PHLT 8062 Week 5 Matrix Evidence Table Example

Course	PHLT 8062 Dissertation Seminar II
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Evidence table
Length	About 810 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PHLT 8062 Week 5

Evidence Table for the Hepatitis B Birth Dose Review: Garrard's Matrix Applied to Every Included Source, Grouped by Link in the Chain From Vaccine Supply to Recorded Coverage, With a Column Saying Where Each Row Reappears

Student Name

Walden University

PHLT 8062: Dissertation Seminar II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title promises that every row has a destination in the review's prose, which is the test that separates a working evidence table from a catalog.

Purpose and Method

An evidence table earns its place only if its rows reappear in the review's argument. This table follows the matrix method of Garrard (2017): each included source is listed once, the same attributes are recorded for every source, and a final column states where in the review the source will be used. Rows are grouped by the link in the chain the review examines, from changes in vaccine financing or supply, to hospital systems such as standing orders, to administration of the dose, to coverage as recorded in registries. Grouping by link rather than by date or design makes visible which links are well supported and which rest on one or two sources. The table below includes the sources most central to the review; the full table of 19 sources is in an appendix. Sources identified only as composite stand in for the kinds of reports the search found and are labeled so.

What this page is doingStating that every row must reappear in the prose sets the standard the table is built to meet.

The Table

Table 1

Evidence Matrix, Selected Sources, Grouped by Link in the Chain

Link	Source	Design and setting	Measure	Main finding	Where it reappears \|
Financing and supply	Neighboring state internal evaluation, 2023 (unpublished)	Before-and-after, all birthing hospitals in one state	Birth dose within 3 days, registry	Dip of about 4 points at small hospitals for about 18 months	Claim 3; gap statement \|
Financing and supply	State program reports, six states (composite group)	Descriptive program documents	None; describe supply changes	Concern about small hospitals; no coverage data	Claim 3 background \|
Hospital systems	Willis et al. (2010)	National survey of birthing hospitals	Presence of written policies	Many hospitals lacked written prevention policies	Claim 2; framework memo \|
Hospital systems	Single-hospital improvement report A (composite)	Before-and-after, one urban hospital	Birth dose before discharge, chart review	Rise after admission order set added	Claim 2; appraisal week \|
Hospital systems	Single-hospital improvement report B (composite)	Before-and-after, one rural hospital	Birth dose within 24 hours, chart review	Rise after nurse-initiated standing order	Claim 2; synthesis matrix \|
Administration	Schillie et al. (2018)	National guidance	Recommended timing and supports	Dose in the first 24 hours for stable newborns of 2,000 g and up	Introduction; definitions \|
Recorded coverage	Hill et al. (2021)	National survey with provider-verified records	Birth dose coverage, national and state	Birth dose coverage below later doses	Claim 1; significance \|
Recorded coverage	Registry completeness study (composite)	Comparison of chart and registry records, one state	Agreement between chart and registry	Some doses given were never recorded	Methods rationale; limitations \|

Note. Composite rows represent kinds of sources identified in the composite search and are not citations to specific publications.

What the Grouping Shows

Uneven Support Across Links

The hospital systems link is the most heavily populated, with a national survey and several single-hospital reports. The financing and supply link rests on one unpublished evaluation and a group of descriptive program documents. The recorded coverage link has strong national data but little at the hospital level. That pattern matters for the review's structure: it should spend its critical attention on the financing link, where evidence is thinnest and where the dissertation contributes, and avoid giving the well-studied hospital systems link more space than its relevance warrants.

Attributes Recorded the Same Way

Recording the same attributes for every source exposed two problems that would otherwise have been buried in prose. First, the sources measure the outcome differently: within 24 hours, before discharge, within three days. The review will have to state these differences whenever it compares findings, and the dissertation's choice of a two-day registry window will need to be justified against them. Second, most hospital system studies used chart review, while the coverage studies used registries, which may undercount doses given but not reported. The composite registry completeness study makes that concern concrete.

What this page is doingRecording identical attributes for every source surfaced measurement differences the review would otherwise have glossed.

The Destination Column

Every row has a destination. Sources whose only destination would have been "background" were reconsidered; two such sources, on adult hepatitis B screening, were removed from the table because no section of the review would use them. Garrard (2017) recommends exactly this pruning: a matrix that grows without destinations becomes a storage place rather than a tool for writing.

How the Table Will Be Used

The next steps build on the table in two ways. The critical appraisal will examine the most influential single-hospital report in depth, since several rows on hospital systems resemble it. The synthesis matrix will turn the table on its side, listing claims as rows and sources as columns, so that each claim can be judged by the sources that support, contradict or are silent on it. Both will draw on attributes already recorded here, which is the practical value of recording them consistently now.

References

Garrard, J. (2017). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Hill, H. A., Yankey, D., Elam-Evans, L. D., Singleton, J. A., & Sterrett, N. (2021). Vaccination coverage by age 24 months among children born in 2017 and 2018: National Immunization Survey-Child, United States, 2018-2020. MMWR Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(41), 1435-1440. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm7041a1

Schillie, S., Vellozzi, C., Reingold, A., Harris, A., Haber, P., Ward, J. W., & Nelson, N. P. (2018). Prevention of hepatitis B virus infection in the United States: Recommendations of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 67(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr6701a1

Willis, B. C., Wortley, P., Wang, S. A., Jacques-Carroll, L., & Zhang, F. (2010). Gaps in hospital policies and practices to prevent perinatal transmission of hepatitis B virus. Pediatrics, 125(4), 704-711. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2009-1831

What the PHLT 8062 Week 5 instructions ask for

The fifth assignment usually asks for an evidence table summarizing the studies included in the review. Faculty expect each source listed once with the same attributes recorded for all, typically design, setting, sample, measures and main findings. Grouping rows by the review's organizing structure, rather than by date or author, makes patterns visible. A column stating where each source will be used in the review keeps the table connected to the writing and exposes sources that should be pruned. Strong tables are followed by a discussion of what the grouping and attributes reveal, such as uneven support across parts of the question or differences in how outcomes were measured. Composite or illustrative entries should be labeled. The full table can sit in an appendix with key rows in the text.

How the PHLT 8062 Week 5 example is put together

The paper opens with the matrix method and the destination column. A table of eight selected sources, grouped by four links, records design and setting, measure, main finding and destination, with composite rows labeled. A discussion section explains three findings: support is uneven, with the supply link resting on one evaluation and descriptive reports; recording identical attributes exposed differing outcome windows and a split between chart review and registry data; and the destination column led to pruning two sources on adult screening. A final section explains how the table feeds the next two assignments: the in-depth appraisal of the strongest hospital report and the synthesis matrix that inverts the table. Each row is short enough to read at a glance.

Where the marks sit in the PHLT 8062 Week 5 rubric

Graders reward a table that is consistent, organized to reveal patterns and tied to the review's writing. Tables that record different attributes for different studies, or list sources in arbitrary order, earn less. Credit goes to grouping by the review's structure, to a destination column that is actually used, and to discussion that draws out patterns such as uneven support and measurement differences. Pruning sources without a destination shows discipline. Composite entries must be labeled clearly. Accurate citation of the matrix method and of included sources is checked. The table should be readable at a glance, and its discussion should connect directly to the appraisal and synthesis steps that follow.

PHLT 8062 Week 5 help from the desk

Evidence tables often become storage for everything read. List each source once, record the same attributes for all of them, and group rows by the structure your review will follow. Add a column saying where each source will appear in your writing, and remove sources with nowhere to go. Then write a few paragraphs on what the table shows. Tables for other reviews can follow the same matrix approach. Label any composite or illustrative rows clearly so no reader mistakes them for published studies. Keep the full table in an appendix and bring only the rows that drive your argument into the text, where a committee can see why they matter.

Get a PHLT 8062 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Attach the studies included so far, even partly read, plus the Week 5 table instructions and rubric. You get a matrix with fixed columns, each study's own definitions recorded, rows banded by the claim they serve, and a column showing where each will be used. The first table costs nothing, ready in 24 to 48 hours; every study in this one is a composite.

More PHLT 8062 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PHLT 8062 Week 5 questions, answered

What is Garrard's matrix method?

Judith Garrard describes a way of organizing a health sciences literature review around a matrix: one row per source, columns chosen for the topics being compared, filled in consistently so sources can be read across. The method treats the matrix as a working tool built during reading, not a summary written afterward. The example applies it to policy evaluations and adds a column pointing each row to the chapter section that will use it.

How long should an evidence table be?

As long as the included set, with nothing omitted and nothing padded. Every included study needs a row, and excluded studies do not belong. Readers tend to judge length against the search results: if the search reported more eligible studies than the table shows, the difference needs explaining. The example's short third band stays short on purpose, since padding it would hide the review's most important finding.

Where can I find a free PHLT 8062 Week 5 sample paper?

The full Week 5 evidence table appears on this page, grouping sources on newborn hepatitis B vaccination by link in a supply-to-coverage chain, with a destination column.

Why group rows by link instead of by date?

Grouping by link shows at a glance which parts of the question have many sources and which have few, which is where a review should focus its critical attention.

What goes in the destination column of an evidence table?

It names the paragraph or section of the review chapter where each source will be used, so the table works as a writing plan. A source with no destination is a sign it may not belong in the review at all, which is worth deciding before drafting begins.