| Course | DPH 870 Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Research process paper |
| Length | About 1,169 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 870 Module 1
From Question to Evidence: The Steps of Scientific Research in a Public Health Capstone
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 870: Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
From Question to Evidence: The Steps of Scientific Research in a Public Health Capstone
Scientific research follows a sequence of steps, each building on the last: identifying a problem, framing a question, reviewing what is known, choosing a design, collecting and analyzing data, interpreting results and sharing them. Public health research adds the challenge of studying programs in real communities, where randomization is often impossible. This paper traces these steps through a DPH capstone asking whether community health workers improve blood pressure control.
Evidence-Based Public Health as the Frame
Brownson et al. (2009) describe evidence-based public health as making decisions using the best available scientific evidence, systematic use of data, community engagement, sound evaluation and dissemination of what is learned. Research is the engine of this cycle: it produces the evidence that practice uses and evaluates whether practice works.
Eight Steps
The table outlines the steps and the decision each requires in the capstone.
| Step | Key decision | Application in the capstone |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Identify the problem | Is it important and researchable? | Uncontrolled hypertension among east-side adults |
| 2. Frame the question | What exactly will be answered? | Does program participation improve control at 12 months? |
| 3. Review the literature | What is known and where are gaps? | Trials and reviews of community health workers |
| 4. Choose a design | Which design best answers the question? | Matched comparison using clinic data |
| 5. Collect data | Which sources, measures and safeguards? | Clinical records and program data |
| 6. Analyze | Which methods fit the design? | Matched models, imputation, sensitivity analyses |
| 7. Interpret | What do results mean, and how certain? | Effect size, uncertainty and bias |
| 8. Disseminate | Who needs the findings and in what form? | Manuscript, health department brief, community summary |
Identifying the Problem
A research problem is a gap between what is and what should be, or between what is known and what needs to be known. In the county, blood pressure is controlled for fewer than half of east-side residents who have hypertension, and it is unclear whether the health department's new community health worker program is helping. The problem is important, local and answerable with available data.
Framing the Question
A good question is specific enough to guide design and analysis. The capstone asks whether joining the community health worker program raised the share of east-side adults whose blood pressure was under control a year later, relative to comparable adults who stayed out of it.
Reviewing the Literature
The literature review establishes what is already known. A systematic review found that community health workers improved blood pressure outcomes and related behaviors such as medication adherence (Brownstein et al., 2007). The capstone's contribution is local evidence in a program run by a health department rather than a research team.
Complex Interventions
Community health worker programs are complex interventions, with several interacting components, varied delivery and outcomes that depend on context. The Medical Research Council's guidance recommends developing interventions from theory and evidence, testing feasibility, evaluating with appropriate designs and attending to implementation (Craig et al., 2008). This guidance shapes the capstone's attention to fidelity and context.
Beyond Randomized Trials
Randomized trials offer the strongest protection against confounding, but many public health programs cannot be randomized once running. Victora et al. (2004) argue that public health evidence should draw on adequacy, plausibility and probability designs, choosing the level of evidence needed for the decision at hand. A well-designed matched comparison can provide plausibility evidence that a program had an effect.
Choosing a Design
A matched comparison built from clinical records was chosen because the program was already running, randomization was not possible and records were available for similar adults who did not enroll. The design's main weakness, confounding by unmeasured factors such as motivation, will be addressed through sensitivity analyses.
Data, Analysis and Interpretation
Data come from clinic records and program logs. Analysis follows a plan fixed before outcomes are examined. Interpretation considers the size and uncertainty of effects and the potential for bias, and it asks what the findings mean for the program and the community.
Dissemination
Research only improves health if its findings reach people who can act on them. The capstone will produce a manuscript for the committee and a journal, a brief for the health department and county commissioners and a plain-language summary for residents and community health workers.
Research as an Iterative Process
The steps are not strictly linear. Reviewing the literature refined the question, data availability shaped the design and early data checks revealed measurement issues that changed the analysis plan. Documenting these changes keeps the process transparent.
Ethics at Every Step
Ethical questions arise throughout: whether the question serves the community, whether data use respects privacy, whether analysis is honest and whether findings are shared fairly. The capstone received a determination from the institutional review board and involves community members in interpreting results.
Mapping to Capstone Chapters
Steps one and two form Chapter 1, step three forms Chapter 2, steps four through six form Chapter 3, step seven begins in Chapter 4 and continues in Chapter 5, and step eight shapes the dissemination plan. Seeing the steps this way helps the student plan the capstone as a whole.
Theory's Place in the Steps
Theory links the steps. A theory of change explains why community health workers should improve blood pressure, for example by building trust that leads to medication adherence and home monitoring. It guides which variables to measure, which mechanisms to explore in interviews and how to interpret results. Without theory, research risks producing findings that cannot be explained or transferred.
Stakeholders Across the Steps
Stakeholders shape research at several points. Health department staff helped frame the question, community health workers advised on which outcomes mattered to participants and residents will help interpret findings. Involving stakeholders early increases the chance that results are used.
Common Missteps
Common missteps include starting with a method rather than a question, reviewing literature only after data collection, choosing a design because it is familiar and treating dissemination as an afterthought. Following the steps in order, while allowing revision, helps avoid them.
Documenting Decisions
A research log records key decisions at each step, such as why a design was chosen, why a variable was defined a certain way or why an analysis changed. The log supports transparency, helps when writing the methods chapter and protects against memory distorting the story of the research. It also gives the committee a clear view of how the project evolved from question to results.
Timeline
The capstone's steps span about two years: problem and question in the first term, literature review in the second, design and approvals in the third, data and analysis in the fourth and fifth, and writing and dissemination in the last.
Conclusion
The steps of scientific research provide a structure for moving from a public health problem to usable evidence. Applied to the community health worker capstone, they guide choices about the question, literature, design, data, analysis, interpretation and dissemination, while evidence-based public health, complex intervention guidance and plausibility designs help fit research to real-world programs.
References
Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 175-201. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.publhealth.031308.100134
Brownstein, J. N., Chowdhury, F. M., Norris, S. L., Horsley, T., Jack, L., Zhang, X., & Satterfield, D. (2007). Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of people with hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.011
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, Article a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
Victora, C. G., Habicht, J.-P., & Bryce, J. (2004). Evidence-based public health: Moving beyond randomized trials. American Journal of Public Health, 94(3), 400-405. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.94.3.400
What the DPH 870 Module 1 instructions ask for
Aspen's catalog describes DPH 870 as evidence-based practice and advanced research methods, beginning with the steps of scientific research, and since the opening module's own instructions are reserved for the classroom, this sample follows those steps through one capstone. Research process papers usually ask you to name the steps, explain what each involves and apply them to a project. Use a real or realistic question. Put the steps in a table with the decision each requires. Explain where public health research differs from clinical research. Show that the process is iterative. Address ethics throughout. Map the steps to your capstone chapters. Keep a log of decisions as you go, since you will need it later.
How the DPH 870 Module 1 example is put together
Seventeen headings and about a thousand words carry the paper from evidence-based public health to a three-column table of eight steps. Sections on the problem, the question, the literature, complex interventions, designs beyond randomized trials and the chosen design follow. Data, analysis and interpretation, dissemination, iteration, ethics and chapter mapping come next, then theory, stakeholders, common missteps, documenting decisions and the timeline. A margin comment explains why research is framed inside evidence-based practice. The conclusion restates the path from problem to usable evidence and how each step shaped the next. The eight-step table serves as the backbone, and later sections return to its rows to show how each step played out in practice.
Where the marks sit in the DPH 870 Module 1 rubric
Research process papers are graded on accurate description of steps, sound application to a project, awareness of public health design challenges and attention to ethics. Its APA references span evidence-based public health, complex intervention guidance, plausibility designs and Brownstein and colleagues' review. The steps table ties each stage to a concrete decision. Plausibility evidence is explained, not assumed. Mapping steps to chapters shows the student can plan a capstone as a whole, which graders value. The paper also treats dissemination as a step with its own audiences and formats, rather than an afterthought at the end. The iterative nature of research is shown through concrete examples of steps changing one another.
DPH 870 Module 1 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often describe research steps generically without applying them, or present the process as strictly linear. Others skip dissemination. Apply every step to your own question. Show where one step changed another. Name who needs your findings and in what form. Keep a log of decisions. If your question still feels broad, a tutor can help you narrow it before you plan the rest. End with the step you expect to be hardest and how you will manage it. Share your mapped chapter plan with your chair early so timing problems surface while they are still easy to fix. Keep your decision log from the first week.
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 870 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 870 Module 2: Formulating the Research Problem
- DPH 870 Module 3: Matching Designs to the Problem
- DPH 870 Module 4: A Documented Search Strategy
- DPH 870 Module 5: Critical Appraisal of Key Studies
- DPH 870 Module 6: A Synthesis Matrix by Theme
- DPH 870 Module 7: Writing the Literature Review Argument
- DPH 870 Module 8: Chapter 2 of the Capstone
- DPH 805 Module 7: Writing a Grant Proposal
- DPH 860 Module 1: Data Types and Describing Data
- DPH 801 Module 3: Interpersonal Theories and Influence
- DPH 810 Module 7: Staged Study Proposal
DPH 870 Module 1 questions, answered
What does DPH 870 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 870 covers the steps of scientific research in public health, so a paper tracing those steps through a project is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
What are the steps of scientific research?
Identifying a problem, framing a question, reviewing literature, choosing a design, collecting and analyzing data, interpreting results and disseminating findings.
What is a complex intervention?
An intervention with several interacting components whose effects depend on delivery and context.
Where can I find a free DPH 870 Module 1 sample paper?
The research steps paper sits above, including a table of eight steps and the decision each requires.
What are the steps of scientific research in DPH 870 Module 1?
Identifying a problem, framing a question, reviewing literature, choosing a design, collecting data, analyzing, interpreting and disseminating findings.