PUBH 6641 Week 3 Scope Decision Example

Course	PUBH 6641 Applied Project in Public Health
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Scope decision brief
Length	About 580 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Public Health (MPH)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 6641 Week 3

Whom the Project Will Not Serve, and Why: A Scope Decision Confining a Composite County's Skin Cream Mercury Screening Project to Adult Women in Two Neighborhoods, With Separate Reasons for Leaving Out Sellers, Children and Blood Testing

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 6641: Applied Project in Public Health

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title leads with exclusions, because deciding whom a project will not serve is harder than deciding whom it will, and each exclusion needs its own reason.

The Scope

The project will offer free, private mercury screening of skin creams to women aged 18 and older living in Eastgate or Riverbend, two neighborhoods of the invented Marlow County, and who use or have recently used skin-lightening or imported beauty creams. Screening will take place at community events and partner sites over one year, using a portable analyzer borrowed from the state laboratory. Women whose creams contain mercury above the federal limit will be offered a confirmatory laboratory test, advice to stop using the product, a referral to their doctor and a replacement moisturizer.

What this page is doingStating the scope in full first lets each exclusion be read against a clear picture of what remains.

Exclusion 1: Sellers and Retail Enforcement

The project will not test products on store shelves, warn shops or seek removal of products from sale. Enforcement against cosmetics that contain mercury belongs to state and federal regulators, since the federal rule prohibits mercury in cosmetics above trace levels (21 C.F.R. § 700.13). If the project finds a product containing mercury, it will report the brand and source to the state health department, which can decide on enforcement. Taking on enforcement would also damage the trust the project depends on, since many sellers are neighbors of the women it hopes to reach.

Exclusion 2: Children and Infants

Household members, including children, can be exposed when a cream is used at home, and mercury can harm developing nervous systems. The project will not screen children or offer them testing. The reason is not that their exposure is unimportant but that pediatric exposure assessment requires clinical evaluation the project cannot provide. When a mother's cream screens positive, the project will advise her to tell her children's doctor and give her a summary sheet to take along.

Exclusion 3: Blood and Urine Testing

The project will test products, not people. Biological testing requires a clinician's order, interpretation and follow-up. When a Sacramento woman was poisoned by a Mexican cream in 2019, diagnosis depended on blood and urine testing in a hospital and specialized analysis afterward (Mudan et al., 2019). The project will refer women with symptoms or with a positive cream to their doctor for any testing.

Exclusion 4: The Rest of the County and Other Products

Other neighborhoods and other product types, such as soaps and some traditional remedies that may contain mercury, are left out to keep the project manageable for the small staff available, a specialist on partial time plus two outreach workers. If screening in the two neighborhoods finds a high rate of contamination, that finding would justify extending the project later.

Why Women Only

Most skin-lightening products are marketed to and used by women, and the setting profile found women to be the main users reported by community health workers. Men who bring a cream to an event will not be turned away; their products will be screened and they will receive the same advice. But outreach, materials and partner sites will be designed for women.

What the Scope Makes Possible

A narrow scope allows a reliable count. In a large international sample, 6% of skin-lightening products contained very high mercury levels (Hamann et al., 2014), but no one knows the local rate. By screening a defined group in two neighborhoods, the project can produce a local figure that the county and state can act on.

References

Hamann, C. R., Boonchai, W., Wen, L., Sakanashi, E. N., Chu, C.-Y., Hamann, K., Hamann, C. P., Sinniah, K., & Hamann, D. (2014). Spectrometric analysis of mercury content in 549 skin-lightening products: Is mercury toxicity a hidden global health hazard? Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 70(2), 281-287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2013.09.050

Mudan, A., Copan, L., Wang, R., Pugh, A., Lebin, J., Barreau, T., Jones, R. L., Ghosal, S., Lee, M., Albertson, T., Jarrett, J. M., Lee, J., Betting, D., Ward, C. D., De Leon Salazar, A., Smollin, C. G., & Blanc, P. D. (2019). Notes from the field: Methylmercury toxicity from a skin lightening cream obtained from Mexico, California, 2019. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 68(50), 1166-1167. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6850a4

Use of Mercury Compounds in Cosmetics, 21 C.F.R. § 700.13 (2024).

Reading the PUBH 6641 Week 3 instructions

Scope assignments ask students to define precisely who and what their applied project will cover, and to justify what it will exclude. Prompts usually require the target population, setting, time frame and activities, followed by explicit exclusions with reasons. Many instructors want each exclusion justified separately, since different exclusions rest on different grounds: authority, capacity, ethics or evidence. Instructors reward scopes that are narrow enough to be feasible and specific enough to measure, and that explain how excluded groups will still be pointed toward help, rather than scopes that exclude groups without comment.

How the PUBH 6641 Week 3 example is put together

The brief opens with the full scope in one paragraph. Four exclusions follow, each in its own section with a distinct reason: enforcement belongs to regulators, children need clinical assessment, biological testing requires clinicians and other areas exceed capacity. Each exclusion also says what the project will do for those left out, such as reporting brands, giving mothers a summary for their children's doctor and referring women with symptoms. A section explains the focus on women. The brief ends by showing how a narrow scope allows a reliable local contamination count. Each exclusion is paired with a referral or report, so no excluded group is simply dropped.

Reading the PUBH 6641 Week 3 rubric

Scope decisions are graded on clarity, feasibility, justification of exclusions and attention to those excluded. Clarity means the population and activities are defined precisely. Feasibility means the scope fits available staff and time. Justification credit is highest when each exclusion has its own reason. Graders also reward plans that point excluded groups toward appropriate help. Citing regulations or evidence where they bear on exclusions strengthens the work. Scopes that leave boundaries vague, or that exclude groups with a single blanket reason, typically lose points. Scopes that tie exclusions to who has legal authority, such as regulators for retail products, show understanding of the wider system. Graders also look for a scope that matches the staff and time described in the setting profile. A final paragraph explaining what the narrow scope makes possible, such as a reliable local count, turns limits into a design strength.

PUBH 6641 Week 3 help: mistakes that cost marks

Students often write scopes that are really goals. Name who is in, where, when and what the project will do for them. Then list who is out and give each exclusion its own reason. Ask whether a regulator, clinician or other agency is the right owner for each excluded task. Say how excluded people will be pointed to help. Check that the scope fits your hours. Share your draft and the prompt, and a version tailored to your course can follow. Write the scope so a stranger could decide whether a given person is in or out. Check it against your objectives once they are drafted, since scope and objectives drift apart easily.

Get a PUBH 6641 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Share the Week 3 prompt and rubric with your setting profile, and the boundaries are argued from what that profile established. The townships and households shown are fictional and exist only to carry the reasoning, so no real resident is described. The first request costs nothing and returns within 24-48h.

More PUBH 6641 papers and MPH samples

PUBH 6641 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 6641 Week 3 sample paper?

You can read the whole Week 3 scope decision above, limiting a mercury screening project to adult women in two neighborhoods.

Why does the project not test products in stores?

Enforcement belongs to regulators, and testing shops would damage the community trust the project depends on.

Why are children excluded from screening?

Assessing children's exposure requires clinical evaluation, so mothers with positive creams are advised to tell their children's doctor.

Why not test women's blood for mercury?

Biological testing needs a clinician's order and follow-up, so women with symptoms are referred to their doctors.

Can men bring creams for screening?

Yes; men are not turned away, though outreach and materials are designed for women.