| Course | PHLT 9000 Dissertation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 1 |
| Paper type | Progress memo |
| Length | About 820 words, 4 pages |
| Format | Memo, APA 7 citations |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHLT 9000 Week 1
Memorandum
To: Dissertation Committee Chair
From: PhD in Public Health Candidate
Date: Month Day, Year
Re: Status of each dissertation component against the approved proposal, with dates and the gaps that need decisions
Purpose
This memo gives you an exact account of the dissertation file as it stands today, set against what the approved proposal expected by this point. The study examines the choice staff make at intake: which complaints about hoarded homes get someone sent out to inspect. The question matters because such complaints are common: in one state survey, 64% of local health officers reported at least one hoarding complaint over five years (Frost et al., 2000). I have dated every item and listed the gaps that need your decision, so that our next meeting can be spent on those rather than on reconstructing where things are.
What Exists Today
Table 1
Dissertation Components, Planned Versus Actual (Composite)
| Component | Proposal expected by now | Status today | Last dated version | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chapter 1, introduction | Final draft | Revised draft, needs the updated problem statement | March 14 | |
| Chapter 2, literature review | Final draft | Search closed 22 months ago; not refreshed | January 9 of last year | |
| Chapter 3, methods | Revised to past tense after data collection | Still written in the future tense of the proposal | Proposal approval date | |
| Data collection | 24 interviews at three departments | 24 interviews complete and transcribed | Last interview, October 2 | |
| Analysis | Coding complete, themes drafted | Coding complete; three themes and one divergent account drafted | August 21 | |
| Chapter 4, results | First draft | Partial draft, two of three themes written | August 30 | |
| Chapter 5, discussion | Outline | Not started | None | |
| IRB continuing review | Current | Approved through next March | Approval letter on file | |
Note. Composite file for a qualitative dissertation; dates are illustrative.
Where the File Departs From the Proposal
Chapter 3 Still Speaks in the Future
The methods chapter remains in the proposal's voice: "Participants will be recruited," "Interviews will last approximately one hour." Every sentence describing what was planned must now describe what was done, and several things changed in practice. Recruitment at the third department went through a supervisor rather than the open email invitation described in the proposal, and four interviews were held by video at participants' request. Those changes need to be reported as deviations, with their possible effects on who spoke and what they said.
The Literature Search Has Aged
The review's search closed before the first interview. Since then, new work on community hoarding responses and on decision-making by frontline public health staff has likely appeared. The gap statement in chapter 2, that no study has examined how health department staff triage hoarding complaints, must be checked before it is repeated in the final document. Bratiotis (2013) examined five multiagency task forces using interviews, documents and observation; my review cites that study, but I have not checked for work published since the search closed.
Chapter 5 Has Not Begun
The proposal expected an outline by now. I delayed it to finish chapter 4, but I recognize that the discussion depends on how the results are framed, and I would prefer to outline it alongside the remaining results theme rather than after.
Ethics and Data Status
All 24 transcripts are stored on the university's encrypted research drive, with participant names replaced by role codes. The key linking codes to names is held separately and will be destroyed at the time stated in the consent form. No participant has withdrawn. The continuing review approval covers analysis and writing through next March, which leaves room for the schedule below but not for another round of interviews.
Decisions I Need From You
First, whether the literature refresh should rerun the original search exactly, with the same terms and limits, or also add terms that emerged from the interviews, such as "code enforcement" and "adult protective services." Second, whether the four video interviews should be analyzed with the others without separate treatment or flagged in the results, since video may have changed how participants described home visits. Third, whether you want chapter 3 revised before or after the full chapter 4 draft.
Proposed Schedule
Table 2
Proposed Completion Schedule (Composite)
| Task | Target date | |
|---|---|
| Literature refresh and revised chapter 2 | Six weeks from today | |
| Chapter 3 rewritten in past tense with deviations | Eight weeks | |
| Chapter 4, third theme and divergent account | Ten weeks | |
| Chapter 5 full draft | Sixteen weeks | |
| Full draft to committee | Twenty weeks | |
Note. Assumes decisions on the three questions above at our next meeting.
A Note on Scope
The study was designed with three departments and 24 interviews because Malterud et al. (2016) argue that a narrow aim and a specific sample can provide enough information power with a modest number of participants. I continue to think the sample holds enough information for the question as asked, but the final chapters will need to state that judgment explicitly rather than rely on the proposal's claim of saturation.
References
Bratiotis, C. (2013). Community hoarding task forces: A comparative case study of five task forces in the United States. Health & Social Care in the Community, 21(3), 245-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/hsc.12010
Frost, R. O., Steketee, G., & Williams, L. (2000). Hoarding: A community health problem. Health & Social Care in the Community, 8(4), 229-234. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2524.2000.00245.x
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753-1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
PHLT 9000 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms
Opening weeks of a dissertation completion course typically ask candidates to report where their study stands. Instructors and chairs want an honest inventory, not a narrative of effort: which chapters exist, in what state, dated, and how that compares with the approved proposal. Prompts often ask candidates to identify obstacles, request decisions and propose a timeline. A memo of two or three pages with a status table is a common format. Many chairs also ask for confirmation that ethics approval remains current and that data are stored as approved. Citations are fewer than in other assignments but should support any methodological claim, such as the adequacy of the sample. The tone should be businesslike, since the memo is a working document for the next committee meeting.
How the PHLT 9000 Week 1 example is put together
After a purpose paragraph that tells the chair how to use it, the memo presents Table 1, listing eight components with what the proposal expected, the status today and the last dated version. Three short sections describe departures: the methods chapter still written in the future tense with two unreported changes, a literature search 22 months old and a discussion chapter not yet started. A section confirms data storage and ethics approval. A decisions section asks three questions about the literature refresh, the video interviews and the order of revision. Table 2 proposes a schedule. A closing note on scope cites the information power approach to sample size.
Where the marks sit in the PHLT 9000 Week 1 rubric
Progress memos are judged on accuracy, candor and usefulness for decisions. The sample earns accuracy credit with dated entries for every component and a direct comparison with the proposal. Candor is shown by naming departures plainly, including a chapter still in the wrong tense and a review that has aged. Usefulness carries significant weight: the memo ends with three decisions the chair can make in one meeting and a schedule that depends on them. Confirming ethics and data status addresses a question committees routinely ask. The scope note links the sample to a published framework rather than to a claim of saturation. Format and brevity complete the marks. Memos that describe progress in general terms without dates or decisions tend to be returned for revision. Dating every entry also lets the chair see at a glance which parts of the file have gone untouched longest.
PHLT 9000 Week 1 help from the desk
Progress memos go wrong when they read like a diary. Build a table of every component with what was planned, what exists and the date of the last version. Name each departure from the proposal and its likely effect. Confirm that ethics approval and data storage are current. Ask for specific decisions instead of general feedback. Propose a schedule that depends on those decisions. Keep the memo short enough to read before a meeting. Send us your proposal and draft chapters, and a first progress memo comes back free.
Get a PHLT 9000 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 prompt and rubric with a plain list of the files your dissertation currently consists of and the date each last changed. A memo comes back grouping them by whether they still match your approved proposal, ending on one question for your chair. The first is free and takes 24 to 48 hours; its lead-visit study is invented.
More PHLT 9000 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- PHLT 9000 Week 2: Opening and Closing Read
- PHLT 9000 Week 3: Literature Refresh
- PHLT 9000 Week 4: Chapter Rebuild
- PHLT 9000 Week 5: Terminology Register
- PHLT 9000 Week 6: Figure and Table Audit
- PHLT 9000 Week 7: Results Narrative
- PHLT 9000 Week 8: Implications Section
- PHLT 9000 Week 9: Reach Check
- PHLT 9000 Week 10: Full Document Pass
- PHLT 9000 Week 11: Dissertation Abstract
- PHLT 8702 Week 1: Orientation Post
- PHLT 8522 Week 1: Signal Appraisal Memo
- PHLT 8520 Week 1: Error Taxonomy Brief
PHLT 9000 Week 1 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PHLT 9000 Week 1 sample paper?
The full Week 1 progress memo is posted on this page, comparing a composite dissertation's status with its proposal in a dated table, with decisions and a schedule.
What should a dissertation progress memo include?
A dated inventory of every component, a comparison with the approved proposal, any departures and their effects, ethics and data status, decisions needed from the chair and a proposed schedule.
Why rewrite the methods chapter in the past tense?
The proposal described what would be done; the dissertation must report what was done, including any changes made during data collection.
How should a qualitative sample size be justified?
Many researchers now use information power, which judges adequacy by the aim, sample specificity, use of theory, quality of dialogue and analysis strategy rather than by saturation alone.
Is the hoarding dissertation in this sample real?
No. Its departments, participants and numbers were invented to illustrate the assignment, while every cited study on hoarding and qualitative methods is published and checkable.