6 example" land here.
The NUR 350 Module 6 example, in full
Clearing the Hallways: A Program Plan for a Smoke-Free Policy With Cessation Support in an Affordable Housing Complex
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
NUR 350: Community and Population Health
Module Six Program Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Clearing the Hallways: A Program Plan for a Smoke-Free Policy With Cessation Support in an Affordable Housing Complex
Problem Statement
Maple Court is a composite privately owned affordable housing complex of three four-story buildings with 180 units, home to about 390 residents, including 110 children and 95 adults aged 62 or older. Because the owner does not receive public housing funding, it is not covered by the federal rule that requires public housing agencies to be smoke-free (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 2016). Smoking is allowed inside units. In a resident survey conducted by the building's resident services coordinator with the support of the county public health nurse, 104 of 180 households responded; 60 of those, or 58 percent, reported smelling tobacco smoke in their unit from somewhere else at least once in the previous month, and 21 households reported a child with asthma. Twenty-six responding households, 25 percent, included at least one person who smoked.
The problem is not individual smoking choices but a shared building in which one household's smoke becomes another household's exposure. This plan proposes a smoke-free policy for all indoor areas and balconies, adopted with residents rather than imposed on them, and paired with support for residents who smoke.
Evidence
Tobacco smoke travels through shared walls, ventilation systems, plumbing chases and hallways. Studies measuring air quality in multiunit buildings have found elevated fine particle levels in smoke-free units next to units where people smoke, confirming that smoke transfers between apartments (King et al., 2010). National survey data suggest that a large share of people who live in multiunit housing experience smoke drifting into their homes from elsewhere in the building, amounting to tens of millions of residents (King et al., 2013).
Children are especially affected. In a national study, children living in apartments, even in homes where no one smoked, had higher levels of cotinine, a marker of tobacco smoke exposure, than children living in detached houses (Wilson et al., 2011). Secondhand smoke exposure in children is associated with asthma attacks, respiratory infections and ear infections, and in older adults it adds to cardiovascular and respiratory risk. Smoke-free building policies are the only reliable way to eliminate exposure between units, since ventilation and air cleaners cannot remove it.
Goal and Objectives
Goal: Eliminate involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke in the homes of Maple Court residents while supporting residents who smoke.
Objective 1: By month six, the owner will adopt a written smoke-free policy for all indoor areas, balconies and within 25 feet of building entrances, after at least three resident meetings and a resident vote in which a majority of participating households support adoption.
Objective 2: By month twelve, reduce the share of responding households reporting tobacco smoke in their unit from elsewhere in the past month from 58 percent to 25 percent or less, measured by a repeat of the baseline survey.
Objective 3: By month twelve, at least 50 percent of households that include a person who smokes will have been offered cessation support in person, and at least 10 residents will have enrolled with the state quitline or a local cessation program.
Intervention Activities and Timeline
Activities begin with residents, not rules. The public health nurse and the resident services coordinator will share the survey results at building meetings, invite residents who smoke to speak about what would make a policy workable, and form a resident advisory group that includes smokers and nonsmokers. The policy draft will include a designated outdoor smoking area with a bench and shelter away from entrances and windows, a six-month notice period before enforcement, and a graduated enforcement process that begins with conversations and offers of support rather than lease violations.
Cessation support will be offered throughout. The nurse will hold monthly drop-in sessions in the community room, help residents enroll with the state quitline, which provides counseling and nicotine replacement at no cost to eligible callers, and coordinate with the local health center for residents who want medication. The table below summarizes the timeline.
Table 1
Program Timeline, Activities and Leads
| Months | Activity | Lead |
|---|---|---|
| 1 to 2 | Share survey results; form resident advisory group; begin cessation drop-ins | Public health nurse and resident services coordinator |
| 3 to 5 | Draft policy with advisory group; three resident meetings; resident vote | Advisory group and property manager |
| 6 | Owner adopts policy; six-month notice period begins | Property owner |
| 6 to 12 | Build outdoor smoking area; continue cessation support; post signage | Property manager and public health nurse |
| 12 | Policy takes effect; repeat resident survey | Public health nurse |
Partners and Resources
Partners include the property owner and manager, who control adoption and enforcement; the resident advisory group; the county health department, which provides the public health nurse and printed materials; the state tobacco quitline; the nearby community health center; and a local asthma coalition that can speak to parents. Costs are modest: the outdoor shelter, signage, printed materials and staff time. The health department can seek a small grant from its tobacco prevention funds to cover the shelter.
Evaluation
Process evaluation will track the number of resident meetings held and attended, the composition of the advisory group, the number of cessation drop-in visits, and quitline referrals. Outcome evaluation will repeat the resident survey at month twelve to measure reported smoke incursion and compare it with the baseline of 58 percent, count smoke complaints logged by management, and track quit attempts reported by residents. If resources allow, the health department can measure fine particle levels in hallways before and after the policy takes effect. The advisory group will also be asked whether enforcement has been fair.
Ethical Considerations
Smoke-free housing policies raise real equity concerns. Residents of affordable housing who smoke are often older, have lower incomes and may have mental health conditions or disabilities, and a policy enforced mainly through lease violations could put some of them at risk of eviction. This plan addresses that risk in four ways: residents shape the policy, a long notice period allows time to quit or adjust, cessation support is free and repeated, and enforcement is graduated and does not start with eviction. A sheltered outdoor area also respects residents who continue to smoke. The aim is to protect children and nonsmoking neighbors without making housing less secure for the people the complex is meant to serve.
Conclusion
Smoke drifting between units exposes children and older adults at Maple Court to a health risk they cannot control. A smoke-free policy developed with residents, supported by free help for people who smoke and enforced fairly, offers the only reliable solution. Clear objectives, a realistic timeline, committed partners and a straightforward evaluation will show whether the plan reduces exposure while keeping housing secure.
References
King, B. A., Babb, S. D., Tynan, M. A., & Gerzoff, R. B. (2013). National and state estimates of secondhand smoke infiltration among U.S. multiunit housing residents. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 15(7), 1316-1321. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/nts254
King, B. A., Travers, M. J., Cummings, K. M., Mahoney, M. C., & Hyland, A. J. (2010). Secondhand smoke transfer in multiunit housing. Nicotine & Tobacco Research, 12(11), 1133-1141. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq162
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2016). Instituting smoke-free public housing. Federal Register, 81(233), 87430-87444.
Wilson, K. M., Klein, J. D., Blumkin, A. K., Gottlieb, M., & Winickoff, J. P. (2011). Tobacco-smoke exposure in children who live in multiunit housing. Pediatrics, 127(1), 85-92. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2010-2046
How this NUR 350 Module 6 example is structured
The plan follows the steps of program planning in order. It begins with a problem statement grounded in resident complaints and the building's layout, then summarizes the evidence that smoke moves between units and harms children and older adults. A goal and three SMART objectives follow, each with a measure. The intervention section describes activities in the order they would happen, from resident meetings to adoption to support for quitting, and a table sets out the timeline and leads. Evaluation covers both process and outcomes. A section on ethics addresses the risk that such policies could burden low-income smokers, which any honest plan must confront.
Get NUR 350 Module 6 written to your instructions
Send your NUR 350 Module 6 program planning prompt, the rubric and the community problem you have chosen. The desk writes the plan to that brief within 24 to 48 hours, free for your first request. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
NUR 350 Module 6 questions, answered
What does NUR 350 Module 6 usually ask for?
Later modules commonly shift from assessment to action: students plan a community intervention or health promotion program for a priority problem, often with goals, measurable objectives, activities, partners and an evaluation plan. It may feed into the final project. The format and required sections come from your classroom instructions.
How do I write SMART objectives for a community program?
Each objective should state who will change, what will change, by how much, and by when, and it should be realistic for the resources available. For example, by month nine, reduce the share of residents reporting smoke in their unit in the past month from 58 percent to 30 percent or less.
Why include ethical considerations in a community program plan?
Population interventions can shift burdens onto groups with less power, even when well intended. Naming possible harms, such as eviction risk or stigma, and building protections into the plan shows that the program is designed for equity as well as effectiveness.