PUBH 8501 Week 11 Source List Example

Course	PUBH 8501 Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry I
Week	Week 11
Paper type	Source list and claim map
Length	About 660 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 8501 Week 11

Built So a Stranger Could Rebuild the Case: A Source List and Claim Map for a Problem Statement on Skipped Chlamydia Retesting in a Composite Clinic, With Retrieval Routes and Access Status

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 8501: Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry I

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the list's test, whether someone outside the clinic could follow every claim back to its source without asking the author.

Built So a Stranger Could Rebuild the Case: A Source List and Claim Map for a Problem Statement on Skipped Chlamydia Retesting in a Composite Clinic, With Retrieval Routes and Access Status

Purpose of the List

This list supports the problem statement on missed three-month chlamydia retests at Harbor Street, the composite clinic followed all term. It has two parts. The reference list at the end follows current APA style. The claim map below pairs each source with the sentence it supports, the route a stranger would take to retrieve it, its access status and the date the route was last checked.

What this page is doingExplaining the two parts first tells the reader why a reference list alone would not be enough.

What Each Published Source Supports

National treatment guidance sets the standard the clinic is measured against: retesting about three months after treatment for chlamydia (Workowski et al., 2021). A national laboratory analysis supports the claim that low retest rates are common across settings (Hoover et al., 2012). A systematic review supports the claim that reinfection is frequent and higher among younger people (Hosenfeld et al., 2009). A review of sequelae supports the burden estimate's range for pelvic inflammatory disease and its warning that the range is uncertain (Haggerty et al., 2010). A systematic review of rescreening interventions appears only in the counter-evidence check, as a pointer to later work (Guy et al., 2012). A randomized trial of expedited partner therapy supports the scope test's description of the parked partner strand (Golden et al., 2005).

Methods sources support how the inquiry was done rather than what it found. Guidance on fieldnotes supports keeping events apart from interpretations and changing details that insiders could recognize (Emerson et al., 2011). Work on reidentification supports the de-identification pass's attention to combinations of ordinary details (Sweeney, 2002). The federal privacy rule supplies the de-identification standard (45 C.F.R. § 164.514). The idea that practitioners set problems before solving them frames the whole term (Schön, 1983). A general statistics text supports the peer critique's point that a mean can hide a long tail (Spiegelhalter, 2019).

Claim Map

Table 1

Sources, the claims they support, retrieval and access

Source	Claim supported	Retrieval route	Access	Route last checked \|
National STI treatment guidance, 2021	Retest about three months after treatment	DOI link to the published guidance	Open	Month Day, Year \|
National laboratory analysis, 2012	Retest gaps are common	DOI through a university library	Library-licensed	Month Day, Year \|
Reinfection systematic review, 2009	Reinfection is frequent, higher in the young	DOI through a university library	Library-licensed	Month Day, Year \|
Sequelae review, 2010	Uncertain progression to pelvic inflammatory disease	DOI link	Open	Month Day, Year \|
Rescreening interventions review, 2012	Home kits and reminders as later options	DOI through a university library	Library-licensed	Month Day, Year \|
Partner therapy trial, 2005	Partner strand described in scope test	DOI through a university library	Library-licensed	Month Day, Year \|
Federal privacy rule	De-identification standard	Electronic Code of Federal Regulations	Open	Month Day, Year \|
Clinic laboratory and visit records	Local positive results and later tests	Data request to the clinic director	Internal	Month Day, Year \|
State record-matching report	Retests found elsewhere; matched retest rate	Request to the state STI program	Internal	Month Day, Year \|

Methods sources (fieldnotes, reidentification, reflective practice, statistics) are books or articles retrievable through any library and are omitted from the map for space.

Internal Sources

The two internal sources cannot appear in the reference list because a reader cannot retrieve them by citation. They are described by keeper, contents and approval route instead. A stranger who wanted to rebuild the case would need the clinic director's approval for the first and a request to the state program for the second. Both requests would be possible; neither would be quick.

Checking the Routes

Each link and route was opened on the date shown before submission. Two library-licensed articles required a sign-in that a stranger outside a university would not have, which is noted so readers know to use interlibrary loan or the authors' accepted manuscripts.

References

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes (2nd ed.). University of Chicago Press.

Golden, M. R., Whittington, W. L. H., Handsfield, H. H., Hughes, J. P., Stamm, W. E., Hogben, M., Clark, A., Malinski, C., Helmers, J. R. L., Thomas, K. K., & Holmes, K. K. (2005). Effect of expedited treatment of sex partners on recurrent or persistent gonorrhea or chlamydial infection. New England Journal of Medicine, 352(7), 676-685. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa041681

Guy, R., Hocking, J., Low, N., Ali, H., Bauer, H. M., Walker, J., Klausner, J. D., Donovan, B., & Kaldor, J. M. (2012). Interventions to increase rescreening for repeat chlamydial infection. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 39(2), 136-146. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e31823ed4ec

Haggerty, C. L., Gottlieb, S. L., Taylor, B. D., Low, N., Xu, F., & Ness, R. B. (2010). Risk of sequelae after Chlamydia trachomatis genital infection in women. The Journal of Infectious Diseases, 201(Suppl. 2), S134-S155. https://doi.org/10.1086/652395

Hoover, K. W., Tao, G., Nye, M. B., & Body, B. A. (2012). Suboptimal adherence to repeat testing recommendations for men and women with positive chlamydia tests in the United States, 2008-2010. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 56(1), 51-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cis771

Hosenfeld, C. B., Workowski, K. A., Berman, S., Zaidi, A., Dyson, J., Mosure, D., Bolan, G., & Bauer, H. M. (2009). Repeat infection with chlamydia and gonorrhea among females: A systematic review of the literature. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 36(8), 478-489. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181a2a933

Other requirements relating to uses and disclosures of protected health information, 45 C.F.R. § 164.514 (2024).

Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. Basic Books.

Spiegelhalter, D. (2019). The art of statistics: How to learn from data. Basic Books.

Sweeney, L. (2002). k-anonymity: A model for protecting privacy. International Journal of Uncertainty, Fuzziness and Knowledge-Based Systems, 10(5), 557-570. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218488502001648

Workowski, K. A., Bachmann, L. H., Chan, P. A., Johnston, C. M., Muzny, C. A., Park, I., Reno, H., Zenilman, J. M., & Bolan, G. A. (2021). Sexually transmitted infections treatment guidelines, 2021. MMWR Recommendations and Reports, 70(4), 1-187. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.rr7004a1

PUBH 8501 Week 11 instructions, in plain terms

Source list assignments at the end of an inquiry course ask students to document every source behind their problem statement in a way others could use. Prompts usually require a reference list in current APA style and an annotated or mapped list linking each source to the claim it supports. Many ask students to note access status, such as open, library-licensed or internal, and to check that links work. Instructors expect internal sources to be described rather than omitted. Lists that include sources never used in the statement, or that leave readers unable to tell which source supports which claim, tend to lose credit.

How the PUBH 8501 Week 11 example is put together

The page opens by explaining its two parts and their purpose. Two paragraphs follow, one on published sources and one on methods sources, each saying exactly which claim a source supports. A claim map table lists sources with the claim, retrieval route, access status and the date the route was checked; methods books are omitted from the map for space and noted as such. A section on internal sources explains why the clinic records and state report appear by description only and what a stranger would need to obtain them. A short section on checking routes notes access barriers for library-licensed articles. The claim map leaves the verification date as a placeholder for the student to fill on submission day. Sources are listed in the order they support the problem statement rather than alphabetically, since the map follows the argument.

PUBH 8501 Week 11 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders typically assess the accuracy of APA formatting, the completeness of the claim mapping, attention to access and the handling of internal sources. Every source in the reference list should be cited in the statement, and every claim should trace to a source. Noting whether a source is open or licensed shows awareness of who can check the work. Describing internal sources by keeper and approval route, rather than omitting them, demonstrates transparency. Recording when routes were verified earns credit for care. Lists that separate substantive sources from methods sources help readers see what supports findings and what supports process. A map whose rows follow the order of the problem statement makes the link between claim and source easy to audit.

Common PUBH 8501 Week 11 mistakes, and how to avoid them

Start from your problem statement, not your reading list. For each sentence, write down the source that supports it. Then build the reference list from those sources only. Add a column for how someone would retrieve each one and whether they would need a library login or permission. Describe internal records by who keeps them and how to request access. Open every link before you submit and note the date. If your references are scattered across a term of drafts and you need them assembled and mapped, we can create a sample list from your statement and sources.

Get a PUBH 8501 Week 11 example written to your instructions

Send your reference list as it stands, your problem statement, and the Week 11 instructions with the rubric. The list comes back formatted, with a claim map in argument order, retrieval routes and access status for each entry. Your opening request costs nothing, returned within 24 to 48 hours; the internal records named above belong to no actual clinic.

More PUBH 8501 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8501 Week 11 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8501 Week 11 sample paper?

The full Week 11 source list and claim map appear above, supporting a problem statement on missed chlamydia retests.

What does the claim map add to a reference list?

It links each source to the claim it supports, how to retrieve it, its access status and when the route was checked.

How are internal sources listed?

By description, keeper and approval route, since a reader cannot retrieve them by citation.

Why separate methods sources from published findings?

Methods sources support how the inquiry was done, not what it found, so readers can see each kind of support.

What access barriers does the list note?

Two library-licensed articles that a reader outside a university would need interlibrary loan or author manuscripts to read.