Approached, screened, eligible, declined, completed: a STROBE-style flow diagram tracks each stage by site in PHLT 8068's Week 3 recruitment report, reasons for declining recorded. Searches like "phlt 8068 week 3 assignment example", "phlt8068 week 3 sample" and "phlt 8068 week 3 example" land here.
What a finished PHLT 8068 Week 3 recruitment report looks like
Roughly four pages surround a flow diagram. Boxes descend from workers approached at the fixed clinic and at mobile unit stops, through screening, to three exits for ineligibility: no outdoor farm work in the past week, under eighteen, or already interviewed. Eligible workers then divide into those who declined, those who began, and those who finished; partial interviews are counted separately, most broken off when a ride was leaving. Every box holds counts marked illustrative. A table beside the diagram gives the same stages for each site and each fortnight. Reasons for declining, coded by interviewers, are tabulated: no time, the crew's transport, reluctance to answer questions about an employer. A paragraph explains why a cooperation rate is reported and a response rate is not, since nobody counted the workers who passed without being approached.
How a PHLT 8068 Week 3 example is structured
The diagram leads because recruitment is a sequence, and a reader wants to see where people left before reading why. Following the STROBE convention of reporting numbers at each stage, the boxes make every exit visible, so no loss can hide between eligibility and analysis. Splitting by site in the adjacent table matters for this study in particular: the fixed clinic and the mobile unit reached different workers, and a pooled diagram would blur that difference into one rate. Declining reasons are tabulated because they speak to bias, and the employer-question reason warns that some conditions may be underreported. The rate paragraph comes last and is the most technical part. AAPOR's definitions separate a cooperation rate, among eligible people actually contacted, from a response rate, which needs the whole eligible population as its base, and only the first can be computed here.
A diagram of every exit
Approached, screened, ineligible for three reasons, eligible, declined, partial and complete, with illustrative counts in each box.
Two sites, not one
The clinic and the mobile unit are reported separately by fortnight, since they drew different workers.
Why people said no
No time, a crew van leaving, and reluctance to answer questions about an employer, each tallied from interviewers' short-list codes.
Partial interviews
Interviews broken off before the end are counted in their own box, with the section reached, rather than folded into refusals.
Which rate, and why
A cooperation rate is reported. A response rate is not, because nobody counted the workers who passed by without being approached.
Where marks go in PHLT 8068 Week 3
Instructors check that the arithmetic closes: every person approached should land in exactly one box, and the boxes should sum. A report giving a single response rate with no flow leaves the reader unable to see where the sample thinned, and it seldom scores well. This example gains credit first for a diagram that closes and for separating the two sites. The declining reasons are valued because the employer-related refusals point to a specific bias the limitations memo will need. The rate paragraph matters a good deal for a doctoral report: choosing a cooperation rate and saying why a response rate cannot be computed shows command of the definitions rather than a borrowed number. Reports falter when partial interviews are merged with refusals, when counts differ between diagram and table, or when a rate appears without its denominator.
Get a PHLT 8068 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Forward your recruitment tallies, however rough, the reasons people gave for declining, and the Week 3 prompt and rubric. The report draws a flow diagram with every exit, splits it by site or period, and explains which rate your data can support. Free on a first request, returned in 24 to 48 hours. Every count in the example is a placeholder.
PHLT 8068 Week 3 questions, answered
Should I report a response rate or a cooperation rate?
Whichever your data can actually support, named correctly. AAPOR's standard definitions distinguish them: a response rate needs a count of everyone eligible, while a cooperation rate uses only eligible people who were contacted. The example could count contacts but not passersby, so it reports cooperation. Reporting a response rate without its true base overstates participation, and committees familiar with survey methods will notice.
What goes in a STROBE-style flow diagram?
The number of individuals at each stage, from potentially eligible through examined for eligibility, confirmed eligible, included and analyzed, with reasons for non-participation at each stage. STROBE recommends a flow diagram for observational studies. The example adapts the stages to intercept recruitment, adding a box for interviews begun but not finished. Your diagram should use stages that match how your recruitment actually ran.
Do reasons for declining really matter?
They matter more than the count. A refusal for lack of time tells a reader little about bias; a refusal to answer questions about an employer tells a reader that working conditions may be underreported among those who agreed. The example tabulates reasons from a short list interviewers carried, and its limitations memo draws on the employer-related refusals directly.