PUBH 8503 Week 8 Data Source Audit Example

Course	PUBH 8503 Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry III
Week	Week 8
Paper type	Data source audit
Length	About 550 words, 4 pages
Format	APA 7 student paper
School	Walden University
Program	PhD in Public Health
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for PUBH 8503 Week 8

Every Variable, Every Source, and the Link Between Them: A Data Source Audit for an Interrupted Time Series of Chlamydia Retesting at a Composite Walk-In Clinic

Student Name

Walden University

PUBH 8503: Scholar-Practitioner Inquiry III

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

What this page is doingThe title names the audit's three concerns, because a variable that exists in a source no one can link is as missing as one never recorded.

Every Variable, Every Source, and the Link Between Them: A Data Source Audit for an Interrupted Time Series of Chlamydia Retesting at a Composite Walk-In Clinic

Purpose

Harbor Street's evaluation depends on one monthly number: the fraction of clients treated for chlamydia who are tested again within four months. This audit lists each variable the study needs, checks which source holds it, and records how sources link. Guidance on time series evaluation stresses that a change in how an outcome is recorded can masquerade as an effect, so the audit also asks whether any source changed during the study window (Lopez Bernal et al., 2017).

What this page is doingLinking the audit to a known threat explains why recording changes are checked alongside availability.

The Matrix

Table 1

Variables by source

Variable	Laboratory system	Visit record	Outreach log	State laboratory reports \|
Positive chlamydia result and date	Yes	No	No	Yes \|
Treatment date	No	Yes	No	No \|
Later chlamydia test and date	Yes, at the clinic only	No	No	Yes, from any laboratory \|
Visit type, walk-in or scheduled	No	Yes	No	No \|
Home zip code	No	Yes	No	Yes, often incomplete \|
Age band	Yes	Yes	No	Yes \|
Contact details confirmed at treatment	No	Yes, from the switch month	No	No \|
Reminder text and call dates	No	No	Yes	No \|
Kit mailed and returned	No	No	Yes	No \|
Switch month	Not directly	Yes, as a new field	Yes, from first entry	No \|

Availability as confirmed with each source's keeper on the audit date.

Linking the Sources

The laboratory system and the visit record share the clinic's internal client number, so they link exactly. The outreach log uses the same number, entered by staff; a spot check of 50 entries found two typing errors, which can be corrected by matching on treatment date. The state laboratory reports carry name, birth date and sex, not the clinic number, so linkage would require a probabilistic match run by the state. That linkage is not yet approved.

Changes During the Study Window

Two changes affect the series. First, the laboratory switched chlamydia test order codes 20 months before the planned switch, when it adopted a new testing platform. Retests before and after that change must be identified by both old and new codes, or the series would show a false drop. Second, the visit record gains a contact-confirmation field in the switch month, which marks the program's start objectively and is better evidence of the switch date than staff recall.

Fixing the Outcome Definition

A retest means a further chlamydia result for the same client, dated between day 60 and day 120 after the positive one. The lower bound excludes tests of cure or repeat tests soon after treatment, which national guidance does not generally recommend for non-pregnant patients and which do not answer the retest question (Workowski et al., 2021). Months are assigned by the date of the original positive result, so each client belongs to one monthly cohort. Segmented regression will then model these monthly shares (Wagner et al., 2002).

Gaps

Without state linkage, retests at other laboratories are invisible. Home zip code is complete in the visit record but often missing in state reports. Neither gap prevents the primary analysis. The audit will be repeated when the final extract arrives, to confirm that no source changed its recording after this date.

References

Lopez Bernal, J., Cummins, S., & Gasparrini, A. (2017). Interrupted time series regression for the evaluation of public health interventions: A tutorial. International Journal of Epidemiology, 46(1), 348-355. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyw098

Wagner, A. K., Soumerai, S. B., Zhang, F., & Ross-Degnan, D. (2002). Segmented regression analysis of interrupted time series studies in medication use research. Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, 27(4), 299-309. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2710.2002.00430.x

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 8503 Week 8 instructions ask for

Data source audits ask students to verify that the data their study needs exist, can be accessed and can be linked. Prompts usually require a list of variables, the sources that hold them, the method for linking sources and an assessment of data quality and changes over time. Instructors often ask for a final outcome definition grounded in what the data actually contain. Audits that assume data exist without checking with the people who keep them, or that ignore changes in recording during the study period, typically lose credit, since those are among the most common reasons studies fail.

How this PUBH 8503 Week 8 example is built

The audit opens by stating its purpose and why recording changes matter for a time series. A matrix lists ten variables against four sources. A section on linkage explains that three clinic sources share an internal number, reports a spot check of the outreach log, and notes that state reports would need probabilistic matching not yet approved. A section on changes during the study window describes a switch in laboratory order codes and a new contact-confirmation field. The outcome is then fixed precisely, with a reason for its lower bound. A short section names the remaining gaps. The matrix uses plain yes or no entries with short qualifiers, so a reader can see coverage at a glance. A short note records the audit date, since sources can change after it.

PUBH 8503 Week 8 rubric: what earns full marks

Graders typically assess completeness of the variable list, accuracy of source information, attention to linkage and data quality, and precision of the outcome definition. Confirming availability with each source's keeper earns credit. A spot check of linkage quality shows diligence. Identifying a recording change that could create a false effect demonstrates understanding of time series threats. An outcome defined in exact terms, with a justified window, signals readiness for analysis. Audits that name gaps plainly and say whether they prevent the main analysis tend to score higher than those that leave the reader to infer them. Committing to repeat the audit when the final extract arrives shows awareness that data sources drift over a long study.

PUBH 8503 Week 8 help from the desk

List every variable your analysis will use, including dates and grouping fields. For each, find the source that holds it and confirm with the person who keeps it. Check how sources link and test the link on a small sample. Ask whether any system, code or form changed during your study period. Define your outcome in terms of fields that actually exist. Note what is missing and whether it matters for your main question. When your variables are scattered across systems that may not link cleanly, we can draft a sample audit for your sources. Date the audit.

Get a PUBH 8503 Week 8 example written to your instructions

List the variables the analysis depends on and every system holding them, together with the audit prompt for Week 8 and its rubric. The audit traces each variable to its source, keeper and link, and names the gaps. Delivered within 24 to 48 hours, a first audit carrying no charge; the laboratory system and registry described are illustrative, not a real department's.

More PUBH 8503 papers and PhD in Public Health samples

PUBH 8503 Week 8 questions, answered

Where can I find a free PUBH 8503 Week 8 sample paper?

The full Week 8 data source audit is shown above, for a time series of chlamydia retesting at a composite clinic.

Which sources does the audit examine?

The laboratory information system, the visit record, the outreach log and state laboratory reports.

What recording change could create a false effect?

A switch in laboratory test order codes 20 months before the program began.

How is the switch month fixed?

By the first entry in a new contact-confirmation field in the visit record.

How is a retest defined?

A further chlamydia result for the same client between day 60 and day 120 after the positive result.