NUR 306 Module 2 Epidemiology Short Paper Example

Reviewed by Delia Ravenscroft, MSN, RN

This NUR 306 Module 2 epidemiology short paper sample applies descriptive epidemiology to one occupational hazard, organizing national surveillance data by person, place and time and then asking what the pattern means for a community nurse. It was written for SNHU NUR 306, Nursing in the Community, which RN to BSN students see on their transcripts as NUR-306. The hazard is falling overboard in commercial fishing, the second leading cause of death in an industry whose fatality rate is many times the national average. Using a federal analysis of 204 deaths over 17 years and a study of injuries among lobstermen, the paper explains who falls, in which fisheries, how the numbers have changed and why most victims are never recovered. It separates counts from rates, names the limits of the data and connects each finding to a level of prevention for a composite harbor town.

CourseNUR 306 Nursing in the Community
ModuleModule 2
Paper typeApplied descriptive epidemiology paper
LengthAbout 1,050 words, 6 pages
FormatAPA 7 student paper
SchoolSouthern New Hampshire University
ProgramRN to BSN
UpdatedSeptember 2026

Free sample paper for NUR 306 Module 2

1

No One Was Wearing a Life Jacket: The Descriptive Epidemiology of Fatal Falls Overboard in Commercial Fishing

[Student Name]

Southern New Hampshire University

NUR 306: Nursing in the Community

Module Two Short Paper

[Instructor Name]

[Date]

The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.

What this page is doingThe main title states the single most important finding in the data, and the subtitle names the method. A grader knows immediately that the paper will analyze, not just describe, a health problem.
2

No One Was Wearing a Life Jacket: The Descriptive Epidemiology of Fatal Falls Overboard in Commercial Fishing

Descriptive epidemiology asks who is affected by a health problem, where it happens and when, before anyone asks why. For a community health nurse in a fishing town, the answers shape which crews to reach, in which season and with what message. This paper applies descriptive epidemiology to fatal falls overboard in U.S. commercial fishing, drawing mainly on the federal NIOSH analysis of deaths from 2000 through 2016 (Case et al., 2018), and then considers what the pattern means for a composite lobstering town, Pell Harbor, Maine. The data point to a problem that is concentrated in specific fisheries and working conditions, that is declining but still deadly, and whose outcome is decided almost entirely before the fall, because once a fisherman is in the water without flotation, rescue rarely succeeds.

What this page is doingThe introduction defines the method in one sentence, names the data source and states a finding-based thesis. Epidemiology papers that begin with a textbook definition of epidemiology use space that analysis needs.
3

Case Definition and Data Source

The analysis by Case et al. (2018) included unintentional fatal falls from commercial fishing vessels in U.S. waters, identified through the federal commercial fishing incident surveillance system. During 2000 to 2016, 204 fishermen died this way, accounting for 27.0% of all work-related deaths in commercial fishing during the period. For context, the industry's overall fatality rate in 2016 stood at 86.0 per 100,000 full-time equivalent workers, against 3.6 for the U.S. workforce as a whole. That comparison uses a rate, which divides deaths by the number of workers exposed; most of the fall data, however, are reported as counts and percentages of deaths, which describe the pattern among those who died but cannot on their own show which groups have the highest risk.

What this page is doingThe paper states the case definition, the source and the difference between counts and rates. Showing that distinction early is one of the clearest signs of epidemiologic thinking.
4

Person

The people who died were almost all men (202 of 204), with a median age of 43 years and a range of 16 to 77. Deckhands made up 58.8% of deaths and vessel operators 38.7%. The median length of fishing experience was 16 years, and only 4.4% had any documented formal marine safety training (Case et al., 2018). The profile is not one of inexperienced young workers. It is one of experienced adults, often working in familiar conditions, which suggests that familiarity itself may lower the sense of risk. Fulmer et al. (2016) reached a related conclusion from a different angle: in a survey of lobster captains in Maine and Massachusetts, acute injuries of all kinds occurred at 49.7 per 100 full-time equivalents, with 15.0 per 100 requiring treatment, far higher than rates found using Coast Guard reports alone.

What this page is doingPerson characteristics are reported precisely, interpreted cautiously and supported by a second study whose rates add context. The inference about familiarity is flagged as a suggestion, not a finding.
5

Place

By region, the East Coast recorded 62 deaths (30.4%), the Gulf of Mexico 60 (29.4%), Alaska 51 (25.0%) and the West Coast 26 (12.8%), with 5 in Hawaiian waters. By fishery, Gulf of Mexico shrimp accounted for 34 deaths (16.7%), East Coast lobster for 18 (8.8%), Alaska salmon drift gillnet for 16 (7.8%) and East Coast scallop for 10 (4.9%) (Case et al., 2018). For Pell Harbor, the lobster figure matters most. Lobstering often involves small crews, frequently a single operator or a captain with one sternman, working with traps and moving lines on an open deck, which places the fishery squarely among the conditions associated with falls.

What this page is doingPlace is analyzed at two scales, region and fishery, and the paper immediately connects the most relevant figure to the community it serves.
6

Time

Deaths from falls overboard declined over the study period by an average of 3.9% per year, from a high of 20 in 2003 to a low of 5 in 2016 (Case et al., 2018). The decline is encouraging, but the report cannot say whether it reflects safer practices, fewer workers or changes in how fisheries operate, because counts do not adjust for exposure. Seasonal patterns also matter locally. Fulmer et al. (2016) found that lobstering exposure, measured in full-time equivalents, was highest in summer and lowest in winter, so a nurse planning outreach in Pell Harbor should expect the most time on the water, and therefore the most opportunity for falls, in the summer and fall months, while spring rigging season offers the best chance to reach crews before the busiest months.

What this page is doingThe time section reports the trend accurately and names what it cannot explain. Linking seasonal exposure to outreach timing turns epidemiology into a nursing decision.
7

Circumstances and Outcomes

Half of the fatal falls (50.7%) happened while the fisherman was working with gear, most often setting it. The direct causes most often recorded were losing balance (32.2%), tripping or slipping (31.5%) and becoming entangled in gear (20.8%). Nearly half of the victims (48.5%) were working alone at the time, and alcohol or drug use was a contributing factor in 18.1% (Case et al., 2018).

The outcome data explain why the problem is so lethal. Most falls, 59.3%, were not witnessed, and 89.3% of those victims were never found. Among witnessed falls, rescue was attempted in 56 of 83 cases, and 22 people were recovered from the water but could not be resuscitated. None of the 204 victims was wearing a personal flotation device. Life rings were thrown in 19 incidents and led to recovery in 5, and a man-overboard alarm was used only once. Teske et al. (2022) note that personal flotation devices are not required to be worn on deck by U.S. commercial fishermen, which leaves wearing one to individual choice and vessel culture.

What this page is doingCircumstances and outcomes are reported with exact percentages, and the paper explains why the outcome data are the most important for prevention. Accurate reporting of a federal source is heavily weighted in this rubric.
8

Implications for a Community Nurse

The descriptive pattern maps onto the levels of prevention. Primary prevention, keeping the fall from happening, belongs largely to vessel design and work practices, such as higher rails, managing lines on deck and tethers, which a nurse can support through the harbor committee but cannot deliver. Secondary prevention, surviving the fall, is where a nurse's skills in health teaching and social marketing fit best, because the single largest gap in the data is flotation, followed by alarms and recovery devices for crews that fish alone. Tertiary prevention, improving outcomes after recovery, includes cardiopulmonary resuscitation training for crews and rewarming procedures. For Pell Harbor, the data argue for a spring outreach effort on life jackets and man-overboard preparation aimed at small lobster crews and solo operators.

What this page is doingImplications follow directly from the data and are sorted by prevention level, with a realistic view of what nursing can and cannot do. This section sets up the teaching plan and intervention later in the course.
9

Limitations

The analysis has limits a nurse should acknowledge. Fall data are counts of deaths, so they cannot identify which fisheries have the highest rates without exposure figures for each. Surveillance systems may miss some deaths or misclassify circumstances, and alcohol and drug involvement depends on what was documented. Nonfatal falls overboard, which may be far more common, are not captured. Finally, national patterns may not match one harbor, so local data from the cooperative, the harbor master and the regional hospital would sharpen any plan.

What this page is doingLimitations address denominators, surveillance quality and generalizability, the three weaknesses an epidemiology grader looks for.
10

References

Case, S. L., Lincoln, J. M., & Lucas, D. L. (2018). Fatal falls overboard in commercial fishing: United States, 2000-2016. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 67(16), 465-469. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6716a2

Fulmer, S., Buchholz, B., Jenkins, P., & Scribani, M. (2016). Work-time exposure and acute injuries in inshore lobstermen of the Northeast United States. Journal of Agromedicine, 21(2), 190-199. https://doi.org/10.1080/1059924X.2016.1143431

Teske, T. D., Case, S. L., Lucas, D. L., Forrester, C. L., & Lincoln, J. M. (2022). Have you met Angus? Development and evaluation of a social marketing intervention to improve personal flotation device use in commercial fishing. Journal of Safety Research, 83, 260-268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2022.08.022

What the NUR 306 Module 2 instructions ask for

The Module 2 short paper in NUR 306 usually asks you to apply basic epidemiology to a health problem that affects your chosen community or population. Common prompts ask you to describe the problem by person, place and time, identify risk factors, report incidence or prevalence using credible data, explain the difference between counts and rates where it matters and discuss implications for community health nursing, often using the levels of prevention. Some sections provide a data set or a disease to analyze, while others let you choose, in which case the problem should matter to the community you picked in Module 1. Plan on roughly three or four pages, formatted in APA 7, with data from government or peer-reviewed sources rather than general websites, and every figure cited with its year.

How this NUR 306 Module 2 epidemiology short paper example is built

This example takes one hazard, fatal falls overboard in commercial fishing, and organizes a federal surveillance analysis by person, place and time. It opens with the case definition and explains early why most of the figures are counts rather than rates. A study of lobstermen's injuries adds a rate-based view and a seasonal pattern. The circumstances and outcomes section reports the finding that no victim was wearing flotation and that most unwitnessed victims were never found. The implications section sorts prevention by level and ties it to a composite harbor town, and a limitations section covers denominators, surveillance quality and local fit. All three sources are real, and every figure in the paper can be found in them.

Where the NUR 306 Module 2 rubric puts the points

Epidemiology paper rubrics in this course usually score the description of the health problem, the use of epidemiologic concepts, the accuracy and currency of data, the implications for community nursing and the quality of writing and citation. Accuracy carries real weight: graders check that figures match the source and that rates are not confused with counts. The concepts criterion rewards correct use of terms such as incidence, prevalence, rate, denominator and risk factor. Implications earn full credit when they follow from the data and name a level of prevention. A short limitations section often decides whether the analysis reads as critical or merely descriptive, so do not skip it to save space.

NUR 306 Module 2 help: the mistakes that cost points

The most frequent error in the Module 2 paper is data without context: a count with no denominator, a percentage with no year or a statistic from a website with no original source. Another is confusing risk factors with causes, or describing a correlation as proof. Some papers spend most of their length defining epidemiology instead of applying it. Others describe the problem well and then propose interventions unrelated to the data. Choose a problem with a solid public data source, report every figure exactly as published, explain what each number can and cannot show and let the pattern in the data decide your nursing implications.

Get NUR 306 Module 2 written to your instructions

Name the health problem and population you are analyzing, and send the Module 2 instructions and rubric. An epidemiology paper that uses current, cited data for that problem comes back in 24 to 48 hours, and the first sample is complimentary. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.

More NUR 306 papers and related RN to BSN samples

NUR 306 Module 2 questions, answered

Where can I find a free NUR 306 Module 2 epidemiology sample paper?

The paper on this page is free to read in full: the descriptive epidemiology of fatal falls overboard in commercial fishing, by person, place and time, with prevention levels, limitations, margin notes and three references. Custom versions for other health problems can be requested.

What does person, place and time mean in NUR 306?

It is the basic structure of descriptive epidemiology. Person covers who is affected, such as age, sex and occupation; place covers where cases occur; time covers trends and seasons. Together they show the pattern before you try to explain it.

What is the difference between a count and a rate?

A count is the number of cases. A rate puts those cases over the number of people who could have become cases during a set period, for example deaths per 100,000 workers in a year. Rates allow fair comparisons between groups of different sizes; counts do not.

Where should I find data for a NUR 306 epidemiology paper?

Government surveillance reports, such as MMWR and state health department data, and peer-reviewed studies are the strongest sources. Always report the year and the geography the data cover.

Do I need the levels of prevention in the Module 2 paper?

Many prompts ask for them, and they are a clear way to organize implications. Sort each intervention into primary, secondary or tertiary prevention and explain why it fits there.