| Course | PHLT 8062 Dissertation Seminar II |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Framework memo |
| Length | About 800 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 9
Framework Memo: Trying the Health Belief Model and an Adapted Structure-Process-Outcome Chain Against the Hepatitis B Birth Dose Evidence Table, and Keeping the One That Sorts the Studies
Student Name
Walden University
PHLT 8062: Dissertation Seminar II
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Framework Memo: Trying the Health Belief Model and an Adapted Structure-Process-Outcome Chain Against the Hepatitis B Birth Dose Evidence Table, and Keeping the One That Sorts the Studies
The Test
A review's organizing framework should do practical work: it should sort the included studies into groups that make the evidence easier to judge, and it should match how the dissertation's own study is built. This memo tries two candidate frameworks against the review's evidence table and keeps the one that sorts the studies. Garrard (2017) suggests that the matrix itself often reveals which organizing scheme fits, because the attributes recorded for every study show what the literature actually measured.
Candidate 1: The Health Belief Model
This model treats a choice such as accepting a vaccine as a weighing of how likely and how serious a threat seems against the gains and costs of acting, set off by prompts and backed by confidence in one's own ability to act (Champion & Skinner, 2008). It is widely used in immunization research, and it was the author's first instinct, since birth dose refusal by parents is part of the concern that started the dissertation.
Tried against the evidence table, it fails to sort. Of the 19 included sources, one measured parental beliefs, a small hospital survey of reasons for declining the birth dose. None of the others measured beliefs at all. The national survey measured coverage, the hospital policy survey measured written policies, the improvement reports measured administration after system changes, and the program documents described supply arrangements. Under the Health Belief Model, eighteen sources would land in a single category labeled "does not measure constructs," which tells a reader nothing. The model also mismatches the dissertation, which measures recorded doses at hospitals and cannot observe beliefs.
Candidate 2: A Structure-Process-Outcome Chain
Donabedian (1988) argued that care can be judged from three angles: what a setting has to work with, what its staff actually do, and what then happens to patients. Adapted to this review, the chain runs from vaccine financing and supply (structure external to the hospital), to hospital systems such as standing orders and order sets (internal structure), to administration of the dose (process), to the dose as recorded in the registry (a measured outcome of the process, with its own recording step).
Tried against the evidence table, the chain sorts every source into a link with content. The neighboring state's evaluation and the program reports sit at the supply link. The hospital policy survey and the two improvement reports sit at the hospital systems link. National guidance defines the process. The national survey and the registry completeness study sit at the recorded outcome. The parental belief survey, which the Health Belief Model would have centered, fits as a factor acting on the process link, where refusal prevents administration.
Table 1
Sources Sorted by Each Candidate Framework
| Framework | Categories with at least one source | Sources placed in a residual or empty category | Match to the dissertation's design | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health Belief Model | 1 of 6 constructs | 18 of 19 | Poor; dissertation measures records, not beliefs | |
| Adapted structure-process-outcome chain | 4 of 4 links | 0 of 19 | Good; dissertation tests the supply link against the recorded outcome | |
Note. Counts refer to the composite review's 19 included sources.
Why the Chain Is Kept
The chain is kept for three reasons. It sorts every source into a meaningful group, which lets the review discuss the evidence link by link. It makes the gaps visible: the supply link holds only one evaluation, while the hospital systems link holds several, and that imbalance is the review's main finding. And it matches the dissertation's design, which compares the recorded outcome across a change at the supply link, holding the intervening links as unmeasured context.
What the Chain Cannot Do
Adopting the chain has a cost. It treats parental decisions as one influence on the process link rather than as a subject of their own, so the review will have little to say about why families decline. That is acceptable for this dissertation but should be stated, because a reader interested in hesitancy will find the review's treatment thin. The chain also implies a sequence of causes that the evidence cannot test link by link; it is used here as an organizing device, not as a claim that each link has been shown to cause the next.
How the Review Will Use the Chain
The review chapter will open with the chain as a figure and organize its sections by link. Each section will state what the evidence says about that link, how strong it is and where it is silent. The gap statement will be written at the supply link, since that is both the thinnest stretch of evidence and the place this dissertation adds something.
References
Champion, V. L., & Skinner, C. S. (2008). The health belief model. In K. Glanz, B. K. Rimer, & K. Viswanath (Eds.), Health behavior and health education: Theory, research, and practice (4th ed., pp. 45-65). Jossey-Bass.
Donabedian, A. (1988). The quality of care: How can it be assessed? JAMA, 260(12), 1743-1748. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1988.03410120089033
Garrard, J. (2017). Health sciences literature review made easy: The matrix method (5th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
Reading the PHLT 8062 Week 9 instructions
The ninth assignment usually asks students to choose an organizing framework for their review and justify it. Faculty expect candidate frameworks to be tested against the actual evidence, not chosen by preference, and the test should ask whether each framework sorts the included studies into meaningful groups and fits the dissertation's design. A framework that places most studies in an empty or residual category is a poor fit, however popular. Adapting a published framework is acceptable when the adaptation is explained. Strong memos also state what the chosen framework cannot do, so readers know its limits. Public health reviews often use conceptual models built from policy pathways or quality frameworks rather than behavioral theories, depending on what the studies measured. Three pages is typical.
How this PHLT 8062 Week 9 example is built
The memo opens with the test both frameworks must pass. The Health Belief Model is described and tried, showing that only one source measured beliefs and that the model mismatches a dissertation measuring records. The structure-process-outcome model is described and adapted into a four-link chain, and every source is placed in a link, including the belief survey as an influence on administration. A table compares the frameworks on categories filled, residual sources and fit to the dissertation. A section gives three reasons for keeping the chain, a section states its cost for questions about hesitancy and its status as an organizing device, and a final section explains how it will structure the review chapter. The memo runs about three pages.
PHLT 8062 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Graders reward a framework chosen by testing it against the evidence. Memos that adopt a framework because it is familiar, or describe frameworks without applying them, earn less. Credit goes to a clear test, accurate description of each framework, a demonstration that one sorts the studies and the other does not, and an honest statement of the chosen framework's limits. Explaining an adaptation of a published model shows understanding of its original purpose. Connecting the framework to the dissertation's design and the review's structure shows the choice has consequences. Accurate citation of each framework's primary or standard source is expected. A comparison table makes the decision transparent.
Common PHLT 8062 Week 9 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Framework memos often pick a theory first and fit the studies to it. Instead, try each candidate against your evidence table and ask whether it sorts your studies into groups with content. Check whether it fits what your dissertation measures. Explain any adaptation. Say plainly what your chosen framework leaves out. Memos for other reviews can follow the same sort-the-studies test. Put the comparison in a small table, counting how many sources each framework places in a category with content. If you adapt a published model, cite its original source and explain what you changed and why. A framework that fits your evidence will also make your review chapter easier to organize, section by section.
Get a PHLT 8062 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Tell the desk which theories or frameworks are under consideration and send your evidence table, with the Week 9 memo prompt and rubric. The memo tries each candidate against your studies, keeps the one that sorts them, and diagrams where every study falls. No charge for the first, delivered in 24 to 48 hours; this review, its studies and its chain are hypothetical.
More PHLT 8062 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 8062 Week 1: Annotations to Claims Post
- PHLT 8062 Week 2: Reproducible Search Strategy
- PHLT 8062 Week 3: Tested Inclusion Rules
- PHLT 8062 Week 4: Gray Literature Sweep
- PHLT 8062 Week 5: Matrix Evidence Table
- PHLT 8062 Week 6: JBI Critical Appraisal
- PHLT 8062 Week 7: Appraisal Peer Critique
- PHLT 8062 Week 8: Claims Synthesis Matrix
- PHLT 8062 Week 10: Narrowed Gap Statement
- PHLT 8062 Week 11: Literature Review Chapter Draft
- PHLT 8060 Week 9: Research Question and Glossary
- PHLT 8048 Week 9: Rival Theory Rebuttal Paper
- PHLT 8046 Week 9: Human Subjects Protection Plan
- PHLT 8044 Week 9: Preregistered Analysis Plan
PHLT 8062 Week 9 questions, answered
Is it acceptable to adapt a framework rather than use it as published?
Yes, if the adaptation is explained. The example arranges the social ecological model's levels in sequence because its question runs from a law to an outbreak, and it says so. What committees question is adaptation that quietly changes a theory's meaning while keeping its name. State what you changed, why, and what the original version would have done with the same studies.
Does the framework have to be a behavioral theory?
No. Public health reviews often use conceptual models built from policy pathways, logic models or ecological levels, and these can suit policy questions better than theories of individual behavior. The example rejects a behavioral theory precisely because its studies did not measure the psychological precursors that theory depends on. Choose what sorts your evidence, and be ready to explain why a more familiar theory did not.
Where can I find a free PHLT 8062 Week 9 sample paper?
The full Week 9 framework memo is reproduced here, testing the Health Belief Model and an adapted structure-process-outcome chain against a review's evidence table and keeping the chain.
Why set aside the Health Belief Model if refusal is part of the problem?
Only one included source measured beliefs, so the model would leave nearly every study uncategorized, and the dissertation measures recorded doses rather than beliefs. Refusal is kept as one influence within the chain.
Is the chain a claim that each link causes the next?
No. It is used to organize the evidence. The review does not claim that each link has been shown to cause the next, only that the chain sorts the studies usefully.