| Course | DPH 810 Advanced Epidemiology in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Community survey design paper |
| Length | About 1,036 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 810 Module 5
Asking the Community: Designing a Survey on Food Environments, Shopping and Diabetes Risk
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 810: Advanced Epidemiology in Public Health
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Asking the Community: Designing a Survey on Food Environments, Shopping and Diabetes Risk
Health records show who develops diabetes but not how people shop, eat or perceive their neighborhoods. A community survey can fill that gap, measuring behaviors and perceptions that may explain or confound the association between food swamps and diabetes. This paper designs such a survey for the composite county.
Objectives
The survey aims to describe where residents buy food and how far they travel, measure diet and physical activity, capture perceptions of neighborhood food options and collect information on potential confounders not recorded in health records, such as household income and food insecurity. Data will help interpret the cohort's findings.
Sampling Design
An address-based sample will be stratified by food swamp quartile of the census tract so that each quartile contributes 400 completed surveys, 1,600 in all. Within strata, addresses will be drawn randomly, and one adult per household selected using the next-birthday method. Stratification ensures enough respondents in each exposure group. Addresses will come from a commercial address list that covers nearly all residential mail delivery points in the county.
Sample Size
Sample size was based on detecting a 10 percentage point difference in the share of residents who buy most food at fast-food or convenience outlets between the highest and lowest quartiles, from 20% to 30%, with 80% power at a significance level of .05, which requires about 300 per group. Planning for a response rate near 40% and allowing for design effects, 400 completes per stratum gives a margin of safety (Whitley & Ball, 2002).
Questionnaire Content
The table lists domains and sources.
| Domain | Example items | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Diabetes and risk factors | Told by a doctor you have diabetes or prediabetes; height and weight | Behavioral risk survey items |
| Diet | Fruit and vegetable servings; sugary drink frequency | Validated short screeners |
| Food shopping | Where most food is bought; travel time and mode | Food environment survey items |
| Food security | Worried food would run out | Short food security module |
| Neighborhood perceptions | Availability and cost of healthy food nearby | Neighborhood perception scales |
| Demographics and income | Household income, education, household size | Standard census items |
Validity and Reliability
Using established items supports comparability and quality. Pierannunzi and colleagues reviewed studies of the national behavioral risk survey and judged many self-reported measures to have moderate to high reliability and validity, though some behaviors were less consistent (Pierannunzi et al., 2013). Items with weaker evidence will be interpreted cautiously.
Mode and Language
Households will receive a mailed invitation with a web link and a paper questionnaire, followed by reminders and telephone follow-up. Surveys will be available in English, Spanish and Vietnamese, translated and back-translated by native speakers. A toll-free number will allow residents to complete the survey by phone in any of the three languages.
Pretesting
Cognitive interviews with 15 residents across languages will test whether items are understood as intended, especially food shopping questions. A pilot mailing to 200 addresses will estimate response rates and identify problems before full launch. Items that confuse respondents will be reworded and retested before the main survey.
Maximizing Response
Strategies include a prenotice letter from the health department, a small prepaid incentive, multiple contacts, community partner endorsement and a short questionnaire of about 15 minutes. Tracking response by stratum allows targeted follow-up where response lags.
Weighting and Analysis
Responses will be weighted for sampling design and adjusted for nonresponse using age, sex and tract characteristics. Analysis will compare behaviors and perceptions across quartiles and examine whether they explain the association between food swamp exposure and diabetes status, keeping in mind that cross-sectional survey data cannot establish timing and that area-level patterns may not hold for individuals (Diez Roux, 2001).
Ethics
The survey will obtain informed consent, protect confidentiality, gather only the identifiers it needs and go through institutional review board approval. Only grouped results will be published, and residents will receive a summary of findings.
Linking Survey and Records
With consent, survey respondents who receive care in the participating health systems could be linked to their records, allowing analysis of whether shopping behaviors predict later diabetes. Linkage would require additional approvals and careful privacy protections.
Measuring Perceived Food Environment
Perceptions of the food environment may differ from objective measures. Residents may shop outside their neighborhood or not notice nearby healthy options. Collecting both perceived and objective measures allows comparison and a fuller picture.
Community Involvement
Residents drawn from several neighborhoods will form an advisory group to review the questionnaire, help recruit participants and interpret findings. Community involvement improves relevance and response rates and builds trust in the results.
Budget
The survey budget includes printing and postage, incentives, translation, telephone follow-up staff and data entry, estimated at about $38,000. Web responses reduce costs, and partnership with a university survey center may lower them further.
Analysis Linking Survey and Cohort
Survey results will be compared with cohort findings: if residents of high food swamp tracts report more fast-food purchases and lower fruit and vegetable intake, this supports the proposed pathway. If not, other explanations, such as stress or physical activity, deserve attention.
Timeline
Questionnaire development and translation take three months, cognitive testing and pilot one month, fielding three months and weighting and analysis two months, fitting within the second year of the doctoral project.
Interviewer Training
Telephone interviewers will be trained in neutral delivery of items, probing without leading and protecting privacy. Bilingual interviewers will conduct interviews in respondents' preferred languages, and quality monitoring will review a sample of recorded calls with consent.
Survey Limitations
Self-reported diet and shopping are subject to recall and social desirability bias. Nonresponse may be higher among some groups despite weighting. The cross-sectional survey cannot establish whether behaviors preceded diabetes. These limits will be stated alongside findings.
Using Results in Practice
Survey findings on where residents shop and what they want nearby will be shared with planners and grocers, supporting healthy retail programs even before cohort results are final.
Conclusion
A stratified address-based survey of 1,600 adults, using validated items in three languages, pretested and weighted, will add information on shopping, diet, food security and perceptions that health records lack. Designed to complement the cohort, it will help interpret whether and how food environments influence diabetes risk in the county.
References
Diez Roux, A. V. (2001). Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. American Journal of Public Health, 91(11), 1783-1789. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.91.11.1783
Pierannunzi, C., Hu, S. S., & Balluz, L. (2013). A systematic review of publications assessing reliability and validity of the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), 2004-2011. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 13, Article 49. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-13-49
Whitley, E., & Ball, J. (2002). Statistics review 4: Sample size calculations. Critical Care, 6(4), 335-341. https://doi.org/10.1186/cc1521
Reading the DPH 810 Module 5 assignment instructions
Survey methodology in community settings is part of Aspen's catalog description for DPH 810, and because the fifth module's instructions are visible only to enrolled students, this sample designs a survey. Survey design assignments usually ask for objectives, a sampling plan, a sample size, questionnaire content, mode, pretesting, response strategies and analysis. Tie objectives to your main study. Stratify if you need enough respondents in key groups. Show the sample size calculation. Use validated items where possible. Plan for multiple languages. Describe pretesting and how you will weight results. Budget for postage, incentives and translation from the start. Explain how survey responses will be linked to neighborhood exposure without exposing respondents' identities.
How the DPH 810 Module 5 example is put together
Laid out across seventeen headings in roughly 1,050 words, the design includes a three-column table of questionnaire domains. It sets objectives, describes sampling and sample size, presents the table and covers validity, mode and language, pretesting, response strategies, weighting and ethics. Linking survey and records, perceived food environment, community involvement, budget, analysis linking to the cohort, timeline, interviewer training and limitations follow. A margin comment explains that the survey is built to work alongside the cohort. The final paragraph summarizes what the survey adds. The domains table cites a source for every item so reviewers can see which measures are validated. The budget heading lists printing, postage, incentives and translation costs, and the interviewer training passage covers the telephone follow-up used for people who do not return the mailed form after two reminders.
Reading the DPH 810 Module 5 grading rubric
Survey design papers are marked on a sound sampling plan, justified sample size, valid measures, attention to language and response, and appropriate analysis. Sources include a systematic review of the national behavioral risk survey's reliability, a primer on sample size and Diez Roux's review of neighborhood effects, all formatted in APA style. The domains table shows sources for each item. Pretesting and weighting are planned. Limitations are stated. Graders value surveys designed to answer specific questions rather than collect everything. Instructors check that the stratified design and the sample size agree, so the paper explains why 400 completions per quartile are needed and what response rate is assumed. Weighting steps are described in order, and the comparison between perceived and audited food environments shows why the survey adds something the records cannot provide.
DPH 810 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often design long questionnaires without a clear plan for analysis. Others skip pretesting or ignore nonresponse. Keep only items tied to objectives. Show your sample size math. Plan translations and cognitive interviews. Describe weighting. If you have not calculated survey sample size before, a tutor can work through the formula with your numbers. Close with how survey results will be used. If your questionnaire runs past fifteen minutes, response will fall; cut items that no objective needs. Pilot the translated versions with native speakers from the target neighborhoods rather than relying on a translation service alone. Plan reminder mailings in advance. Describe how you will report response rates by stratum so readers can judge nonresponse bias.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DPH 810 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 810 Module 1: Epidemiological Question and Hypothesis
- DPH 810 Module 2: Documented Literature Search
- DPH 810 Module 3: Measures of Occurrence and Risk
- DPH 810 Module 4: Choosing a Study Design
- DPH 810 Module 6: Bias, Confounding and Alternatives
- DPH 810 Module 7: Staged Study Proposal
- DPH 810 Module 8: Doctoral Project Topic and Committee
- DPH 805 Module 2: Leadership Assessment and Plan
- DPH 860 Module 5: Working From a Codebook
- DPH 870 Module 6: A Synthesis Matrix by Theme
- DPH 840 Module 7: Strategy for a Vulnerable Population
DPH 810 Module 5 questions, answered
What does DPH 810 Module 5 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 810 covers survey methodology in community settings, so designing a community survey is a typical assignment. Check the prompt in your classroom.
What is stratified sampling?
Dividing a population into groups and sampling within each so that every group is adequately represented.
Why pretest a questionnaire?
Cognitive interviews and pilots reveal confusing items and practical problems before the full survey launches.
Where can I find a free DPH 810 Module 5 sample paper?
Scroll up for the community survey design and its table listing questionnaire domains with their sources.
How is a community survey designed in DPH 810 Module 5?
Set objectives, choose a sampling plan and sample size, select validated items, plan mode and language, pretest, maximize response and weight results.