| Course | DPH 890 Doctor of Public Health Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 7 |
| Paper type | Dissemination plan |
| Length | About 1,108 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 890 Module 7
Getting the Findings Used: A Dissemination Plan for a Community Health Worker Capstone
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 890: Doctor of Public Health Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Getting the Findings Used: A Dissemination Plan for a Community Health Worker Capstone
Research changes practice only when the people who can act on it hear about it, understand it and trust it. Dissemination is therefore part of the research, not an afterthought. This paper plans how to share a capstone showing that residents enrolled with the county's community health workers reached blood pressure control more often than similar residents who did not enroll.
Why Dissemination Matters
Brownson et al. (2018) observe that public health researchers often rely on journal articles, which practitioners and policymakers rarely read, and they urge a wider range of approaches designed around audiences. Without deliberate dissemination, the capstone's findings could sit in a university repository while the county makes decisions without them.
Frameworks for Dissemination
A scoping review of dissemination frameworks found that most draw on theories of persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations and social marketing, emphasizing the source, the message, the channel and the audience (Wilson et al., 2010). The plan applies these ideas by matching messages and messengers to each audience.
Audiences and Products
The table summarizes the plan.
| Audience | Product | Channel | Timing | Responsible |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County commissioners | Executive summary and briefing | Meeting | Within one month of defense | Student and health officer |
| Health department staff | Presentation and discussion | Staff meeting | Within one month | Student |
| Community health workers | Results session | Team meeting | Within one month | Student and supervisor |
| Residents | Community summary in English and Spanish | Clinics, churches, social media | Within two months | Health department communications |
| Public health practitioners | Conference presentation | State and national meetings | Within six months | Student |
| Researchers | Journal manuscript | Peer-reviewed journal | Submitted within four months | Student and chair |
The Journal Manuscript
The manuscript condenses the capstone into about 3,500 words following STROBE reporting guidance, with a structured abstract, two tables and two figures. A public health practice journal is targeted because its readers include health department leaders. The chair and methodologist are coauthors, reflecting their contributions. Target journals are chosen for their practice audience, open-access options and interest in local program evaluations.
The Policy Brief
A two-page brief for commissioners and state legislators states the problem, the finding, the cost per additional person controlled and three recommendations. A brief only helps if someone reads it, so it must be short, clear and inviting to the eye (Dagenais & Ridde, 2018).
The Community Summary
A one-page summary in plain English and Spanish explains what the program is, what the study found and how to join. Community health workers and residents reviewed drafts for clarity. It will be posted in clinics and churches and shared through neighborhood social media groups. It includes the program's phone number and hours.
Sharing With Community Health Workers
The workers who delivered the program deserve to hear results first and to help interpret them. A session with the team will present findings, invite their explanations and discuss improvements such as evening visits. Their stories will also make presentations to other audiences more compelling.
Conference Presentation
An abstract will be submitted to the state public health association's annual meeting and a national public health conference. Presentations reach practitioners in other counties considering similar programs. A poster version will also be prepared for sessions that favor informal discussion with practitioners.
Social Media
Short posts with a single chart and a plain-language finding will be shared through the health department's and university's accounts, linking to the community summary and, once published, the article. Posts will avoid overstating results. A short video of a community health worker explaining the program may accompany the posts, with consent.
Measuring Dissemination
Success will be tracked through measures such as whether commissioners discuss the findings, whether the program's budget is renewed or expanded, attendance at presentations, downloads of the summary and article, and inquiries from other agencies. These measures show whether findings reached and influenced their audiences.
Authorship and Data Sharing
Authorship follows accepted criteria, based on substantial contributions to design, analysis or interpretation and to writing. De-identified summary data and analysis code will be shared on request under the data use agreements, supporting transparency while protecting privacy.
Timing
Local audiences come first, since their decisions are imminent; the journal manuscript follows. Local sharing before publication is acceptable for most journals when findings are presented as preliminary or in agency reports, which the plan will confirm with the target journal.
Tailoring Messages
Each audience receives a message suited to its concerns. Commissioners hear about costs and results for residents. Clinicians hear about referral and blood pressure control. Residents hear how the program can help them and how to join. Community health workers hear how their work made a difference and what might improve it.
Choosing Messengers
Messengers matter as much as messages. The health officer will present to commissioners, community health workers will help present to residents and the student will present to practitioners and researchers. Trusted messengers increase the chance that findings are believed and used.
Plain Language
All products except the journal article use plain language: short sentences, familiar words and numbers expressed as natural frequencies, such as about one more person in ten. A readability check aims for a middle-school reading level in the community summary.
Budget and Time
Dissemination requires resources. The plan budgets for translation, printing, conference travel and an open-access publication fee, funded by the health department and a small university grant. Time for preparing products is scheduled in the months after the defense.
Feedback Loops
Dissemination is two-way. Audiences' questions and reactions, collected after each presentation, will inform the discussion section of the journal manuscript and future evaluations. Community health workers' feedback, for example, may suggest program changes worth testing.
Open Access
Publishing the journal article open access ensures that practitioners without university library access can read it. The plan budgets for a publication fee or selects a journal with no fee, and a preprint may be posted where the journal allows.
Risks to Dissemination
Risks include findings being misread as proof of causation, results being used selectively in political debates and delays in publication. Plain statements of the study's reach and limits, and early sharing with local partners, reduce these risks.
Sustaining Engagement
Dissemination continues after initial products. An update to commissioners after one year of expansion, a second community summary with new results and a follow-up article on costs will keep the findings current and relevant.
Conclusion
The dissemination plan matches products and channels to six audiences, from commissioners and community health workers to residents, practitioners and researchers. Drawing on dissemination frameworks and evidence about what makes briefs useful, it aims to ensure that the capstone's findings inform decisions about the program and reach others who could benefit.
References
Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Getting the word out: New approaches for disseminating public health science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673
Dagenais, C., & Ridde, V. (2018). Policy brief as a knowledge transfer tool: To "make a splash", your policy brief must first be read. Gaceta Sanitaria, 32(3), 203-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2018.02.003
Wilson, P. M., Petticrew, M., Calnan, M. W., & Nazareth, I. (2010). Disseminating research findings: What should researchers do? A systematic scoping review of conceptual frameworks. Implementation Science, 5, Article 91. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-91
DPH 890 Module 7 instructions, in plain terms
Aspen's DPH 890 description ends with disseminating the project, and because the seventh module's text is reserved for enrolled students, this sample writes a dissemination plan. Dissemination assignments usually ask you to name audiences, pick products and channels, schedule them and track whether findings were used. List every audience that could act on your findings. Match each to a product, channel, time and responsible person in a table. Draft a journal plan and a brief. Use plain language for community products. Plan how you will know dissemination worked. Name who will deliver each message and why that person is trusted. Plan open access if possible. Plan feedback from each audience. Keep the plan realistic for one student.
How this DPH 890 Module 7 example is built
About a thousand words span twenty-one headings, from why dissemination matters and which frameworks guide it to a five-column audience table. The journal manuscript, policy brief, community summary, sharing with community health workers, conference presentation, social media, measurement, authorship and data sharing and timing follow. Tailored messages, messengers, plain language, budget and time, feedback loops, open access, risks and sustained engagement are added. A margin comment explains that starting with the gap between publication and use explains the audience-centered plan. Each audience in the table receives its own section explaining the product, the messenger and the timing. Measures of use close the plan. Sustained engagement is planned beyond year one. Timing puts local audiences first.
Where the marks sit in the DPH 890 Module 7 rubric
Dissemination plans are graded on audience coverage, fit between products and audiences, realistic timing and responsibilities and plans to measure use. This paper cites work on new approaches to disseminating public health science, a scoping review of dissemination frameworks and guidance on readable policy briefs in APA format. The audience table assigns responsibility. Community health workers hear results first. Measures focus on use, not only reach, which instructors reward. The plan budgets for translation, printing and open access, showing dissemination has real costs. Risks to dissemination are named and addressed. Feedback loops return what audiences say to the research. Authorship follows accepted criteria. Each channel suits the audience it serves.
DPH 890 Module 7 help: mistakes that cost marks
Students often plan only a journal article, or list audiences without products and dates. Start with who can act on your findings. Match products and channels to each. Name who is responsible. Use plain language outside academia. Plan measures of use. Budget time and money. If your plan feels too ambitious, a tutor can help you prioritize the audiences that matter most. End with the first product you will deliver and when, and schedule local sharing before journal submission. Start with the audience whose decision is closest in time. Keep community products to one page. Budget for translation. Measure use, not only reach.
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 890 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 890 Module 1: Assembling the Complete Manuscript
- DPH 890 Module 2: Results Chapter With Tables and Figures
- DPH 890 Module 3: Discussion and Implications for Practice
- DPH 890 Module 4: Limitations and Future Work
- DPH 890 Module 5: An Executive Summary for Decision Makers
- DPH 890 Module 6: The Defense Presentation
- DPH 890 Module 8: Comprehensive Exam Preparation
- DPH 820 Module 1: Advocacy Roles in Public Health
- DPH 860 Module 1: Data Types and Describing Data
- DPH 810 Module 3: Measures of Occurrence and Risk
- DPH 850 Module 5: Implementation and Change Management
DPH 890 Module 7 questions, answered
What does DPH 890 Module 7 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 890 covers disseminating the capstone, so a dissemination plan with a manuscript or brief is typical. Follow your classroom prompt.
Who should hear capstone findings first?
Usually local decision makers and the people who delivered the program, since their decisions and work are most directly affected.
How do you measure dissemination?
Track whether findings reached audiences and influenced decisions, such as budget renewals, discussions and inquiries.
Where can I find a free DPH 890 Module 7 sample paper?
Find the dissemination plan here, with a table of audiences, products, channels, timing and responsible people.
What goes into a dissemination plan in DPH 890 Module 7?
Audiences, products and channels for each, timing, responsible people, a journal and brief, community materials and measures of whether findings were used.