| Course | HLTH 5083 Capstone in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | Final capstone report |
| Length | 1,430 words, about 5 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 5
Test, Fix, Build It Right: A Capstone Report and Executive Summary for the County Board of Health on Preventing Radon-Related Lung Cancer
Student Name
American College of Education
HLTH5083: Capstone in Public Health
Module 5 Assignment
Instructor Name
November 2, 2026
Executive Summary
Radon, a natural radioactive gas that seeps into homes from the ground, is a cause of lung cancer that most county residents never think about. Nearly half of the homes tested in the county exceed the federal action level, yet roughly four in five adults report that their home has never been checked, and most households told their level is high have not installed a system. Renters, older rural owners on fixed incomes and smokers are the least protected.
This report recommends a five-year program, Test, Fix, Build It Right, that combines free test kits distributed through libraries, clinics and the tobacco quitline; grants for low-income owners to install mitigation systems; reminders for clinicians who care for smokers; radon-resistant standards for new homes; and, after two years of consultation, a testing requirement for rental properties. The program would cost about $1.5 million over five years, mostly for mitigation grants, and would be funded through state radon funds, the cancer control grant, hospital community benefit dollars and an annual county appropriation of $80,000. The board is asked to endorse the program, adopt the building standard and direct staff to begin rental consultations.
The Problem
Radon forms when uranium in soil and rock breaks down. It enters buildings through foundation cracks and openings and builds up indoors, especially in winter when homes are closed. The county's geology produces high levels across every ZIP code. Of 9,860 homes with reported tests from 2016 through 2025, 48% reached the federal action level of 4 picocuries per liter, above which homeowners are advised to fix the problem (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], 2016). Levels were highest in older rural homes with fieldstone or block foundations.
Because radon cannot be seen or smelled and its harm appears decades later, few people act. The county's 2025 household survey found that most adults had heard of radon but relatively few had tested, and cost stopped many of those with high results from installing a system. Lung cancer is the county's deadliest cancer, with about 110 new cases each year, and radon contributes to part of that burden, both among people who never smoked and, far more often in absolute terms, among those who did.
What the Evidence Shows
The causal link is well established. Pooled analyses of North American and European case-control studies, which measured radon in the homes of thousands of people with and without lung cancer, found that risk increases steadily with household radon concentration, with no level shown to be safe (Darby et al., 2005; Krewski et al., 2005). The European analysis also showed that the absolute danger is far greater for smokers, because radon multiplies an already high baseline risk.
Solutions are equally well established. A systematic review of radon interventions concluded that active sub-slab depressurization, a fan-driven system that draws gas from beneath the foundation, generally produces larger and longer-lasting reductions than passive methods (Khan et al., 2019). The weaker evidence concerns behavior: decades of surveys show that awareness does not lead to testing on its own, and the precaution adoption process model explains that people who know about a hazard but do not see it as personal need specific, practical prompts to move to action (Weinstein & Sandman, 1992). Economic analysis from the United Kingdom found that radon-control measures in new homes are cost-effective and that most radon-related deaths occur at moderate levels, which argues for broad prevention as well as targeted repair (Gray et al., 2009).
Options Considered and the Recommendation
Six options were compared on effectiveness, reach, equity, legal authority, cost and acceptability: free kits, a mitigation fund, clinician reminders, a rental testing requirement, radon-resistant building standards and state disclosure at sale. No single option addressed every cause. Kits and clinician reminders are inexpensive and reach many people but do not guarantee repair. Grants address the cost barrier directly but are the most expensive item. Building standards prevent exposure permanently in new homes at little cost to the county. A rental requirement protects tenants who cannot act alone but will need careful engagement with landlords. State disclosure is outside county authority and is best pursued through advocacy.
The recommended program therefore combines kits, grants, clinician reminders and building standards from the start, adds the rental requirement after two years and supports state legislation. Each part answers a specific link in the chain from soil to lung cancer, and together they reach existing and future homes, owners and renters, and the smokers whose risk is highest.
Implementation and Budget
The environmental health division would lead the program with a half-time coordinator. Libraries and health center sites would hand out kits each heating season; the tobacco quitline would mail kits to callers; the hospital system and health center would add an electronic record reminder and train clinicians; the community action agency, which already runs weatherization, would verify eligibility and schedule mitigation by certified contractors; and building officials would bring radon-resistant standards to the county and city councils. A landlord and tenant advisory group would shape the rental requirement before it takes effect in year three.
The five-year budget of about $1.5 million includes $900,000 for roughly 750 mitigation grants, $310,000 for staff, $120,000 for 8,000 kits and laboratory analysis, $85,000 for rental program administration, $60,000 for bilingual outreach, $30,000 for evaluation and $25,000 for the clinician reminder. If funding falls short, grants would go first to the poorest households with the worst readings, and the cheaper parts of the program would carry on unchanged.
Evaluation
The program's results will be reported under the five RE-AIM headings (Glasgow et al., 1999), with a small number of headline figures the board can follow from year to year. The first is testing coverage: the county survey put it at 22% in 2025, and the program aims to double it by 2030, reporting renters, low-income neighborhoods and quitline callers as separate lines so that gains among the least protected are visible. The second is repair: the proportion of high-result homes that are fixed or retested within two years, now roughly one in three, and the readings taken after systems are installed with grant money, nearly all of which should come in under the federal action level. The third is uptake by partners, shown by how many clinics use the reminder and what fraction of new homes are built to the radon standard. The fourth covers delivery, including kit returns, grant turnaround and spending, and the fifth asks whether results hold, through retests two years after mitigation and whether the program survives its first five years. The advisory group will see these figures every quarter and the board once a year.
Equity and Ethics
The program is designed around the people least able to protect themselves. Grants are limited to lower-income owners, the rental requirement gives tenants protection they cannot secure alone, and kits are distributed through channels that reach people who rarely see public health messages, including the quitline and federally qualified health centers. Outreach materials will be available in English and Spanish. Ethically, the program balances respect for household choice with the county's duty to prevent harm. Testing and counseling inform rather than compel; the rental requirement restricts landlords modestly in order to protect others; and messages will present radon as a housing hazard shared across the county, avoiding blame toward smokers, whose combined risk is highest.
Limitations
The plan has limits the board should weigh. Evidence on how to increase testing and mitigation is thinner and older than evidence on the risk itself, so some components, especially clinician reminders, are partly experimental and will need careful evaluation. Local figures on testing and costs come from a county survey and contractor quotes that may not represent all residents. The program cannot demonstrate reductions in lung cancer within five years, because cancer develops over decades; it measures exposure reduction, which the evidence links to lower risk. Finally, the mitigation fund depends on grants and partner contributions that may change.
Decisions Requested
The board of health is asked to take three actions: endorse Test, Fix, Build It Right and direct staff to seek the funding described; adopt a resolution recommending radon-resistant construction standards to the county and its cities; and authorize staff to convene the landlord and tenant advisory group to draft a rental testing requirement for the board's consideration in year two. With these steps, the county can begin reducing a preventable cause of cancer that has been present in its homes all along.
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
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
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
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
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
What the HLTH 5083 Module 5 instructions ask for
The capstone's last module commonly asks you to submit the complete capstone as one document. Prompts usually expect an executive summary, the problem statement, the evidence review, the analysis of options, the implementation and evaluation plan and a conclusion, revised in light of instructor feedback. Some sections also require a presentation or poster, usually built from the executive summary. Write for the audience you named in Module 1, such as a health director or board, and keep the executive summary to about a page that could be read in two minutes. Check Canvas for the required length, whether appendices such as the budget table and logic model should be attached, and whether a slide deck is due at the same time.
How this HLTH 5083 Module 5 example is built
The example leads with a two-paragraph executive summary that states the problem, the program, the cost and the decisions requested. The report then condenses the earlier modules: the local problem, the evidence on risk, mitigation, behavior and cost, the six options and why a combination was chosen, the implementation roles and budget, and the RE-AIM evaluation. Separate sections address equity and ethics and the plan's limitations, and the report closes by asking the board for three specific actions. Figures are rounded and restated in plain language so a board member without training in epidemiology can follow them.
HLTH 5083 Module 5 rubric: what full marks look like
Final capstones are generally graded on integration: whether the parts form one coherent argument from problem to recommendation. Graders look for evidence that earlier feedback was addressed, and some ask for a short note listing the changes made. The executive summary should stand alone for a decision-maker who reads nothing else. Equity, ethics and limitations should be discussed openly and specifically. Budgets and evaluation measures need to match what was proposed earlier, or the change should be explained. Professional writing suited to the audience, consistent formatting and complete APA 7 references are expected, and a report that ends with concrete decisions shows readiness for practice. Appendices should carry the detail, such as the full budget, so the main report stays readable.
HLTH 5083 Module 5 help: mistakes that cost points
Pulling a whole capstone into one report is harder than it looks, because each earlier paper was written for a different purpose. If you have your module papers but need help condensing them, writing an executive summary or making the argument flow for a real audience, we can help. Send your earlier modules, the feedback you received and the final rubric, and we will write a Module 5 capstone report that reads as one document, speaks to its decision-makers and ends with clear actions. Your earlier arguments are kept, tightened and brought up to date, and anything your instructor flagged is corrected rather than carried forward.
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 3: Capstone Options Analysis
- HLTH 5083 Module 4: Implementation Plan
- HLTH 5013 Module 3: Measures of Association Analysis
- HLTH 5033 Module 4: Capital Expenditure Evaluation
- HLTH 5013 Module 4: Data Analysis
- HLTH 5033 Module 5: Board Financial Report
HLTH 5083 Module 5 questions, answered
What does HLTH5083 Module 5 usually ask for?
The last HLTH5083 module typically asks for the complete capstone paper, pulling together the problem, evidence, analysis, plan and evaluation, often with an executive summary or presentation for a real audience.
How is an executive summary different from an abstract?
An executive summary is written for decision-makers. It states the problem, the recommendation, the cost and the decision requested in plain language, usually on one page, while an abstract summarizes a study for researchers.
Should the final capstone repeat earlier modules word for word?
No. Revise and condense earlier work, incorporate feedback and write the final report as one document for its audience, rather than stapling module papers together.
Where can I find a free HLTH 5083 Module 5 sample paper?
This page carries a full Module 5 capstone report on residential radon, opening with an executive summary for a board of health and covering evidence, options, program, budget, RE-AIM evaluation, equity, limits and decisions requested.
How should a capstone report end?
With the specific decisions or actions you are asking the audience to take, so the report leads somewhere concrete.