| Course | PHLT 8006 Foundations of Doctoral Success in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 6 |
| Paper type | Evidence table |
| Length | About 530 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 6
Evidence Table: Seven Studies of Minimum Unit Pricing for Alcohol in One Grid, With Columns Chosen So the Split Between Sales, Purchases, Dependent Drinkers and Health Outcomes Shows at a Glance
Student Name
Walden University
PHLT 8006: Foundations of Doctoral Success in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Evidence Table: Seven Studies of Minimum Unit Pricing for Alcohol in One Grid, With Columns Chosen So the Split Between Sales, Purchases, Dependent Drinkers and Health Outcomes Shows at a Glance
Purpose of the Table
The studies of minimum unit pricing do not disagree as sharply as the beverage tax literature sometimes does, but they answer different questions, and reading them one at a time hides that. This table puts seven studies in one grid. The columns were chosen to show what each measured, at what level and for whom, so a reader can tell at a glance which questions are well covered and which are not.
The Table
Table 1
Seven Studies of Minimum Unit Pricing Compared
| Study | Design | Data | What was measured | Main finding | Who changed | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Robinson et al. (2021) | Controlled interrupted time series | Retail sales, Scotland vs England and Wales | Off-trade sales per adult | 3.5% reduction | Not measurable from sales | |
| O'Donnell et al. (2019) | Controlled interrupted time series | Household shopping panel, Scotland vs northern England | Grams purchased per adult per household | 9.5 g per week reduction | Mainly households buying the most | |
| Anderson et al. (2021) | Controlled interrupted time series | Household shopping panel, Scotland and Wales vs England | Grams purchased; price paid | 7.7% (Scotland) and 8.6% (Wales) reductions | Largely households buying the most | |
| Wyper et al. (2023) | Controlled interrupted time series | Death and hospital records, Scotland vs England | Deaths and admissions wholly attributable to alcohol | 13.4% fewer deaths; 4.1% fewer admissions, not significant | Larger effects in more deprived areas | |
| Holmes et al. (2014) | Simulation model | Survey and price data, England | Projected consumption, spending, harm | Largest projected reductions in harmful low-income drinkers | Projected, not observed | |
| Wagenaar et al. (2009) | Meta-analysis | 1,003 estimates from 112 studies | Price or tax and drinking | Consistent inverse relationship | Smaller effect on heavy drinking | |
| Hughes et al. (2023) | Qualitative interviews | People with alcohol dependence in Scotland | Expected responses | Anticipated borrowing and reprioritizing spending | Dependent drinkers | |
Figures as reported in each source; designs and comparisons differ, so effect sizes are not directly comparable.
What the Grid Shows
Three patterns stand out. First, the four observational studies agree in direction: sales and purchases fell after the policy (Anderson et al., 2021; O'Donnell et al., 2019; Robinson et al., 2021), and alcohol-attributable deaths fell (Wyper et al., 2023). Second, the studies that can see who changed, the household panels, find that the heaviest-buying homes cut back most, which is what the policy intends. Third, the evidence on people with alcohol dependence is thin and mixed. The household panels may not capture them well, and the qualitative study suggests some will reprioritize spending rather than drink less (Hughes et al., 2023), while the death study suggests harm fell overall.
Where the Grid Thins Out
Only one study measures health outcomes, and its hospital result is uncertain. The modeling study's distributional projections (Holmes et al., 2014) are partly confirmed by the household panels but remain projections, and the broader price literature predicts smaller responses among heavy drinkers (Wagenaar et al., 2009). No study in the grid measures cross-border purchasing directly. The grid therefore supports a confident claim about purchases and a cautious claim about harm.
References
Anderson, P., O'Donnell, A., Kaner, E., Llopis, E. J., Manthey, J., & Rehm, J. (2021). Impact of minimum unit pricing on alcohol purchases in Scotland and Wales: Controlled interrupted time series analyses. The Lancet Public Health, 6(8), e557-e565. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2468-2667(21)00052-9
Holmes, J., Meng, Y., Meier, P. S., Brennan, A., Angus, C., Campbell-Burton, A., Guo, Y., Hill-McManus, D., & Purshouse, R. C. (2014). Effects of minimum unit pricing for alcohol on different income and socioeconomic groups: A modelling study. The Lancet, 383(9929), 1655-1664. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62417-4
Hughes, J., Livingston, W., Buykx, P., Johnston, A., Little, S., McCarthy, T., McLean, A., Perkins, A., Wright, A., & Holmes, J. (2023). Views on minimum unit pricing for alcohol before its introduction among people with alcohol dependence in Scotland: A qualitative interview study. Drug and Alcohol Review, 42(6), 1338-1348. https://doi.org/10.1111/dar.13704
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
Wagenaar, A. C., Salois, M. J., & Komro, K. A. (2009). Effects of beverage alcohol price and tax levels on drinking: A meta-analysis of 1003 estimates from 112 studies. Addiction, 104(2), 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360-0443.2008.02438.x
Wyper, G. M. A., Mackay, D. F., Fraser, C., Lewsey, J., Robinson, M., Beeston, C., & Giles, L. (2023). Evaluating the impact of alcohol minimum unit pricing on deaths and hospitalisations in Scotland: A controlled interrupted time series study. The Lancet, 401(10385), 1361-1370. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(23)00497-X
PHLT 8006 Week 6 instructions, in plain terms
Students build an evidence table that organizes a body of studies on their topic. Faculty expect the columns to be chosen deliberately, so that agreement and disagreement among the studies jump out. Columns commonly include design, data source, outcome measured, main finding and population or subgroup, but the best tables choose columns that expose the key splits in the literature. A short explanation of the column choices helps. Faculty also expect at least a paragraph interpreting the table, identifying patterns and gaps, since a table alone does not argue. Citations should appear in the interpretation as well as the table. A note warning against direct comparison of effect sizes across different designs shows care.
How the PHLT 8006 Week 6 example is put together
The table opens with a paragraph explaining why the columns were chosen. Table 1 lists seven studies, from the Scottish shop-sales evaluation and two household panel studies Wyper and colleagues on deaths and admissions, Holmes and colleagues' model, Wagenaar and colleagues' meta-analysis and Hughes and colleagues' interviews. A note warns that designs differ. The interpretation identifies agreement in direction among observed studies, concentration of change among the heaviest buyers, and uncertainty about dependent drinkers, with citations. A final paragraph notes that only one study measures health, that the model's projections are partly confirmed, and that cross-border purchasing is not measured directly.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8006 Week 6 rubric
The choice of columns is the main analytic decision, and graders judge whether it reveals the literature's structure. Tables organized alphabetically or by year hide patterns; tables organized to show what each study measured and for whom make agreement and gaps visible. Accurate entries are expected. The interpretation earns credit when it identifies patterns the table supports and gaps it reveals, with citations. A note on comparability shows methodological awareness. Graders also value recognition that different designs answer different questions. Pair a grid that is quick to read with a short, pointed interpretation and the submission is complete. A note under the table warning that effect sizes from different designs cannot be compared directly shows care that graders notice.
PHLT 8006 Week 6 help from the desk
Evidence tables often list studies with their findings and stop. To build a stronger table, decide what question the table should answer and choose columns that reveal the answer: what was measured, with what data, for whom. Fill the table accurately. Add a note on comparability. Then write a paragraph naming the patterns and another naming the gaps, citing studies as you go. An evidence table for the studies you are gathering can be built to this approach. Then test the table on a classmate: if they can tell you in one sentence where the studies agree and where they part, the columns are doing their job, and if they cannot, the columns need rethinking.
Get a PHLT 8006 Week 6 example written to your instructions
Pass along the Week 6 prompt with its rubric, the studies your table must include, and any column template your instructor supplied. The table is built on those sources in that format. There is no fee for a first sample; it arrives in 24 to 48 hours with the certainty summary and closing paragraph in place.
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 3: Single Study Appraisal
- PHLT 8006 Week 4: Weighted Annotated Bibliography
- PHLT 8006 Week 5: Evidence-Focused Peer Replies
- 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 6: Key Term Audit
- HLTH 8815 Week 6: Aging Framing Critique
- HLTH 8745 Week 6: Cardiac Depression Peer Reply
- HLTH 8701 Week 6: Mechanism Peer Reply
PHLT 8006 Week 6 questions, answered
Can a table stand alone without the paragraph beneath it?
Some prompts ask only for the table, but most expect at least a short interpretation, and the example supplies one because a grid cannot explain why its rows disagree. Even a brief paragraph naming the split and its likely cause shows the judgment behind the arrangement. Length and placement follow your prompt.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8006 Week 6 sample paper?
This page holds the complete Week 6 evidence table, comparing seven studies of alcohol minimum unit pricing in one grid with an interpretation of patterns and gaps, with seven references.
What patterns does the table reveal?
Observed studies agree that sales, purchases and alcohol-caused deaths fell after the policy; household panels show the heaviest buyers changed most; and evidence on people with dependence is thin and mixed.
Why not compare the effect sizes directly?
The studies use different designs, data and outcomes, from shop sales to household purchases to death records, and different comparison regions and periods. Their figures answer different questions and cannot be set side by side as if equivalent.
What is missing from the evidence?
Only one study measures health outcomes, and its hospital result is uncertain. No study in the set measures cross-border or online purchasing directly, and no study examines the policy in a U.S. setting.