Diversity and health assessments: case discussion
Five targeted questions is the graded part, and targeted means each one is answerable only because of something in your case — dependency, donor conception, or a specific community's history with clinicians.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 15, 2026
The case picks your questions, not the other way round
Pick the case first and let it drive everything, because the three are not interchangeable and a post that would fit any of them scores as generic. JC is 86, physically and financially dependent on a daughter with little time or money, and the health issue running underneath is not his diagnosis list but who controls access to care and whether he will report a need he believes burdens her. TJ is pregnant, lesbian, conceived through a sperm bank, and already receiving obstetric care — so the assessment issues are disclosure safety, whose name goes on records, donor history as family history, and a strong diabetes lineage that a routine screen might miss. MR is 23, Native American, presenting with anxiety, and any competent history has to hold both individual symptoms and a documented population context without collapsing one into the other, which is harder than it sounds.
Targeted is the operative word in the five-question requirement. A question is targeted when it is answerable only because of something specific in your case, and untargeted when it would appear on any intake form. Do you have any allergies is not targeted. Who helps you get to appointments, and what happens if that person cannot is targeted at JC. What do you know about the donor's family medical history is targeted at TJ. Framing is graded separately from content, so write each question the way you would actually say it, and be able to justify the wording. On the communication section, resist the urge to describe a whole population's beliefs. Cultural humility asks what matters to this patient rather than assuming what people like this patient believe, and the difference between those two sentences is most of what separates a strong post from a stereotyping one.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Identify the socioeconomic and cultural factors that shape a specific patient's health risk.
- 02Distinguish cultural humility from generalisation about a population.
- 03Write history questions that are answerable only for this patient.
- 04Justify the framing of a sensitive question, not only its content.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01An explicit statement of which case you selected.
- 02The socioeconomic, spiritual, lifestyle and cultural factors specific to that patient.
- 03The sensitivities you would carry into the encounter, with reasons.
- 04At least five targeted history questions, worded as you would ask them.
- 05Three to five current references, at least two from the class resources.
Factors, sensitivities, then five questions that earn their place
Case selection and the factors it carries
Name the case and lay out its socioeconomic, spiritual, lifestyle and cultural factors.
Sensitivities and their clinical reason
Set out what you would be careful about in the encounter and why it changes the data you get.
Five targeted questions
Give the questions in the words you would use, each traceable to a case fact.
Communication strategies
Explain how you would gather sensitive information without assuming beliefs.
Where the cultural evidence for your case actually lives
Recommended databases
- CINAHL
- Class Learning Resources (Seidel's Guide, Dains et al.)
- Office of Minority Health
- PubMed
Search sequence
- 1.Read the class chapter on cultural competency first, since two references must come from resources.
- 2.Search health literacy AND your case's population for a current empirical source.
- 3.Check the CLAS standards for the vocabulary graders expect in the sensitivities section.
- 4.Find one source on the specific risk your case raises — caregiver dependency, donor history, or anxiety presentation.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Services
Office of Minority Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services · 2024
The national standards this discussion's sensitivities section is implicitly graded against.
- 02
Cultural Competence in Caring for American Indians and Alaska Natives
StatPearls, NCBI Bookshelf · 2023
Directly relevant if you choose MR, and a model of describing context without stereotyping if you do not.
- 03
Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality · 2024
Practical technique for framing questions so the answer is usable, which is what the framing requirement is testing.
- 04
Social Determinants of Health
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · 2024
Supplies the language linking socioeconomic factors to measurable health risk.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Writing questions that would appear on any generic intake form.
- Describing what a whole population believes instead of what this patient might.
- Naming factors without connecting any of them to a health risk.
- Ignoring the framing requirement and listing bare questions.
- Missing the family-history implications of donor conception in the TJ case.
Submission checklist
- Is each of your five questions unanswerable for the other two cases?
- Have you said why each sensitivity matters clinically, not just that it exists?
- Does any sentence generalise about a group rather than describe an approach?
- Are there three to five current references, two from class resources?
- Does the post have an introduction and conclusion as required?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.