PUBH 8501 Week 3 Source Audit Example

Course	PUBH 8501 Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry I
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Source audit
Length	About 560 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 3

Who Keeps It, What It Counts, and Against What: A Source Audit of Four Records That Might Confirm a Chlamydia Retest Gap at a Composite Walk-In Clinic

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 8501: Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry I

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title lists the questions asked of every source, because a record that counts the wrong thing or lacks a denominator cannot confirm a pattern, however official it looks.

Who Keeps It, What It Counts, and Against What: A Source Audit of Four Records That Might Confirm a Chlamydia Retest Gap at a Composite Walk-In Clinic

Purpose

My observation log suggested that many clients treated for chlamydia at Harbor Street, an invented walk-in sexual health clinic, never return for the retest recommended about three months after treatment (Workowski et al., 2021). A log kept by one person over four weeks cannot establish a pattern. This audit asks whether four records kept by others can, and grades each by who keeps it, what it counts, its denominator, the period it covers and how a stranger could retrieve it.

What this page is doingNaming the standard first lets each record be judged against the same retest interval.

The Four Sources

Table 1

Audit of sources on the retest gap

Source	Keeper	What it counts	Denominator	Period	Route for a stranger \|
Clinic laboratory and visit records	Clinic data manager	Each positive result, plus any follow-up test the same client had there	All clients with a positive result	Rolling, from the system's start	Data request approved by the clinic director \|
State STI surveillance summary	State health department	Reported chlamydia cases by county, age and sex	County population	Calendar year	Public annual report on the department's website \|
National laboratory analysis	Published study	Retests among people with a positive test, by sex and pregnancy	People tested positive in a national laboratory network	2008 to 2010	Journal article through a library \|
Systematic review of reinfection	Published review	Share of treated females reinfected	Females treated in 47 studies	Studies over 30 years	Journal article through a library \|

The clinic's records are internal; a stranger would need approval to see them.

Verdicts

The clinic's own records confirm the pattern for this clinic, as far as they go. They show who tested positive and who had a later test there. They cannot show retests performed elsewhere, so the gap they reveal is a gap in return to this clinic, not necessarily in retesting.

The state surveillance summary cannot speak to the pattern at all. It counts cases against the population, never who was retested after treatment. A county could have a large retest gap and the summary would never show it.

The national laboratory analysis partly confirms that the pattern is common. Fewer than a quarter of men and under two in five nonpregnant women were retested after a positive result, and about one in seven repeat tests came back positive (Hoover et al., 2012). It describes a different population, though, so it shows the gap is plausible here rather than present.

The systematic review explains why the gap matters. The median share of treated females reinfected with chlamydia was 13.9%, and younger age was associated with higher reinfection (Hosenfeld et al., 2009). It cannot confirm anything about the clinic, but it supports the standard the clinic is measured against.

What the Audit Leaves Me With

Only one source, the clinic's records, can show the local pattern, and it is internal. The published sources make the pattern plausible and important. The next step is to request a de-identified extract of positive results and later tests from the clinic data manager, with the approval route documented. The extract should include visit type, insurance and home zip code, so that the distribution of the gap can be examined as well as its size. Recording the request date and the approver's role will let a stranger repeat it.

References

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

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

What the PUBH 8501 Week 3 instructions ask for

Source audit assignments ask students to identify existing records that bear on the problem they have observed and judge what each can and cannot show. Prompts typically require a table describing each source and a short assessment of whether it confirms, partly confirms or cannot address the pattern. Students are expected to consider who maintains each source, what it measures and whether others could access it. Instructors look for attention to denominators in particular, since a count without a denominator rarely confirms a gap. Audits that list sources without judging them, or that treat an official report as authoritative simply because it is official, generally earn lower marks.

Inside the PUBH 8501 Week 3 example

The audit begins by restating the standard, a retest about three months after treatment, and the limit of the earlier observation. A five-column table describes four sources: the clinic's laboratory and visit records, a state surveillance summary, a national laboratory analysis and a systematic review of reinfection. A verdict paragraph follows for each. The clinic records confirm the local pattern but only for returns to the clinic. The state summary counts cases against population and so cannot show retesting. The two published studies show the gap is common and reinfection frequent. A closing section names the next step, a de-identified extract with a documented approval route. The table's last column, the retrieval route, prepares the ground for the source list due at the end of the term. Its verdicts use three plain labels so a reader can scan them quickly.

Reading the PUBH 8501 Week 3 rubric

Graders generally evaluate the completeness of the source descriptions, the accuracy of each verdict and the student's attention to what records actually count. Identifying the denominator for every source earns credit. A verdict that explains why a source cannot address the pattern, as the state summary paragraph does, shows analytic care. Distinguishing local confirmation from general plausibility demonstrates sound reasoning. Recording a retrieval route for each source shows the student is thinking about whether others could check the work. Audits that rely on one strong source while ignoring its limits typically score lower than those that set out what each source leaves unanswered.

Common PUBH 8501 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them

List every record that might bear on your problem, including ones you think will not help. For each, write down who keeps it and what exactly it counts. Then ask what it counts against: a population, a set of visits, a group of tested people. A source that counts the right thing against the wrong denominator cannot confirm your pattern. Note how someone outside your organization would get it. Give each source a one-line verdict before writing paragraphs. If you have more sources than you can sort, send us your list and problem and we can draft a sample audit that grades them.

Get a PUBH 8501 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Name the pattern you believe you have seen, list any outside sources you already suspect might hold it, and add the Week 3 prompt and rubric. The audit grades each record for keeper, denominator and retrievability. Expect it within 24 to 48 hours, free for a first request; its state summary and laboratory report are stand-ins.

More PUBH 8501 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8501 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8501 Week 3 sample paper?

The complete Week 3 source audit is shown above, grading four records on a chlamydia retest gap at a composite clinic.

What questions does the audit ask of every source?

Who keeps it, what it counts, its denominator, the period it covers and how a stranger could retrieve it.

Why can the state surveillance summary not confirm the gap?

It counts reported cases against population, never who was retested after treatment.

What do the published studies add?

They show that low retest rates and frequent reinfection are common, making the local pattern plausible and important.

What is the limit of the clinic's own records?

They show only retests at the clinic, so retests done elsewhere look like missed retests.