PUBH 8502 Week 3 Inclusion Rules Example

Course	PUBH 8502 Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry II
Week	Week 3
Paper type	Inclusion rules
Length	About 550 words, 5 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 8502 Week 3

Fixed Before a Single Title Was Screened: Seven Inclusion Rules, Each With Its Reason and a Borderline Ruling, for a Practice Review on Raising Three-Month Chlamydia Retest Rates

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 8502: Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title records the timing of the rules, because inclusion decisions made after reading results can bend the review toward what the reader hoped to find.

Fixed Before a Single Title Was Screened: Seven Inclusion Rules, Each With Its Reason and a Borderline Ruling, for a Practice Review on Raising Three-Month Chlamydia Retest Rates

Status of These Rules

These rules were fixed on the date shown on the cover page, before any search result was screened. They govern which studies enter a practice review for the nurse manager at Harbor Street, a composite walk-in clinic, on changes that might raise the share of treated chlamydia clients who return for a retest. Setting criteria in advance, and applying them consistently, protects a review from selection shaped by its results (Higgins et al., 2019). Each rule gives the reason behind it and one borderline case with its ruling.

What this page is doingDating the rules before screening is what makes later inclusion decisions credible.

The Rules

Rule 1, population. Include studies of people treated for chlamydia at outpatient, community or sexual health clinics. Exclude studies limited to pregnant patients. Reason: pregnancy has its own test-of-cure schedule, which differs from the general retest recommendation (Workowski et al., 2021). Borderline: a study of people treated for chlamydia or gonorrhea combined. Ruling: include if chlamydia results are reported separately or make up most of the sample.

Rule 2, intervention. Include any change aimed at bringing treated clients back for a retest, such as reminders, mailed kits, scheduled visits, counseling or incentives. Reason: the manager is choosing among all kinds of follow-up, not one. Borderline: a partner treatment trial that reports retesting as a secondary result. Ruling: exclude, since its intervention was not aimed at retesting.

Rule 3, comparison. Admit studies that compare the change against usual advice, whether the comparison group ran at the same time or in an earlier period. Exclude single-group studies with no comparison. Reason: without a comparison, a retest rate cannot show the effect of a change. Borderline: a single clinic comparing a new reminder year with its own previous year. Ruling: include as a historical comparison, flagged for weaker design.

Rule 4, outcome. Include studies reporting the share retested within a stated window, with a clear denominator. Exclude studies reporting only reinfection among those who returned. Reason: reinfection among returners says nothing about how many returned. Borderline: a study using a retest window of five to eight months. Ruling: include, recording the window, since one such study offered retesting at six months (Kampman et al., 2015).

Rule 5, design. Include randomized trials, controlled before-and-after studies and cohort studies with comparison groups. Exclude modeling studies, case reports and opinion pieces. Borderline: a cost-effectiveness analysis built on a trial. Ruling: exclude from the evidence table, but read for context on costs.

Rule 6, setting. Include studies from any high-income country. Reason: clinic arrangements in those settings are close enough to Harbor Street's to be informative. Borderline: a study from an Australian regional clinic. Ruling: include; applicability is judged later, not at screening.

Rule 7, date and form. Include full reports published from 2000 onward in any language with an English abstract. Exclude conference abstracts without full data. Borderline: a conference abstract reporting a large effect. Ruling: exclude, but search for a later full report and record the attempt.

Applying the Rules

Two readers will screen titles and abstracts independently against these rules, then compare decisions and resolve disagreements by discussion. Every exclusion at the full-text stage will be recorded with the rule that excluded it.

References

Higgins, J. P. T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (Eds.). (2019). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed.). Wiley.

Kampman, C. J. G., Koedijk, F. D. H., Driessen-Hulshof, H. C. M., Hautvast, J. L. A., & van den Broek, I. V. F. (2015). Retesting young STI clinic visitors with urogenital Chlamydia trachomatis infection in the Netherlands; response to a text message reminder and reinfection rates: A prospective study with historical controls. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 92(2), 124-129. https://doi.org/10.1136/sextrans-2015-052115

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 8502 Week 3 instructions ask for

Inclusion criteria assignments ask students to specify which studies will be admitted to their review and which excluded. Prompts commonly require criteria for population, intervention, comparison, outcome and study design, with reasons, and often ask students to anticipate difficult cases. Instructors stress that criteria should be set before screening. Many also ask how criteria will be applied, for example by two independent reviewers. Rules that are vague, such as including "relevant studies," or that are adjusted after seeing which studies exist, tend to lose credit because they leave room for selection driven by results rather than by the question.

How the PUBH 8502 Week 3 example is put together

The document opens with a statement that the rules were fixed and dated before screening, citing guidance on why that matters. Seven numbered rules follow, each with a reason and a borderline case. Population excludes pregnancy-only studies because pregnancy has its own test-of-cure schedule. Intervention excludes partner treatment trials that report retesting only as a side result. Comparison admits historical controls with a flag. Outcome requires a denominator and admits a longer window with a note. Design, setting, and date and form close the list. A final section describes independent screening and the recording of every full-text exclusion with its rule. Each borderline ruling is written as a short decision a second screener could apply without asking the author, which is the practical test of whether a rule is clear enough.

Where the marks sit in the PUBH 8502 Week 3 rubric

Rubrics usually reward specificity, justification, anticipation of hard cases and a sound process for applying the rules. Each criterion should be precise enough that two readers would reach the same decision. Reasons tied to the review question earn credit. Borderline cases with explicit rulings demonstrate foresight and make screening more consistent. Dating the rules before screening shows awareness of bias. A plan for independent screening and recorded exclusions shows readiness for reporting. Criteria that simply copy a standard template, without reasons specific to the topic, generally score lower than those visibly shaped by the question and setting. Rules whose borderline cases come from the actual literature on the topic, rather than invented extremes, show the student has looked ahead at what screening will meet.

PUBH 8502 Week 3 help from the desk

Start from your question and write one rule for each element, plus design, setting and date. For each, write the reason in a sentence. Then imagine a study that sits right on the line and decide now how you would treat it. Write that ruling down. Date the document before you screen anything. Plan for a second reader and decide how you will settle disagreements. If you find yourself wanting to change a rule after screening starts, record the change and why. For help turning a loose topic into clear rules, we can write a sample set for your review.

Get a PUBH 8502 Week 3 example written to your instructions

Send whatever criteria you have drafted, or none, together with your search strategy and the Week 3 prompt and rubric. The rules come back dated, each with its reason and a borderline case already ruled on. There is no charge for the first set, returned within 24 to 48 hours; the studies these rules anticipate are hypothetical.

More PUBH 8502 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8502 Week 3 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8502 Week 3 sample paper?

The whole Week 3 inclusion rules document is above, for a review on chlamydia retesting.

Why were the rules dated before screening?

So that decisions about which studies count could not be shaped by what the studies found.

Why exclude studies of pregnant patients only?

Pregnancy has its own test-of-cure schedule, which differs from the general retest recommendation.

How are historical comparison groups handled?

They are included but flagged as a weaker design.

What happens to conference abstracts?

They are excluded unless full data exist, and a search for a later full report is recorded.