| Course | PAC 799B Addiction Studies Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Capstone Chapter 3 |
| Length | About 1,116 words, 7 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PAC 799B Module 1
Chapter 3: Method for Evaluating an Opt-Out Naloxone Offer at Jail Release
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PAC 799B: Addiction Studies Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Chapter 3: Method for Evaluating an Opt-Out Naloxone Offer at Jail Release
Research Design and Rationale
This project used a two-phase mixed-methods program evaluation at the Pine Hollow County Detention Center, an imaginary Georgia county jail. The first phase described acceptance of naloxone kits under the jail's opt-in offer, using a year of release records, and explored reasons for accepting or declining through interviews. The second phase tracked acceptance for the six months after kits began going into property bags by default, with the monthly series treated as an interrupted time series. A mixed design was chosen because records can show how many people take kits and whether the number changes, but only people's own accounts can show why. The design follows the plan defended at the end of PAC 799A, with the revisions listed at the end of this chapter.
Role of the Researcher
Avery, the student researcher, is a re-entry case manager at the jail. Insider status brought access to records and staff and a working knowledge of the release process, but it also carried two risks. Released people might feel obliged to take part or say what they thought jail staff wanted to hear, and Avery's own hopes for the opt-out change might color the analysis. To reduce the first risk, recruitment was handled by the county's peer recovery organization, interviews took place in its office and participants were told that Avery had no role in any court or custody decision. To reduce the second, Avery kept a reflexive journal recording expectations before and during the analysis and asked a peer mentor to review the themes.
Population and Sampling
The population for the quantitative strand was every eligible release in the eighteen months studied, the opt-in year plus the half year that followed the switch. Eligibility followed the definition set in Chapter 1, based on the booking screen. No sampling was needed; all eligible releases were included. For the qualitative strand, purposive sampling sought about ten people released within the previous three months, including at least four who had declined a kit, and both jail nurses. Purposive sampling selects people likely to hold the information needed, rather than aiming for statistical representativeness.
Setting
The jail's population runs near six hundred, mostly people held briefly before trial or for short sentences. Releases happen at all hours: after sentences end, when bond is posted and directly from court. Two nurses cover the release desk across shifts, and the offer is made at the desk where property is returned, usually with an officer present. Describing the setting in this detail supports transferability, letting readers in other jails judge how far the findings might apply to them.
Instruments
Release data came from the jail's release log, which records date and time, release type and whether a kit left with the person. The interview guide for released people had five open questions with prompts, piloted with a peer mentor; one prompt was reworded after the pilot because it implied the person used drugs. The nurse interview guide asked how the offer was made, what people said and how the change affected the work.
Procedures
After approvals, the jail records officer extracted de-identified release data for the twelve-month baseline, replacing names with study numbers. Nurses were interviewed before the switch. The jail then moved to an opt-out offer: every eligible person's property bag included a kit, and the nurse told each person at the desk that a kit was packed with their things and could be handed back if they preferred. Kits removed at the desk were logged as declined. Monthly extracts continued for six months. Released people were interviewed throughout, and nurses were interviewed again in the fourth month.
Analysis
Baseline acceptance was calculated overall and by release time, type and prior bookings, with confidence intervals. For the time series, Lopez Bernal et al. (2017) describe segmented regression, which fits one line to the months before an intervention and estimates any immediate change in level and any change in slope afterward. Following their guidance, Avery plotted the data first, checked for seasonal patterns across the baseline year and tested residuals for autocorrelation. Interviews were analyzed following the six phases of Braun and Clarke (2006), from familiarization through coding, theme development and review, to defining themes and writing the report.
Trustworthiness
Nowell et al. (2017) set out how each phase of thematic analysis can meet criteria of trustworthiness: credibility, whether findings fit participants' views; transferability, whether readers can judge fit with other settings; dependability, whether the process is logical and documented; and confirmability, whether findings are grounded in the data rather than the researcher's wishes. They recommend practical steps such as keeping raw data and coding records, writing reflexive notes, debriefing with peers and describing the setting richly. This project used each: an audit trail of codes and theme decisions, the reflexive journal, peer mentor review and a detailed description of the release process.
Integration
The strands were integrated at two points. During data collection, early interview themes informed what the nurse interviews in the fourth month asked about. During interpretation, a joint display placed each quantitative pattern beside the interview material that bore on it, with a judgment of whether the two agreed, added to each other or conflicted. Integration at both points meant the strands shaped each other rather than running in parallel to the end.
Data Quality Checks
Each monthly extract was checked against the previous month's totals for missing days. For a random tenth of entries each month, Avery compared the log with the nurses' own notes; disagreements were resolved with the nurses and recorded. Night releases, which were expected to have more gaps, were checked more closely in the first two months of the opt-out period.
Ethics Summary
The project was reviewed and approved under Aspen's procedures and by the jail administrator. Participation in interviews was voluntary, with written consent and the right to withdraw. Records reached Avery only in de-identified form. Full details appear in the ethics and data protection plan.
Changes Since the Defense
| Change | Reason |
|---|---|
| Kits removed at the release desk logged as declined | Reviewer concern that packed kits would be counted as accepted |
| Target of at least four interviewees who declined a kit | To avoid hearing mainly from people who accepted |
| One interview prompt reworded | Pilot showed it implied drug use |
| Nurses interviewed twice rather than once | To capture changes in the work after the switch |
Summary
The chapter has described a two-phase mixed-methods evaluation, the researcher's insider role and its safeguards, complete inclusion of eligible releases, purposive interview sampling, segmented regression and thematic analysis and the steps taken to make each strand credible. Chapter 4 will report the results.
References
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
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
Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2017). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/1609406917733847
PAC 799B Module 1 instructions, in plain terms
The first module of PAC 799B usually asks for the final version of Chapter 3, the method, revised after the defense and approvals. Use the Module 1 instructions and chapter template in your Aspen course; the jail here is invented. Write in the past or future tense your program requires. Describe design and rationale, the researcher's role, population and sampling, instruments, procedures, analysis and quality criteria for each strand. Summarize ethics, with details in an appendix if allowed. Record changes since the proposal and why. Make the chapter complete enough that another researcher could repeat the project, and cite methods sources in APA 7. If you work in the setting you study, include a section on your role and the safeguards you used, since reviewers will look for it.
Inside the PAC 799B Module 1 example
The composite chapter describes Avery's two-phase mixed-methods evaluation at a Georgia jail. A section on the researcher's role explains how a staff member interviewing released people manages power and bias. The segmented regression, with its checks for autocorrelation, follows the approach Lopez Bernal and colleagues set out. Braun and Clarke's article sets out the thematic analysis, and Nowell and colleagues' International Journal of Qualitative Methods article supplies trustworthiness steps for each phase. A four-row table lists changes since the defense, including the nurse logging rule and a target number of people who declined kits. The exact words the nurse used under opt-out are quoted, so the intervention can be copied.
PAC 799B Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Final method chapters earn credit for completeness, consistency with the approved plan and transparency about changes. This example addresses the researcher's insider position directly, which reviewers expect when a staff member studies their own workplace. Each strand has its own quality criteria: model checks for the time series and trustworthiness steps for the interviews. The procedures are detailed enough to repeat. The changes table shows what was revised after the defense and why. The chapter stays consistent with Chapter 1's purpose and questions, which reviewers check line by line. Quoting the nurse's exact words under the new offer is a small detail that makes the intervention reproducible.
PAC 799B Module 1 help from the desk
Final method chapters often leave out decisions made after the proposal or describe procedures too vaguely to repeat. Record every change and the reason. Address your own role if you work in the setting; insider status brings access and bias. Give quality criteria for each strand. Describe procedures step by step. Keep the purpose and questions identical to Chapter 1. Move long documents, such as consent forms and interview guides, to appendices. Ask someone unfamiliar with your project to read the chapter and say whether they could carry out the study from it; gaps in their understanding are gaps in the chapter. Use the tense your program requires consistently; many programs want the final method in past tense once data collection has begun.
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 PAC 799B and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PAC 799B Module 2: Ethics and Data Protection
- PAC 799B Module 3: Carrying Out the Project
- PAC 799B Module 4: Organizing and Analyzing Data
- PAC 799B Module 5: Chapter 4: Results
- PAC 799B Module 6: Chapter 5: Discussion and Implications
- PAC 799B Module 7: Limitations and Recommendations
- PAC 799B Module 8: Final Manuscript and Presentation
- PAC 240 Module 4: Ambivalence and Resistance
- PAC 320 Module 8: Children, Adolescents and People in Recovery
- PAC 201 Module 5: Language Development
- PSY 650 Module 4: Confidentiality and Privacy
PAC 799B Module 1 questions, answered
What does PAC 799B Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's PAC 799B begins by finalizing Chapter 3, the method, so revising the approved method into a complete chapter is typical. Look at your Module 1 prompt.
What is an insider researcher?
A researcher who studies a setting where they work or belong, gaining access and understanding but facing risks of bias and of participants feeling pressured.
How do you make thematic analysis trustworthy?
Nowell and colleagues describe steps for each phase, such as keeping an audit trail, using peer debriefing and recording coding decisions, to meet criteria like credibility and dependability.
Where can I find a free PAC 799B Module 1 sample paper?
This page has the full Chapter 3: design, researcher role, procedures, analysis, trustworthiness and changes since the defense.
Should Chapter 3 report changes from the proposal?
Yes. Record each change and the reason, so reviewers can see that the final method still answers the approved questions.