| Course | HLTH 5083 Capstone in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Capstone problem definition |
| Length | 1,210 words, about 4 pages plus title and reference pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | American College of Education |
| Program | Master of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 5083 Module 1
The Hazard Nobody Sees: Defining Residential Radon Exposure and Lung Cancer Risk as a Public Health Problem in a Midwestern County
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5083: Capstone in Public Health
Module 1 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 5, 2026
Introduction
Most environmental hazards that people fear are visible or noisy: smoke, a chemical spill, a flooded basement. Radon is none of these. It is a colorless, odorless radioactive gas produced when uranium in soil and rock decays, and it enters homes through cracks in foundations, gaps around pipes and sump openings. Once indoors, it and its decay products are inhaled, and the radiation they release damages the cells lining the lungs. Federal estimates put radon behind roughly 21,000 American lung cancer deaths a year, and among lifelong nonsmokers no other cause claims more (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2016).
This capstone takes up household radon in a composite county of roughly 140,000 people in the Upper Midwest, where the geology produces some of the highest indoor radon levels in the country. This first paper defines the problem, describes the population affected, explains why the problem persists despite simple solutions and states the question that the rest of the capstone will answer.
The Evidence That Radon in Homes Causes Lung Cancer
The link between radon and lung cancer was first established in underground uranium miners, who were exposed to very high concentrations. The question for public health was whether the much lower levels found in homes also carry risk. Two large pooled analyses answered it. Krewski et al. (2005) combined data from seven North American case-control studies, with 3,662 lung cancer cases and 4,966 controls whose home radon had been measured with long-term detectors, and found that the odds of lung cancer rose with residential radon concentration, by about 11% for each 100 becquerels per cubic meter, a result consistent with estimates extrapolated from the miner studies. Darby et al. (2005), pooling individual data from 13 European studies with 7,148 cases, found that risk rose by 8.4% for each 100 becquerels per cubic meter of measured radon, or 16% after correcting for measurement error, with a dose-response relationship that appeared linear and showed no safe threshold.
The European analysis also showed why radon and smoking must be considered together. The proportional increase in risk was similar for smokers and nonsmokers, but because smokers have a far higher baseline risk, the absolute risk from radon was about 25 times greater for them (Darby et al., 2005). Radon therefore matters for everyone, and it matters most in households where someone smokes or has smoked.
The Problem in the County
The EPA recommends that homes with radon at or above 4 picocuries per liter be fixed (EPA, 2016). In the county, the state radon program's database of residential test results, which includes short-term tests reported by certified laboratories from 2016 through 2025, shows that 48% of the 9,860 homes tested were at or above that action level, and 12% were above 10 picocuries per liter. Results were high in every ZIP code, although the proportion ranged from 36% in newer subdivisions on the west side to 61% in older rural areas with fieldstone and block foundations.
The more telling number is how few homes have been tested at all. The county has about 56,000 housing units, so the database covers fewer than one in five, and some of those are repeat tests or tests done during real estate sales. A 2025 county household survey found that 71% of adults had heard of radon, but only 22% said their current home had ever been tested, and only a third of those whose homes tested high reported that a mitigation system had been installed. No cancer kills more county residents than lung cancer, and the state cancer registry records about 110 new cases among county residents each year. If national estimates apply, a meaningful share of those, including most cases among people who never smoked, may be attributable in part to radon.
Who Is Most Affected
Radon exposure does not follow income the way many environmental hazards do; it depends on geology and building construction, and expensive homes can have high levels. The ability to act on it, however, is unequal. Testing kits are inexpensive, but mitigation, typically a sub-slab depressurization system with a fan and vent pipe, costs local households between about $1,100 and $1,800 according to quotes from the county's certified contractors. Renters, who make up 31% of county households, cannot install systems themselves and depend on landlords, and the state has no requirement for landlords to test. Older rural homes, where levels are highest, are more often owned by older adults on fixed incomes. Smokers and former smokers, who face the greatest absolute risk, are concentrated in lower-income groups in the county. The problem is therefore one of unequal protection as much as unequal exposure.
Why the Problem Persists
Radon is unusual among environmental hazards because both the test and the fix are well established, yet most people do neither. Several explanations are likely. Because radon cannot be sensed and its effects appear decades later, people rarely feel urgency. Weinstein and Sandman (1992), studying home radon testing, described precaution as a series of stages, from being unaware of an issue, to being aware but not personally engaged, to deciding, planning and acting, and argued that different messages are needed to move people from one stage to the next. The county survey suggests that most residents are stuck at the early stages: they know radon exists but do not believe their own home is at risk. Health care providers could help, but a recent survey of Kentucky clinicians who conduct lung cancer screening found that they almost never counseled patients about radon, even as they frequently counseled on tobacco (Stanifer et al., 2025). Policy levers are weak as well; the county has no radon requirement for new construction, rental housing or schools.
Significance for Public Health
The problem meets the usual tests for public health priority. It is common, affecting roughly half of homes tested in the county. It is serious, contributing to a cancer that kills most people who develop it. It is preventable with inexpensive testing and proven mitigation. And it is unevenly addressed, with renters, low-income households and smokers least protected. Because radon exposure happens at home over many years, reducing it now prevents cancers that would otherwise appear in the 2040s and 2050s, which is why the benefits of action are easy to overlook in annual budgets. Addressing it also fits existing priorities: the county's comprehensive cancer control plan names lung cancer, and its tobacco prevention program already reaches the households at highest combined risk.
The Capstone Question and Plan
The capstone will answer one question: what combination of programs and policies could the county health department and its partners adopt, within existing authority and a modest budget, to double the share of homes tested within five years and ensure that households with high results, especially renters, low-income owners and smokers, can reduce their exposure? The next module will synthesize the evidence on testing and mitigation interventions. Module 3 will weigh causes and options through the core public health disciplines. Module 4 will present an implementation, budget and evaluation plan, and Module 5 will combine them in one report, headed by a short summary written for the board of health.
References
Darby, S., Hill, D., Auvinen, A., Barros-Dios, J. M., Baysson, H., Bochicchio, F., Deo, H., Falk, R., Forastiere, F., Hakama, M., Heid, I., Kreienbrock, L., Kreuzer, M., Lagarde, F., Mäkeläinen, I., Muirhead, C., Oberaigner, W., Pershagen, G., Ruano-Ravina, A., . . . Doll, R. (2005). Radon in homes and risk of lung cancer: Collaborative analysis of individual data from 13 European case-control studies. BMJ, 330(7485), 223. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38308.477650.63
Krewski, D., Lubin, J. H., Zielinski, J. M., Alavanja, M., Catalan, V. S., Field, R. W., Klotz, J. B., Létourneau, E. G., Lynch, C. F., Lyon, J. I., Sandler, D. P., Schoenberg, J. B., Steck, D. J., Stolwijk, J. A., Weinberg, C., & Wilcox, H. B. (2005). Residential radon and risk of lung cancer: A combined analysis of 7 North American case-control studies. Epidemiology, 16(2), 137-145. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.ede.0000152522.80261.e3
Stanifer, S. R., Rademacher, K., Sedio, W., Cheek, N., Wiggins, A. T., Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2025). Radon and tobacco risk counseling during lung cancer screening shared decision-making. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 22(12), 1473-1482. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacr.2025.08.052
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2016). A citizen's guide to radon: The guide to protecting yourself and your family from radon (EPA 402/K-12/002). https://www.epa.gov/radon/citizens-guide-radon-guide-protecting-yourself-and-your-family-radon
Weinstein, N. D., & Sandman, P. M. (1992). A model of the precaution adoption process: Evidence from home radon testing. Health Psychology, 11(3), 170-180. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.11.3.170
Reading the HLTH 5083 Module 1 instructions
The capstone's first module usually asks you to choose and define the public health problem you will work on for the rest of the course. Prompts typically want the problem stated precisely, the affected population described, its magnitude and seriousness shown with data, contributing factors outlined and the significance for public health explained. Many sections also ask for a capstone question or objective. Pick something local enough, and narrow enough, that you can find data and an organization that could act. Your instructor will return to this paper in later modules and may grade revisions against it, so write it as the foundation of a longer project. Check Canvas for whether a topic approval step comes first and whether a specific agency must be named.
How the HLTH 5083 Module 1 example is put together
The example selects residential radon in a composite Upper Midwest county. It explains what radon is and summarizes the pooled North American and European evidence that household exposure causes lung cancer, including the much larger absolute risk for smokers. Local test results, survey data on testing and mitigation and registry counts show the size of the problem, and a section on who is most affected highlights renters, low-income owners and smokers. The paper explains why the problem persists and closes with a capstone question and a map of the modules ahead, so the reader knows exactly where the project is going. Every figure is tied to a named source or a clearly labeled composite data set.
Where the points sit in the HLTH 5083 Module 1 rubric
Graders often look first at whether the problem is specific and actionable. Local data that show magnitude, supported by credible national or international evidence, earn more than general statements. Equity should appear in how you describe the affected population, not as a separate paragraph added at the end. A clear explanation of why the problem persists shows public health thinking and sets up later analysis. The capstone question should be answerable within the course and point toward an intervention, not only further study. Writing that is organized for a professional audience, with APA 7 citations for government guidance and peer-reviewed studies, completes a strong score.
Common HLTH 5083 Module 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Choosing and framing a capstone problem is often the hardest step, because every later module depends on it. If you have a topic in mind but struggle to narrow it, find local data or write a capstone question an agency could act on, we can help. Tell us your topic, the organization you have in mind, setting and any data you can use, along with the rubric, and our team can shape a Module 1 problem definition that is specific, supported by evidence and ready to carry through the evidence review, analysis and plan that follow.
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 American College of Education 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 HLTH 5083 and Master of Public Health sample papers
- HLTH 5083 Module 2: Capstone Evidence Synthesis
- HLTH 5083 Module 3: Capstone Options Analysis
- HLTH 5083 Module 4: Implementation Plan
- HLTH 5083 Module 5: Final Capstone Report
- HLTH 5003 Module 4: Communication and Team Plan
- HLTH 5023 Module 3: Public Health Ethics Analysis
- HCI 5073 Module 3: Registry Data Analysis
- HLTH 5053 Module 4: Risk Communication Plan
HLTH 5083 Module 1 questions, answered
What does HLTH5083 Module 1 usually ask for?
HLTH5083 generally opens the capstone by asking you to define one public health problem: the population affected, its size and seriousness, why it persists and the question your capstone will answer.
How narrow should an MPH capstone problem be?
Narrow enough that a real agency could act on it. A specific exposure or condition in a defined population and place, with local data, works better than a broad national issue.
Why is radon a public health problem rather than a household one?
It is common, serious and preventable, yet most homes are never tested, and the people least able to fix it, including renters and low-income owners, are left exposed. Those patterns call for population-level programs and policy.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5083 Module 1 sample paper?
The whole Module 1 problem definition appears on this page, framing residential radon and lung cancer in a composite Upper Midwest county with pooled study evidence, local test and survey data, equity concerns and a capstone question.
Can I use data from my own workplace?
Often yes, if your program allows it and you have permission, or you can present it as a composite. Many strong capstones use local health department or organizational data.