| Course | MPH 590 Public Health and Health Education Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 4 |
| Paper type | Capstone methods section |
| Length | About 1,028 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for MPH 590 Module 4
How the Project Was Carried Out: Design, Setting, Data and Analysis
Student Name
Master of Public Health Program, Aspen University
MPH 590: Public Health and Health Education Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
How the Project Was Carried Out: Design, Setting, Data and Analysis
This section describes how the falls prevention project was designed, delivered and evaluated during the MPH 580 internship. It explains the partners and sites, how participants were recruited, what the program involved, what data were collected and how, how data were analyzed and how participants were protected. Clear methods allow readers to judge the results and repeat the project elsewhere.
Design
The project used a pre-post program evaluation design without a control group, appropriate for a first community implementation with limited resources. Measures were taken at enrollment and at the end of the 12-week program, and participants recalled their falls for the quarter before enrolling and the quarter after finishing. RE-AIM guided the choice of implementation and reach measures (Glasgow et al., 1999).
Partners and Sites
The Area Agency on Aging led the project and funded instructor training and stipends. The county health department provided data support and connected clinics. Seven sites hosted classes: three senior centers, two churches, a community fitness center and a public library meeting room. Site coordinators handled scheduling and space.
Instructor Training
Ten instructors, including senior center staff, fitness instructors and two retired nurses, completed the program's two-day certified training. Each co-taught one class with an experienced instructor before leading classes alone. The trial on which the program is based used trained instructors delivering a structured protocol, which the project sought to reproduce (Li et al., 2018).
Recruitment
Participants were recruited in two ways. Four primary care clinics screened patients aged 65 and older using the national fall risk screening questions and referred those at risk (Stevens & Phelan, 2013). Community outreach through senior center newsletters, church bulletins, a radio segment and flyers at pharmacies invited self-referral. Enrollment sessions at each site included the baseline balance test and a short orientation to the program.
Eligibility
Eligible adults were 60 or older, able to walk with or without a cane, and had either fallen during the last year, felt unsteady or were afraid of falling. People using walkers or wheelchairs were referred to physical therapy instead, and those with unstable heart conditions were asked to obtain clinician approval. Screening questions were read aloud at enrollment so that people with limited vision or literacy could take part.
The Program
Classes met twice a week for 60 minutes over 12 weeks, 24 sessions in all, with no more than 16 participants per class. Each session included warm-up, practice of core forms emphasizing weight shifting and balance, variations suited to ability and cool-down. Participants received a home practice sheet. Classes began with a brief check-in on any falls or health changes since the last session.
Data Collection
The table lists measures.
| Measure | Tool | When collected |
|---|---|---|
| Reach | Enrollment forms with age, sex, race and referral source | At enrollment |
| Balance and mobility | Timed Up and Go test, in seconds | Enrollment and week 12 |
| Fear of falling | Single item: worried about falling (yes or no) | Enrollment and week 12 |
| Falls efficacy | Short falls efficacy scale | Enrollment and week 12 |
| Falls | Self-reported falls in prior three months | Enrollment and three months after the program |
| Attendance | Session sign-in sheets | Each session |
| Fidelity | Observation checklist of core elements | Once per class |
Fidelity Monitoring
A master trainer observed each class once using a checklist of core elements, such as warm-up, practice of core forms and progression, and gave feedback. Fidelity was considered adequate if at least 80% of elements were delivered as intended.
Analysis
Descriptive statistics summarized participant characteristics and attendance. Changes in Timed Up and Go times among completers were tested with a paired t test, and changes in the proportion worried about falling with McNemar's test. Fall rates before and after were compared descriptively, given self-report and the short time frame. Analyses used a significance level of .05. Results were reported with confidence intervals so partners could see the precision of each estimate, not just whether it was significant.
Ethics
The university's institutional review board determined that the project was program evaluation rather than research. All participants gave written consent to program participation and to use of de-identified data. Data were stored on the Area Agency on Aging's secure system, and reports presented only aggregate results.
Limitations of the Methods
Without a control group, changes cannot be attributed to the program with certainty; improvements could reflect regression to the mean or other activities. Self-reported falls are subject to recall error. Follow-up was short. These limitations are addressed in the discussion.
Site Readiness
Before classes began, each site was assessed for floor space, chairs without arms for support, restroom access, parking and accessibility. Two sites needed minor changes, such as moving furniture. Site readiness checklists helped avoid problems on the first day.
Data Management
Data were entered into a secure spreadsheet by the author and checked by a second person for a random sample of records. Participant identification numbers replaced names in analysis files. Missing data were recorded and reported rather than imputed.
Stakeholder Input on Methods
Partners reviewed data collection forms before use. Senior center staff suggested shortening the enrollment form, and clinicians asked that referral forms fit on one page. These changes improved completion rates.
Timeline
Weeks one to four of the internship covered partner agreements and instructor training; weeks five and six covered recruitment and enrollment testing; weeks seven to eighteen covered the program cycle; and three months later, falls follow-up calls were completed by trained volunteers using a script.
Cost Tracking
All costs were recorded, including instructor training and stipends, materials, printing, space contributed in kind and staff time. Tracking costs allowed calculation of a cost per participant for sustainability planning.
Quality Assurance
The master trainer's observations, the double-check of data entry and weekly check-ins with site coordinators formed the project's quality assurance system. Problems, such as a site double-booking its room, were logged and resolved quickly.
Conclusion
The project was designed as a practical pre-post evaluation of an evidence-based program delivered through community partners, with measures of reach, balance, confidence, falls, attendance and fidelity. The methods reflect what a first community implementation can realistically collect, while supporting informed judgments about whether to continue and expand the program.
References
Glasgow, R. E., Vogt, T. M., & Boles, S. M. (1999). Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: The RE-AIM framework. American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), 1322-1327. https://doi.org/10.2105/ajph.89.9.1322
Li, F., Harmer, P., Fitzgerald, K., Eckstrom, E., Akers, L., Chou, L.-S., Pidgeon, D., Voit, J., & Winters-Stone, K. (2018). Effectiveness of a therapeutic Tai Ji Quan intervention vs a multimodal exercise intervention to prevent falls among older adults at high risk of falling: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(10), 1301-1310. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3915
Stevens, J. A., & Phelan, E. A. (2013). Development of STEADI: A fall prevention resource for health care providers. Health Promotion Practice, 14(5), 706-714. https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839912463576
What the MPH 590 Module 4 instructions ask for
MPH 590's catalog description centers on explaining a project of the student's own authorship, and since the fourth module's exact prompt is not public, this example writes the methods chapter. A capstone methods chapter explains design, setting, participants, intervention, data collection, analysis and ethics in enough detail that another team could repeat the work. Name your design and say why it fit. Describe partners and sites. State eligibility criteria. Describe the intervention's schedule and content. List every measure with its tool and timing. Explain how data were analyzed and protected. Admit design limits honestly. Write methods in the past tense, since the work is complete.
How this MPH 590 Module 4 example is built
A three-column table of seven measures sits at the center of this methods chapter of about 1,050 words. It explains design, partners, instructor training, recruitment, eligibility and the program before the table, then fidelity monitoring, analysis, ethics and limitations. Site readiness, data management, partner input on forms, the internship timeline, cost tracking and quality assurance follow. A margin note explains that naming the design early prepares readers for its limits. The conclusion calls the methods a realistic fit for a first community rollout. Each measure in the table is tied to a stated aim or framework dimension. The internship timeline shows when each activity happened, week by week.
Where the marks sit in the MPH 590 Module 4 rubric
Methods chapters are judged on completeness, clarity, appropriate design and measures, sound analysis and ethical safeguards. This chapter cites the RE-AIM framework, the program's randomized trial and the clinical toolkit paper in APA style. The data table shows tools and timing. Analysis matches data types, with paired tests for before-and-after measures. Ethics review and consent are documented. Graders reward methods sections that a reader could follow to replicate the project. Documenting fidelity checks, data quality steps and cost tracking shows rigor that goes beyond the minimum. A clear statement that the review board classified the work as program evaluation shows ethical care. Consistency between the table and the narrative matters too.
Common MPH 590 Module 4 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Methods chapters often skip details such as eligibility, timing of measures or how missing data were handled. Others describe analysis vaguely. List every measure with its timing. Name each statistical test and why it fits. Describe how you protected data. Note the design's limits here and discuss them later. If you are unsure how to describe your analysis, our tutors can help you match each outcome to the right test. End with a sentence on why the methods suit the project's purpose. Describe recruitment numbers at each step if you have them, such as how many were screened, referred and enrolled. Explain any changes from the original plan. Include copies of forms in an appendix if allowed.
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 MPH 590 and Master of Public Health sample papers
- MPH 590 Module 1: Capstone Introduction
- MPH 590 Module 2: Capstone Literature Review
- MPH 590 Module 3: Theory and Planning Framework
- MPH 590 Module 5: Capstone Project Results
- MPH 590 Module 6: Capstone Discussion
- MPH 590 Module 7: Recommendations and Implications
- MPH 590 Module 8: Capstone Conclusion and Defense
- MPH 550 Module 2: Health Belief Model and TPB
- MPH 510 Module 8: Evaluating a Vaccination Program
- MPH 501 Module 3: Financing Public Health
- MPH 505 Module 7: Program Evaluation Plan
MPH 590 Module 4 questions, answered
What does MPH 590 Module 4 usually ask for?
Aspen's MPH 590 asks students to explain their applied project, so a methods section describing design, setting, data and analysis is a typical assignment. Check your classroom prompt.
What is a pre-post design?
A design that measures outcomes before and after a program in the same participants, without a separate control group.
What is the Timed Up and Go test?
A test timing how long a person takes to stand from a chair, walk three meters, turn, walk back and sit down.
Where can I find a free MPH 590 Module 4 sample paper?
The capstone methods chapter appears above, with a table of seven measures and when each was collected.
What belongs in a capstone methods section in MPH 590 Module 4?
Design, setting and partners, participants and eligibility, the intervention, data collection, analysis, ethics and limitations.