PUBH 8502 Week 5 Evidence Table Example

Course	PUBH 8502 Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry II
Week	Week 5
Paper type	Evidence table
Length	About 570 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 5

Four Kinds of Change, One Wide Table: An Evidence Table for a Practice Review on Bringing Treated Chlamydia Clients Back for a Retest, Grouped by What Each Study Changed

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 8502: Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry II

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title explains the table's organization, by type of change rather than by author or date, because the nurse manager will choose among changes, not among studies.

Four Kinds of Change, One Wide Table: An Evidence Table for a Practice Review on Bringing Treated Chlamydia Clients Back for a Retest, Grouped by What Each Study Changed

How the Table Is Organized

The included studies are grouped into bands by the kind of change they tested: reminders by phone, reminders by post or text, mailed home kits, and incentives or counseling at the first visit. Within each band, studies appear in date order. Every column records what the paper itself reports, with outcome definitions kept close to each paper's wording. The quality and applicability columns are deliberately left for later weeks and marked as such, so that judging a study does not color how it is described. A published systematic review of rescreening interventions guided where to look but is not itself a row, since its trials appear separately (Guy et al., 2012).

What this page is doingSeparating description from judgment keeps the table a record rather than an argument.

The Table

Table 1

Included studies by kind of change

Band	Study	Setting and population	Change	Comparison	Outcome as defined	Window	Design	Result	Quality	Applicability \|
Phone reminder	Malotte et al. (2004)	Public STD clinics, United States; people treated for gonorrhea or chlamydia	Phone reminder at three months, with or without counseling at the first visit	Brief recommendation to return	Return for repeat testing	About three months	Randomized, two studies	Counseling plus phone reminder: odds ratio 2.6; phone reminder alone: 18.1, with a very wide interval	To be rated in Week 6	To be rated in Week 7 \|
Postcard reminder	Paneth-Pollak et al. (2010)	One public STD clinic, New York City	Reminder postcard	Clinics not using the postcard	Retesting three to four months after infection	Three to four months	Nonrandomized comparison	Retesting increased	To be rated in Week 6	To be rated in Week 7 \|
Text reminder	Kampman et al. (2015)	STI clinic visitors aged 16 to 23, the Netherlands	Text message reminder at six months	Historical control group	Returned for a retest	Five to eight months	Prospective study with historical controls	30.6% returned against 9.2%	To be rated in Week 6	To be rated in Week 7 \|
Mailed kit	Buhrer-Skinner et al. (2011)	Sexual health clinic, regional Australia	Offer to mail a self-collection kit at three months	Historical and concurrent controls	Returned a sample for retesting	Three to four months	Prospective intervention study	34.8% against 6.8% historical and 1.4% concurrent	To be rated in Week 6	To be rated in Week 7 \|
Incentive	Malotte et al. (2004)	As above	$20 paid at the return visit	Brief recommendation to return	Return for repeat testing	About three months	Randomized	Odds ratio 1.2, interval including no effect	To be rated in Week 6	To be rated in Week 7 \|

Malotte et al. (2004) appears twice because its arms tested different kinds of change.

Reading Note

Three things stand out before any appraisal. First, outcome windows differ from three months to eight, so the share returning is not measured on the same clock across studies. Second, only one study randomized; the others compared against clinics or years that may differ in other ways. Third, the three largest differences come from studies with small or historical comparison groups, which tend to produce larger apparent effects. None of this says the changes do not work. It says the table cannot yet tell the manager how much each would help at Harbor Street. Those questions belong to the appraisal and applicability work that follows.

References

Buhrer-Skinner, M., Muller, R., Buettner, P. G., Gordon, R., & Debattista, J. (2011). Improving Chlamydia trachomatis retesting rates by mailed self-collection kit. Sexual Health, 8(2), 248-250. https://doi.org/10.1071/SH10064

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

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

Malotte, C. K., Ledsky, R., Hogben, M., Larro, M., Middlestadt, S., St. Lawrence, J. S., Olthoff, G., Settlage, R. H., & Van Devanter, N. L. (2004). Comparison of methods to increase repeat testing in persons treated for gonorrhea and/or chlamydia at public sexually transmitted disease clinics. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 31(11), 637-642. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.olq.0000143083.38684.9d

Paneth-Pollak, R., Klingler, E. J., Blank, S., & Schillinger, J. A. (2010). The elephant never forgets: Piloting a chlamydia and gonorrhea retesting reminder postcard in an STD clinic setting. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 37(6), 365-368. https://doi.org/10.1097/OLQ.0b013e3181cab281

What the PUBH 8502 Week 5 instructions ask for

Evidence table assignments ask students to extract the key features of each included study into a structured table. Prompts typically specify columns such as setting, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, design and findings, and some ask for space reserved for later quality ratings. Students are expected to report what each study says rather than their opinion of it. Many instructors prefer studies grouped by intervention type. Tables that mix appraisal into description, or that leave readers unable to compare outcome definitions across studies, tend to lose credit because the table is meant to be a neutral record for later analysis.

How the PUBH 8502 Week 5 example is put together

The table is preceded by a short explanation of its grouping and the decision to defer judgment. Five rows across five bands cover a randomized comparison of phone reminders and incentives, a postcard pilot in New York City, a text reminder study with historical controls in the Netherlands, and a mailed kit study in regional Australia. One trial appears twice because its arms tested different changes. Columns record setting, change, comparison, outcome, window, design and result, with quality and applicability marked for later weeks. A reading note beneath the table names three patterns that later appraisal will need to address. Results are given in each study's own measure, odds ratios for the trial and percentages for the others, rather than converted to a single scale.

Where the marks sit in the PUBH 8502 Week 5 rubric

Rubrics usually reward accurate extraction, consistent columns, sensible grouping and restraint in judgment. Each cell should match what the study reports. Recording outcome definitions and follow-up windows earns credit because those details determine whether results can be compared. Grouping by intervention type helps a decision maker and is often well received. A reading note that flags patterns without drawing conclusions shows awareness of what the table can and cannot support. Tables that omit comparison groups or report results without their measures, such as odds ratios or percentages, generally score lower. Graders also like a table that stands on its own, with every abbreviation spelled out. A short note on why one study appears in two rows prevents confusion about double counting.

PUBH 8502 Week 5 help: mistakes that cost marks

Decide your columns before you open the first study, and keep them the same for every row. Copy outcome definitions as closely as you can rather than summarizing them. Note the follow-up window for each study, since it often explains differences in results. Group studies by what they changed if your reader is choosing among changes. Leave appraisal for later and mark those columns clearly. Read across rows when you finish and write down the patterns you see. If your studies are hard to fit into one table, we can draft a sample table for your review. Read your finished table once more as the decision maker would.

Get a PUBH 8502 Week 5 example written to your instructions

Forward the studies your review has kept, or their citations, plus any column template your instructor supplied and the Week 5 prompt and rubric. They are loaded into one table, grouped by type of change, judgment columns left open. Returned inside 24 to 48 hours, free the first time; the eleven studies shown are composites.

More PUBH 8502 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8502 Week 5 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8502 Week 5 sample paper?

The whole Week 5 evidence table is above, grouping studies on chlamydia retesting by the change they tested.

Why are quality and applicability columns left for later?

So that judging a study does not color how it is described.

What kinds of change are compared?

Phone reminders, postcard and text reminders, mailed self-collection kits, and incentives.

What did the incentive arm find?

A $20 payment at the return visit did not clearly raise return over a brief recommendation.

What patterns does the reading note flag?

Different outcome windows, mostly nonrandomized designs, and large effects from small or historical comparisons.