| Course | PHE 505 Research Methods in Public Health |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 5 |
| Paper type | graduate reflective journal on research ethics and human subjects protection |
| Length | About 340 words, 3 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MPH |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PHE 505 Module 5
Module Five Journal
Patients Who Will Never Know They Were Studied
Finishing the human subjects training left me with one uncomfortable thought. The people in my study will never know they were in it. My proposal uses emergency records of riders hurt on shared scooters, and none of them will be asked.
The Belmont Report frames the question through three principles (National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research, 1979). Respect for persons usually means informed consent. Here, contacting hundreds of former patients, many of them students who have since moved, would be close to impossible, and those who replied might differ from those who did not, biasing the results. Federal rules allow a review board to waive consent when research poses minimal risk, could not practicably be done otherwise and would not harm participants' rights. I now think my study meets those conditions, but only if I take privacy seriously, because the main risk is a breach of confidential information.
Beneficence asks me to maximize benefit and minimize harm. Concretely, the hospital's analyst will remove names, addresses and record numbers before I see any data; dates will be shifted; and the file will stay on the hospital's secure server. Creswell and Creswell (2018) note that researchers should collect only the data the question requires, so I cut a field I had planned for home address.
Justice asks who bears the burdens and who benefits. In Los Angeles, roughly 11% of injured patients were younger than 18 (Trivedi et al., 2019). I had excluded them because minors need extra protections, but excluding them also means the city council will have no evidence about the group its proposed helmet rule targets. I will ask the review board whether de-identified records of minors can be included under the same waiver. If the board says no, I will state the exclusion as a limitation rather than leave it unexplained.
The training changed two things: I dropped an unneeded field, and I reconsidered an exclusion I had made for my own convenience.
References
Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). SAGE.
National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1979). The Belmont report: Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
Trivedi, T. K., Liu, C., Antonio, A. L. M., Wheaton, N., Kreger, V., Yap, A., Schriger, D., & Elmore, J. G. (2019). Injuries associated with standing electric scooter use. JAMA Network Open, 2(1), Article e187381. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2018.7381
What the PHE 505 Module 5 instructions ask for
In Module Five, PHE 505 asks you to complete human subjects training and write a reflective journal on how research ethics apply to your proposal. A page or so in APA 7 with a few sources is typical, and journals are usually private between you and the instructor. Explain the Belmont Report's principles and apply each to your own design rather than describing them in general. Consider whether consent is needed or could be waived, how privacy and confidentiality will be protected and whether your inclusion and exclusion choices are fair. Close by describing what the training changed in your thinking or design. Plan for a possible refusal.
How this PHE 505 Module 5 ethics journal example is built
In this PHE 505 journal, a composite MPH student realizes that injured scooter riders in a planned emergency record review will never know they were studied. The Belmont Report's respect for persons leads to a reasoned case for waiving consent, since contacting former patients is impracticable and risk is minimal if privacy is protected. Beneficence leads to de-identification, shifted dates and a secure server, and Creswell and Creswell's advice on collecting only needed data removes a home address field. Justice prompts the student to reconsider excluding minors, about one in ten patients in Trivedi and colleagues' study. A limitation is planned if the board declines. Each principle leads to a concrete step.
Where the PHE 505 Module 5 rubric puts the points
Graders of the PHE 505 ethics journal usually look for evidence that training was completed, accurate explanation of the Belmont principles, specific application to the student's own proposal, thoughtful treatment of consent, privacy and fairness in selection and honest reflection on what changed. Journals that score highest show ethics shaping design decisions instead of appearing as a closing paragraph. Graders mark down reflections that list principles without application or assume approval will follow automatically. Clear writing and correct APA 7 citations complete stronger journals, and naming concrete design changes shows genuine learning from the training. Plans for a possible refusal show maturity. Specific privacy steps carry more weight than general promises.
PHE 505 Module 5 help: the mistakes that cost points
Ethics journals for PHE 505 often lose points by summarizing the training, defining principles without applying them or treating the review board as a formality. If your proposal uses surveys, interviews or a different data source, send the prompt and a short description of your design, and the journal will apply each principle to your choices about consent, privacy and who is included. Notes on what surprised you in the training make the reflection more personal. Our PHE 505 ethics journals end with specific changes to the design, which also strengthens the ethics section of your methods milestone later in the course. Fallbacks are noted. Privacy steps are specific.
Get PHE 505 Module 5 written to your instructions
Send the PHE 505 Module 5 prompt with a brief outline of how your study will work. The journal will apply the Belmont principles to your choices about consent, privacy and fairness and name what the training changed, delivered in roughly two days, with a first sample free. 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 PHE 505 papers and related MPH samples
- PHE 505 Module 1 Discussion: Where a Research Question Comes From
- PHE 505 Module 2 Milestone One: The Research Proposal Topic
- PHE 505 Module 3 Annotated Bibliography: Five Studies Weighed for Quality
- PHE 505 Module 4 Milestone Two: The Literature Review
- PHE 505 Module 6 Milestone Three: The Research Question and Hypotheses
- PHE 505 Module 7 Survey Assignment: A Rider Survey Built and Tested
- PHE 505 Module 8 Milestone Four: Methods and the Analysis Plan
- PHE 505 Module 9 Discussion: What Numbers Miss and Interviews Find
- PHE 500 Module 4 Discussion: Who Does What in the Public Health System
- PHE 101 Module 7 Project Two: A Layered Plan to Prevent Entrapment
- PHE 423 Module 1 Discussion: Why Handing Out Alarms Is Not Enough
- PHE 321 Module 2 Agent Biology Short Paper: How Trypanosoma cruzi Moves and Multiplies
PHE 505 Module 5 questions, answered
Where can I find a free PHE 505 Module 5 Ethics Journal sample?
This page carries the full PHE 505 Module 5 journal applying the Belmont principles to a record review of injured e-scooter riders.
What are the three Belmont principles?
Respect for persons, beneficence and justice, set out in the Belmont Report of 1979.
When can a review board waive informed consent?
Generally when research poses minimal risk, could not practicably be done without the waiver and would not harm participants' rights or welfare.
How is privacy protected in a medical record study?
By removing identifiers, limiting data to what the question needs, shifting dates and keeping files on secure systems.
Why does justice matter in choosing who is studied?
Excluding groups for convenience can leave them without evidence about issues that affect them.