| Course | PHLT 8006 Foundations of Doctoral Success in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Source appraisal |
| Length | About 520 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 8006 Week 3
Source Appraisal: A Controlled Interrupted Time Series of Off-Trade Alcohol Sales in Scotland After Minimum Unit Pricing, Credited for Its Design and Then Read for Everything Its 3.5% Result Leaves Unaddressed
Student Name
Walden University
PHLT 8006: Foundations of Doctoral Success in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Source Appraisal: A Controlled Interrupted Time Series of Off-Trade Alcohol Sales in Scotland After Minimum Unit Pricing, Credited for Its Design and Then Read for Everything Its 3.5% Result Leaves Unaddressed
The Study
Robinson et al. (2021) evaluated what happened after Scotland's 50-pence price floor took effect in May 2018, on off-trade alcohol sales, meaning alcohol sold in shops and supermarkets for drinking elsewhere. They used retail sales data and an interrupted time series design, comparing the trend in Scotland before and after the policy with the trend in England and Wales, which had no minimum price at the time. After adjustment for the geographical control, disposable income and substitution, the policy was associated with a 3.5% reduction in off-trade sales per adult (95% CI 2.2% to 4.9%). Unadjusted, Scotland's sales fell 2.0%, while sales in England and Wales rose 2.4% over the same period. The reduction came mainly from spirits, cider and perry.
What the Design Does Well
The interrupted time series uses years of data before the policy to establish a trend, so a change after May 2018 can be distinguished from a continuing decline. The comparison with England and Wales addresses events that affected all of Great Britain, such as economic changes or national alcohol trends. Using actual sales rather than survey reports avoids the well-known underreporting of drinking in surveys. The pattern by beverage type, with the largest falls in cheap spirits and cider, fits the policy's mechanism, since those products were most affected by the price floor. A mechanism-consistent pattern makes an artifact less likely.
Everything the Result Leaves Unaddressed
The study measures sales in Scotland, not drinking by Scottish residents. Alcohol bought across the border in England, bought online from English retailers or carried in by travelers would not appear in Scotland's sales, and the study cannot fully rule out such leakage. It measures off-trade sales only, so it says nothing directly about pubs and restaurants, though the price floor rarely affected on-trade prices. It reports sales per adult, an average that cannot show who reduced purchasing; a 3.5% fall could reflect large changes among a few heavy buyers or small changes among many. Household purchase studies suggest the former, finding reductions concentrated among households that bought the most alcohol (O'Donnell et al., 2019). The study does not measure harm. Deaths and hospital admissions require separate analyses. Finally, the comparison assumes England and Wales would have followed Scotland's path without the policy; any Scotland-specific change around 2018 could bias the estimate.
Weight in the Evidence Base
This study is strong evidence that the policy reduced off-trade alcohol sales in Scotland in its first years. It is weak or silent evidence on individual consumption, on who changed behavior, and on health. Those questions need other sources, which the annotated bibliography will gather.
Lesson for My Own Notes
My old note on this study would have read "MUP cut sales 3.5%." Booth et al. (2016) describe a claim as only as strong as the reasons and evidence beneath it. The appraisal shows that the number is only useful alongside the comparison, the data source and the questions it cannot answer.
References
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
O'Donnell, A., Anderson, P., Jané-Llopis, E., Manthey, J., Kaner, E., & Rehm, J. (2019). Immediate impact of minimum unit pricing on alcohol purchases in Scotland: Controlled interrupted time series analysis for 2015-18. BMJ, 366, Article l5274. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5274
Robinson, M., Mackay, D., Giles, L., Lewsey, J., Richardson, E., & Beeston, C. (2021). Evaluating the impact of minimum unit pricing (MUP) on off-trade alcohol sales in Scotland: An interrupted time-series study. Addiction, 116(10), 2697-2707. https://doi.org/10.1111/add.15478
Reading the PHLT 8006 Week 3 instructions
Students appraise a single study in depth. Faculty expect an accurate summary of design, data, comparison and main result, followed by a fair account of what the design does well and a clear statement of what the result cannot show. The strongest appraisals tie each strength to a specific feature, such as a comparison group or a long pre-period, and tie each limitation to what the data measure and what they do not. Faculty value appraisals that end by assigning the study a weight for particular questions rather than a single overall grade. Using another source to fill a gap the study leaves open shows the student is beginning to think across studies. The appraisal should avoid both uncritical praise and reflexive criticism.
Inside the PHLT 8006 Week 3 example
The appraisal opens by summarizing Robinson and colleagues' design, data, comparison and adjusted and unadjusted results, including the beverage categories that drove the reduction. A section credits four features: the pre-policy trend, the comparison with England and Wales, the use of sales rather than surveys and the mechanism-consistent pattern. A single paragraph lists six things the result leaves unaddressed, citing O'Donnell and colleagues on who changed purchasing. A section weighs the study as strong for sales and silent on consumption and health. A closing section contrasts the old one-line note with what the appraisal now records, citing Booth and colleagues on claims and evidence.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8006 Week 3 rubric
Fairness and precision carry this appraisal. Graders check that the summary of design and results is accurate, that strengths are tied to features rather than asserted, and that limitations follow from what the data can and cannot measure. Listing what the result leaves unaddressed in one clear paragraph, as the assignment asks, earns credit for discipline. Assigning weight question by question shows mature judgment. Bringing in a second study to address a gap is valued. Appraisals that either praise a study wholesale or list generic limitations score lower. Accurate figures, including confidence intervals where given, are expected. An appraisal that quotes the confidence interval and says what the comparison region assumes shows a reader who looked past the headline.
Common PHLT 8006 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Single-study appraisals often restate the abstract and tack on standard limitations. That shows little understanding of the particular study. To write a stronger appraisal, describe exactly what was compared, with what data, over what period. Name each design feature that makes the result credible and say why. Then ask what the data cannot see: other places, other outlets, other people, other outcomes. Put those in one paragraph. Decide how much weight the study deserves for each question you care about. Whatever single study your instructor names, an appraisal in this shape can be drafted around it. Keep the limitations in one paragraph, as the prompt asks, so they read as a deliberate inventory rather than a scattered list.
Get a PHLT 8006 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Attach the Week 3 prompt, the rubric and the study your instructor assigned, or name the topic if you choose your own. The appraisal is written on that source, not this tax evaluation. First sample free, delivered in 24 to 48 hours, its verdict stated in one sentence you can test against your own reading.
More PHLT 8006 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8006 Week 1: Evidence-Honest Question Post
- PHLT 8006 Week 2: Research Habits Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 4: Weighted Annotated Bibliography
- PHLT 8006 Week 5: Evidence-Focused Peer Replies
- PHLT 8006 Week 6: Seven-Study Evidence Table
- PHLT 8006 Week 7: Scaled Claim Argument Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 8: Admired Model Critique
- PHLT 8006 Week 9: Dissertation Topic Memo
- PHLT 8006 Week 10: Policy Literature Synthesis
- PHLT 8006 Week 11: Evidence-Scaled Position Paper
- HLTH 9101 Week 3: Literature Synthesis Section
- HLTH 8815 Week 3: Older Adult Function Profile
- HLTH 8745 Week 3: Allostatic Load Analysis
- HLTH 8701 Week 3: Cross-National Comparison Critique
PHLT 8006 Week 3 questions, answered
Why not rely on the study's own limitations section?
Authors write that section to defend the paper, and it usually names the limits they are comfortable admitting. A doctoral appraisal is expected to find its own, which is why the example's longest section lists gaps the study's authors did not emphasize, such as the missing corner stores. Quoting the authors' limitations back to them earns little in this course.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8006 Week 3 sample paper?
The full Week 3 source appraisal is shown on this page, crediting a controlled sales evaluation of Scotland's alcohol price floor and stating everything its result leaves unaddressed, with three references.
Is the study in this appraisal real?
Yes. It is the evaluation by Robinson and colleagues published in Addiction in 2021, which compared off-trade alcohol sales in Scotland with England and Wales before and after minimum unit pricing.
What does the sales result not show?
It does not show drinking by residents, since cross-border and online purchases are missed; on-trade sales; who reduced purchasing; or effects on deaths and hospital admissions, which need separate studies.
How much weight does the appraisal give the study?
High weight for the claim that the policy reduced off-trade sales in Scotland in its first years, and low or no weight for claims about individual consumption, who changed behavior or health outcomes.