Three drafts of one question go in and one comes out: the Week 1 workshop scores each against FINER and keeps the version PUBH 6036 could actually study. Searches like "pubh 6036 week 1 assignment example", "pubh6036 week 1 sample" and "pubh 6036 week 1 example" land here.
What a finished PUBH 6036 Week 1 question workshop looks like
The workshop runs about three pages and shows its narrowing in the open. It opens on the broad interest in a single sentence: children in public housing breathe smoke they did not produce. Three candidate questions follow, numbered, each set beside a five-row FINER table. Draft one asks whether the federal smoke-free rule worked, which fails feasibility and hides a causal claim no course project could test. Draft two asks how many residents still smoke indoors, which is answerable but drifts away from the children. Draft three names school-age children with asthma, caregiver-reported smoke entering from other units, and urgent asthma visits over the following year. The last paragraph records what that survivor dropped, adult outcomes and vaping aerosol among them. Nothing in the composite development is a real place.
How a PUBH 6036 Week 1 example is structured
Order matters in this document and never changes: the loose interest, the candidates, their verdicts, the survivor, then what it left out. The interest sentence is kept deliberately vague, because the workshop needs something to narrow. Each candidate gets identical treatment, the question as drafted, a FINER table, and a two-line verdict naming the criterion it fails. Feasible and ethical decide most verdicts, since interesting and relevant are easy to claim for nearly any topic, and the workshop says so rather than pretending all five letters weigh the same. Novel is handled honestly: the survivor is new to this setting, not to the literature. The final question is then broken into who, exposure, outcome and time span, each with a line on where its data would come from, and the losses close the document.
A worry, stated loosely
The interest sentence is allowed to stay vague: children in public housing breathe smoke produced by neighbors. That vagueness belongs on the page, since the narrowing that follows is measured against it.
Three drafts, numbered
Each candidate appears exactly as first drafted, never tidied afterward. One asks whether a federal rule worked, one counts indoor smokers, and one names children, smoke from other units and urgent visits.
Five letters, unequal weight
Feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant each get a row, yet the verdicts rest mostly on feasibility and ethics. The page admits that relevance is easy to claim and hard to fail.
Where each part would come from
The survivor is split into who, which exposure, which outcome and over what span. Caregivers would report smoke, clinic records would show visits, and the housing authority would supply addresses.
Outside the survivor
Adults with lung disease, vaping aerosol, cannabis smoke and children without asthma all fall outside the final question. Naming them keeps the survivor from being mistaken for the whole worry.
Where marks go in PUBH 6036 Week 1
Credit follows the verdicts rather than the questions. A workshop listing three candidates with no criterion attached to any rejection shows drafting and nothing more. The FINER table earns its marks only when each row says something specific to this question; a row approving relevance for every candidate is filler a grader spots at once. The heaviest weighting falls on the survivor's parts, since a population, an exposure, an outcome and a time span, each named precisely, are what later weeks build on. Honesty about novelty is a small criterion with outsized effect, because overclaiming it invites a reader to check. The paragraph on what was dropped lifts good workshops above passable ones. Deductions land hardest on a final question still carrying a causal verb no design has yet been chosen to support.
Get a PUBH 6036 Week 1 example written to your instructions
Send the Week 1 prompt and rubric along with the broad topic you are starting from, however loose it is. The workshop comes back inside 24-48h with three drafts, a FINER verdict on each and a survivor broken into parts, and the first one is free. Its housing authority is invented, so the question you keep has to grow from a setting you know.
PUBH 6036 Week 1 questions, answered
What are the FINER criteria?
A screening checklist from Hulley and colleagues' text on designing clinical research, asking whether a question is feasible, interesting, novel, ethical and relevant. It tests questions rather than generating them. Finished workshops apply it to each candidate in turn and let the rejections carry the reasoning, which tells a reader far more than five approving rows placed under a question already chosen.
Must the surviving question be new to the field?
Not in the sense of never studied. At this level, novel usually means new to a setting, a population or a measure, and saying which of those applies is enough. What costs credit is claiming a gap without checking, since a reader who finds three similar studies in a few minutes will start doubting every other judgment in your workshop.
Can the question keep a causal verb?
Only if the design you intend could support it, and at Week 1 you usually have not chosen one. Finished workshops use association language for now: is smoke entering the home associated with more urgent visits. That wording leaves the design choice open, which is exactly where later weeks pick the question up and decide what it needs.