| Course | HLTH 5083 Capstone in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Capstone options analysis |
| Length | 1,230 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 3
Six Ways to Lower Radon in County Homes: Weighing Causes and Intervention Options With the Tools of Epidemiology, Environmental Health, Behavioral Science, Law, Ethics and Finance
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5083: Capstone in Public Health
Module 3 Assignment
Instructor Name
October 19, 2026
Purpose
The capstone's first two modules established that radon in homes causes lung cancer, that about half of tested homes in the composite Upper Midwest county exceed the federal action level, that few households test and that active sub-slab depressurization reliably lowers levels. The evidence review also showed that awareness alone has not moved people to act and that policy options are poorly evaluated. This paper takes the next step. It lays out the chain of causes that leads from geology to lung cancer, identifies where the county could intervene, and compares six options using the disciplines of public health practice. The goal is to choose a combination the county health department and its partners can carry out within their authority and budget.
The Causal Chain
Lung cancer from radon results from a sequence of conditions, each of which is a potential point of intervention. Uranium-bearing soils produce radon everywhere in the county, and nothing can change that. The gas enters buildings through foundations, and how much enters depends on construction: older fieldstone and block basements admit far more than modern sealed slabs. Radon accumulates when homes are closed up in winter, which in this climate means much of the year. Exposure continues because households do not know their levels, and it persists after a high test when owners cannot afford mitigation or renters cannot require it. Finally, the harm is multiplied by smoking, which raises the absolute lung cancer risk from any given radon level many times over. The chain suggests four types of intervention: preventing entry in new buildings, finding high levels in existing ones, removing radon where it is found and reducing smoking among exposed households.
Epidemiology: Where the Burden Falls
Epidemiology helps decide which part of the chain matters most. Gray et al. (2009), estimating radon-related lung cancer deaths and the cost-effectiveness of radon policies in the United Kingdom, found that more than 85% of radon-related deaths arose from homes below 100 becquerels per cubic meter and that most were caused jointly by radon and active smoking. The reason is that many more people live in moderately elevated homes than in very high ones. The county's situation differs, because its average indoor levels are several times higher than the United Kingdom's, so a larger share of the burden lies in homes above the action level. Even so, the finding is a warning against a strategy that only hunts for the highest homes. Programs that lower levels across the housing stock, and programs that help exposed smokers quit, reach the larger share of preventable deaths.
The Six Options
Six options emerged from the evidence review and conversations with county staff. Option A would distribute free test kits through libraries, clinics, the tobacco quitline and the county's home-visiting programs, with results mailed to households and, with consent, logged in the state database. Option B would create a mitigation assistance fund offering grants covering 50% to 100% of the cost of a certified system for owner-occupied homes with incomes below 80% of the area median. Option C would add a prompt to the electronic health record at the county's federally qualified health center and the regional hospital system, reminding clinicians at lung cancer screening and tobacco cessation visits to recommend testing and offer a kit. Option D would amend the county's rental licensing ordinance to require a radon test at licensing and mitigation when results exceed the action level. Option E would ask the county and its cities to adopt radon-resistant new construction standards in the building code. Option F would support state legislation requiring disclosure of known radon results and a test at the time of sale.
Criteria and Comparison
Each option was rated against six criteria: effectiveness in lowering exposure, reach, equity, the county's legal authority, cost to the county and political acceptability. Option A scores high on reach and acceptability and low in cost, but the precaution adoption model suggests that a kit moves people to test without guaranteeing that they will mitigate (Weinstein & Sandman, 1992). Option B directly addresses the barrier the county survey identified after a high result, and active depressurization is the most reliable method available (Khan et al., 2019), but it is the most expensive option per household. Option C costs little and reaches the highest-risk group, smokers, yet its effect on testing is unproven. Option D protects renters, who cannot act alone, and the county already licenses rentals, but landlords are likely to oppose it and the cost may be passed to tenants. Option E prevents exposure permanently in every new home at modest cost; Gray et al. (2009) found that basic preventive measures in new homes were cost-effective even where radon levels were far lower than in this county, although the option does nothing for existing homes. Option F depends on state action, so the county's role would be advocacy only.
Law and Ethics
Legal analysis narrows the list. The county board of health has authority to adopt health regulations and the county board of supervisors controls the rental licensing ordinance, so Options D and E are within local reach, although Option E requires each city with its own building code to act. The state has not preempted local radon rules. Option F lies outside county authority. Ethically, the options raise different questions. Testing and counseling respect autonomy by informing choices. A rental requirement limits landlords' freedom but protects tenants who cannot otherwise protect themselves, which is justified by the principle of preventing harm to others and by justice, since renters are disproportionately lower-income. A mitigation fund advances justice directly, but it must be targeted fairly and not only to those who learn about it first. Every option should avoid stigmatizing smokers, whose combined risk is highest, by framing radon as a home hazard rather than a personal failing.
Finance
Rough costs over five years were estimated from local prices. Option A would cost about $15 per kit including laboratory analysis; 8,000 kits would cost about $120,000. Option B, assuming an average grant of $1,200 and 150 homes per year, would cost about $900,000 over five years, the largest item. Option C would require about $25,000 in staff time for build, training and monitoring. Option D would cost the county mainly in inspection time, about $40,000 a year, with testing and mitigation costs borne by landlords. Option E would cost the county little beyond code adoption and inspector training, with builders adding radon-control features at modest cost per home. The county's available sources include its cancer control grant, a share of state indoor radon grant funds and the possibility of a small annual appropriation.
Recommended Combination
No single option is sufficient. The analysis supports a combination: free kits through trusted channels (A), a targeted mitigation fund (B) sized to available funding, clinician prompts at lung cancer screening and cessation visits (C), and radon-resistant construction standards for new homes (E), with a rental requirement (D) phased in after two years of landlord engagement and support for state disclosure legislation (F) through the county's legislative agenda. This combination addresses each link in the causal chain within the county's authority. Module 4 will turn it into an implementation plan with a timeline, budget and evaluation measures.
References
Gray, A., Read, S., McGale, P., & Darby, S. (2009). Lung cancer deaths from indoor radon and the cost effectiveness and potential of policies to reduce them. BMJ, 338, a3110. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a3110
Khan, S. M., Gomes, J., & Krewski, D. R. (2019). Radon interventions around the globe: A systematic review. Heliyon, 5(5), e01737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01737
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
What the HLTH 5083 Module 3 instructions ask for
The third capstone module frequently asks you to analyze your problem's causes and compare possible interventions. Prompts typically expect you to use several MPH core areas, such as epidemiology, environmental or social determinants, behavioral theory, law and policy, ethics and finance, and to justify a recommended approach. Some sections provide criteria for comparing options; others ask you to choose your own. Build directly on your evidence synthesis, since graders check that options come from the literature rather than from nowhere. Keep the analysis tied to one organization's authority and budget. See Canvas for whether a comparison matrix or causal diagram should be included, and whether the instructor expects stakeholder input to appear in the analysis.
Inside the HLTH 5083 Module 3 example
The example begins with a causal chain from geology to lung cancer and marks where the county could intervene. An epidemiology section uses UK cost-effectiveness research to show that much of the burden comes from moderate exposure and from smoking. Six options are described in detail and compared against six criteria. Law and ethics sections test what the county may do and what it should do, and a finance section estimates five-year costs. The paper ends with a combined recommendation and the order in which its parts would be introduced, holding back the most contested option until partners have been consulted.
HLTH 5083 Module 3 rubric: what full marks look like
Graders usually look for an analysis that visibly draws on more than one MPH discipline. Criteria should be explicit and applied consistently to every option. Options need to be supported by evidence, and their weaknesses acknowledged, not only their strengths. Legal authority and ethics are often where papers fall short, so address who has power to act and whose interests are affected. Rough but reasoned cost estimates, with their sources named, show feasibility. A clear recommendation that follows from the comparison, and APA 7 citations, round out the score. Where the evidence for an option is weak, say how the plan will test it rather than leaving the weakness unmentioned.
HLTH 5083 Module 3 help from the desk
Options analysis is where many capstones lose momentum, because it asks you to combine epidemiology, law, ethics and budgeting in one paper. If you know your problem but are unsure how to set criteria, compare options fairly or estimate costs, we can help. Send your Module 1 and Module 2 papers and the rubric, and our team can prepare a Module 3 analysis that traces the causes of your problem, compares realistic options across the MPH disciplines and ends on a recommendation your implementation plan can build on. We keep your problem, population and sources consistent with the earlier modules, so the capstone reads as one continuous project rather than separate assignments stitched together.
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 1: Capstone Problem Definition
- HLTH 5083 Module 2: Capstone Evidence Synthesis
- HLTH 5083 Module 4: Implementation Plan
- HLTH 5083 Module 5: Final Capstone Report
- HCI 5073 Module 1: Surveillance System Assessment
- HLTH 5053 Module 2: Health Materials Critique
- HLTH 5063 Module 3: Host Susceptibility Analysis
- HLTH 5013 Module 5: Epidemiologic Research Proposal
HLTH 5083 Module 3 questions, answered
What does HLTH5083 Module 3 usually ask for?
HLTH5083's third module commonly turns to why your capstone problem exists and which interventions could address it, drawing on the MPH core areas such as epidemiology, environmental health, behavioral science, policy, ethics and finance.
How do I compare intervention options?
Set criteria in advance, such as effectiveness, reach, equity, legal authority, cost and acceptability, and apply them to every option the same way. A comparison table often helps.
Should a capstone recommend one option or several?
Many strong capstones recommend a combination, because complex problems have several causes. Explain how the pieces fit together and which comes first.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5083 Module 3 sample paper?
The whole Module 3 analysis is posted here, tracing radon's causal chain and weighing six options, including kits, mitigation grants, clinician prompts, rental and building rules and sale disclosure, across six criteria.
Do I need a cost estimate at this stage?
Usually a rough one. Estimating costs now helps rule out options the agency could never afford and sets up the budget in the next module.