| Course | D627 Public Health Education and Promotion |
|---|---|
| Task | Task 1 |
| Paper type | Health communication strategy and claim review |
| Length | About 1,100 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 |
| School | Western Governors University (WGU) |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for D627 Task 1
Sick Cows, Raw Milk and Who People Believe: A Communication Strategy and a Review of Popular Health Claims for a Composite Dairy County During H5N1 Avian Influenza in Cattle
Student Name
Leavitt School of Health, Western Governors University
D627: Public Health Education and Promotion, Task 1
Course Instructor
Month Day, Year
Sick Cows, Raw Milk and Who People Believe: A Communication Strategy and a Review of Popular Health Claims for a Composite Dairy County During H5N1 Avian Influenza in Cattle
The Situation
Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) was confirmed in U.S. dairy cattle in March 2024. Infected cows showed reduced feeding and a sudden drop in milk production, and domestic cats on affected farms died after being fed raw milk and colostrum from sick cows (Burrough et al., 2024). Within weeks, human infections were identified in dairy workers, the first of them presenting with conjunctivitis (Garg et al., 2024). Mild infections have likely been missed: in serologic surveys of 115 dairy workers in Michigan and Colorado, 7% had evidence of recent infection, all of whom milked cows or cleaned the milking parlor, and half recalled being ill around the time the cows were (Mellis et al., 2024).
Brookfield County, a composite rural county with about 140 dairy farms, has two infected herds. Its population includes longtime farm families, many Spanish-speaking dairy workers, and a growing group of residents who buy raw milk directly from farms for its perceived health benefits. Many residents distrust government agencies, especially after the pandemic, and see outside officials as a threat to farm livelihoods. The county health department has asked for a communication strategy.
Types of Public Health Communication
The situation calls for different types of communication for different audiences. Risk communication is needed for dairy workers, who face a real, immediate occupational exposure and need to know how to protect themselves, which symptoms to watch for and where to seek testing and treatment. Risk communication works best when it is timely, candid about uncertainty and specific about actions. Health promotion is the right type for raw milk consumers, whose risk is ongoing and voluntary and who need persuasive, respectful messages that support a change in behavior over time rather than an alarm. Crisis communication would apply if human-to-human transmission were detected, but using a crisis tone now would feed the distrust the department is trying to overcome. Finally, the department must counter misinformation, which is a distinct task: it requires anticipating claims and addressing them with evidence rather than repeating official messages more loudly.
Evaluating Popular Claims
The department reviewed claims circulating on local social media and at farm stands, testing each against evidence rather than dismissing it.
Claim one: bird flu only affects birds. This claim is false. The virus has infected dairy cattle, has killed cats that drank raw milk from infected cows and has infected people working with cattle (Burrough et al., 2024; Garg et al., 2024). The claim was reasonable before 2024 and should be addressed as outdated rather than foolish.
Claim two: store milk contains bird flu. This claim is partly true in a way that needs careful explanation. A national survey of 297 pasteurized retail dairy samples found viral genetic material in 20.2%, but no infectious virus in any sample (Spackman et al., 2024). Pasteurized milk may contain fragments of the virus, but those fragments cannot cause infection.
Claim three: raw milk is healthier and helps people who cannot digest milk. This claim is not supported. In a randomized crossover trial among adults with confirmed lactose malabsorption, raw milk did not reduce malabsorption or symptoms compared with pasteurized milk (Mummah et al., 2014). The trial was small, with 16 participants, which should be acknowledged, but its design was rigorous and its finding clear.
Claim four: raw milk from a local farm is safe because the farmer is careful. This claim is not supported. From 2013 to 2018, 75 U.S. outbreaks with 675 illnesses were linked to unpasteurized milk, nearly half of those sick were under 20, and 78% of single-state outbreaks occurred in states where sales were expressly allowed (Koski et al., 2022). Careful farmers can still sell contaminated milk, because infected animals may not look sick and bacteria and viruses are invisible.
Strategies for a Diverse Population
Start with values. Messages should begin with what the audience cares about, protecting families, animals and farm livelihoods, rather than with the department's authority. For farm families, preventing spread to other herds protects the county's dairy economy.
Choose trusted messengers. Large-animal veterinarians, cooperative extension agents and respected farmers are trusted in ways a health department is not. The department should brief these messengers first and let them carry key messages, with the department supplying facts and materials in the background.
Reach workers in their language and setting. For Spanish-speaking dairy workers, the department should provide materials and short in-person sessions in Spanish, delivered at farms during shift changes with employers' agreement, and should use trusted community health workers. Workers need assurance that testing is free, confidential and not tied to immigration status or job loss, since fear of those consequences would otherwise prevent them from reporting symptoms. Protective equipment, eye protection and gloves in particular given the conjunctival cases, should be provided rather than only recommended.
Respect raw milk consumers' choices while changing their information. The department should avoid ridicule. Messages should explain the specific current risk from H5N1 in raw milk, cite the cat deaths as a concrete sign, and suggest practical alternatives such as heating raw milk at home before drinking it or buying from farms whose herds have tested negative. Raw milk sellers who agree to herd testing can become partners.
Use the right channels. Farm radio, extension newsletters, sale barn bulletin boards, church bulletins and WhatsApp groups reach this population better than press releases.
Evaluation
The strategy should be evaluated with process and outcome measures: the number of farms reached through veterinarians and extension agents, attendance at worker sessions, the proportion of workers on affected farms who report using eye protection and know where to get tested, the number of workers tested after herd detections, and, through a short survey at farm stands, changes in raw milk consumers' knowledge and intentions. Monitoring local social media for the four claims will show whether counter-messages are reaching the conversation.
Conclusion
Communicating about H5N1 in a dairy county is less about delivering facts than about who delivers them and how. Matching the type of communication to each audience, testing popular claims honestly against evidence and working through trusted messengers in the audience's own language and settings give the department its best chance of protecting workers and consumers without deepening distrust.
References
Burrough, E. R., Magstadt, D. R., Petersen, B., Timmermans, S. J., Gauger, P. C., Zhang, J., Siepker, C., Mainenti, M., Li, G., Thompson, A. C., Gorden, P. J., Plummer, P. J., & Main, R. (2024). Highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) clade 2.3.4.4b virus infection in domestic dairy cattle and cats, United States, 2024. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 30(7), 1335-1343. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid3007.240508
Garg, S., Reed, C., Davis, C. T., Uyeki, T. M., Behravesh, C. B., Kniss, K., Budd, A., Biggerstaff, M., Adjemian, J., Barnes, J. R., Kirby, M. K., Basler, C., Szablewski, C. M., Richmond-Crum, M., Burns, E., Limbago, B., Daskalakis, D. C., Armstrong, K., Boucher, D., . . . Dugan, V. (2024). Outbreak of highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5N1) viruses in U.S. dairy cattle and detection of two human cases: United States, 2024. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(21), 501-505. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7321e1
Koski, L., Kisselburgh, H., Landsman, L., Hulkower, R., Howard-Williams, M., Salah, Z., Kim, S., Bruce, B. B., Bazaco, M. C., Batz, M. B., Parker, C. C., Leonard, C. L., Datta, A. R., Williams, E. N., Stapleton, G. S., Penn, M., Whitham, H. K., & Nichols, M. (2022). Foodborne illness outbreaks linked to unpasteurised milk and relationship to changes in state laws: United States, 1998-2018. Epidemiology and Infection, 150, e183. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0950268822001649
Mellis, A. M., Coyle, J., Marshall, K. E., Frutos, A. M., Singleton, J., Drehoff, C., Merced-Morales, A., Pagano, H. P., Alade, R. O., White, E. B., Noble, E. K., Holiday, C., Liu, F., Jefferson, S., Li, Z.-N., Gross, F. L., Olsen, S. J., Dugan, V. G., Reed, C., . . . Levine, M. Z. (2024). Serologic evidence of recent infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5) virus among dairy workers: Michigan and Colorado, June-August 2024. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(44), 1004-1009. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7344a3
Mummah, S., Oelrich, B., Hope, J., Vu, Q., & Gardner, C. D. (2014). Effect of raw milk on lactose intolerance: A randomized controlled pilot study. Annals of Family Medicine, 12(2), 134-141. https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.1618
Spackman, E., Jones, D. R., McCoig, A. M., Colonius, T. J., Goraichuk, I. V., & Suarez, D. L. (2024). Characterization of highly pathogenic avian influenza virus in retail dairy products in the US. Journal of Virology, 98(7), e00881-24. https://doi.org/10.1128/jvi.00881-24
What the D627 Task 1 instructions ask
The first D627 task asks you to plan health communication for a public health situation. You will usually describe the situation, identify types of communication for each audience, evaluate popular claims, propose strategies for a diverse population and describe evaluation. Evaluators expect communication types matched to audiences, claims tested against evidence respectfully, trusted messengers identified and evaluation with process and outcome measures. A strategy that assumes facts alone change beliefs, or dismisses claims without evidence, will not meet the strategy aspects. Consider who people already trust, since the messenger often matters more than the message. Consider language and literacy needs for each audience, since a single message rarely fits everyone. Plan how each type of communication will be delivered and by whom.
How this D627 Task 1 example is built
The strategy opens with the situation and what is known about H5N1 in cattle and people. The communication types section explains risk communication for workers, crisis communication for the public and health promotion for raw milk consumers. The claims section takes each claim in turn, states it fairly, and reports what the evidence shows. The strategies section explains how to start with values, choose messengers such as veterinarians and extension agents, and adapt for Spanish-speaking workers. Evaluation measures farms reached, attendance and changes in protective behavior. The conclusion notes that communication depends on who delivers it. Each claim is cited to research or federal guidance. Messages are tested with members of each audience before release.
Where the D627 Task 1 rubric puts the marks
D627 Task 1 aspects are scored competent, approaching competence or not evident. A situation aspect asks for the problem and audiences described. A communication types aspect rewards types matched to audiences. A claims aspect looks for claims evaluated fairly with evidence. A strategy aspect wants approaches suited to a diverse population with trusted messengers. An evaluation aspect asks for measures. Evaluators notice respectful treatment of claims and attention to language and culture, and they expect federal guidance and research on communication to be cited. Clear headings for each communication type and each claim help evaluators follow the plan. A strategy that names messengers and channels for each audience reads as one that could run. Evaluation that measures behavior as well as reach shows that the plan aims at change.
D627 Task 1 help: what sends it back
D627 strategies lose marks when claims are dismissed as misinformation without evidence. State each fairly and test it. Communication types may be confused; distinguish risk, crisis and promotion. Messengers are sometimes the health department only, so identify trusted voices in the community. Diversity may be mentioned without action; plan for language, literacy and culture. Last, evaluation should include behavior, not only reach, since the purpose of communication is change, not delivery. Describe how messages will be tested with each audience before release, since wording that works for one group may offend another. Plan for materials in Spanish and other languages spoken by dairy workers. Explain how the strategy will adjust as evidence about the virus changes, because guidance during an outbreak often shifts. Cite current federal guidance and give its date.
Get a D627 Task 1 example written to your instructions
Send the task instructions and rubric aspects from your D627 course of study. We write a custom communication strategy and claim review to those exact aspects, returned in 24-48h. The first custom sample is free.
Other Public health sample papers
- D590 Task 1 Budget and Privacy Analysis
- D628 Task 1 Capstone Education Program
- D624 Task 1 Policy Evaluation with Data
- D626 Task 1 Policy Analysis and Advocacy Brief
D627 Task 1 questions, answered
Is the D627 county real?
No. The dairy county is invented for the sample. The information on H5N1 in U.S. dairy cattle and the research on health communication cited are real.
What is risk communication in D627?
Communication about a hazard that helps people understand and act on their risk, such as guidance for dairy workers on protective equipment around infected animals. It differs from crisis messaging.
Should D627 argue with misinformation directly?
Test claims respectfully against evidence rather than mocking them. The sample states each claim fairly and reports what research shows, which builds trust. Respect keeps people listening, and a fair hearing makes them more likely to consider the evidence.
Who are trusted messengers in D627?
People the audience already trusts, such as veterinarians, extension agents and farm community leaders. The sample delivers messages through them rather than through the health department alone.
Where can I find a free D627 Task 1 sample paper?
The H5N1 communication strategy and claim review are printed above with notes. Tell us the situation your D627 paper covers, and a first custom strategy is written free.