How to Write a Public Health Intervention Report on STIs (HCR5001)
You have 4,000 words, four questions worth 40, 20, 20 and 20 marks, and a brief that tells you to pick one STI intervention and keep it for the whole report. Most students lose marks before they start, by choosing an intervention they cannot evidence or by treating all four questions as one long essay.
cta_essay_sample_1
Quick answer: For the Arden University HCR5001 Public Health report, choose one well-documented STI intervention in one country, then answer in order: principles (Q1, 40 marks), key elements and evaluation (Q2), evidence and a verdict on effectiveness (Q3), and one real evaluation with its recommendations (Q4). Spend about 1,600 words on Q1 and 800 on each other question.
What the HCR5001 report actually asks for
The HCR5001 Public Health module at Arden University is assessed by a single Public Health Report worth 100% of the module, at Level 5, with a 4,000-word limit and a 10% tolerance. In-text citations count towards the total; the reference list, appendices and tables do not. You can read the brief on our HCR5001 Public Health assessment brief page.
The scenario is that STIs are a major public health problem and you pick one intervention, in any country, and use it for every question. Because anonymous marking applies, nothing about you appears in the script; the marker sees only the argument.
| Question | Marks | What it asks | Suggested words |
|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 40 | Concepts and principles of modern public health behind the intervention | 1,500 to 1,600 |
| Q2 | 20 | Key elements of the intervention and how each would be evaluated | 750 to 800 |
| Q3 | 20 | Review the evidence and decide whether it is effective | 750 to 800 |
| Q4 | 20 | Describe one evaluation of the intervention and discuss its recommendations | 750 to 800 |
How to choose an STI intervention you can defend
Pick something with a published policy, a named programme and at least one formal evaluation. Q4 requires a real evaluation, so a vague intervention such as “sex education” will leave you inventing evidence. Three safe choices are chlamydia screening in England, routine HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis commissioning in England, and HPV vaccination in schools.
Chlamydia screening is the easiest to defend because the National Chlamydia Screening Programme has a clear aim, a policy change in June 2021 to focus on young women, and an external peer review published in 2019 (Public Health England, 2019; 2021). It also has contested evidence, which gives you something to argue in Q3.
Questions to ask before you commit
- Can I name the programme’s aims and start date from a government source?
- Is there at least one trial, survey or formal review I can cite?
- Can I find a published evaluation with recommendations for Q4?
- Do I have enough material to fill 1,500 words on principles, not only on the programme itself?
Q1: how to get depth for 40 marks
Q1 carries twice the marks of any other question, and it is the one students under-write. The marker wants theory used to explain the intervention, not a list of theories followed by a description.
Build Q1 around five or six concepts and apply each to your intervention in two or three sentences. Reliable choices include levels of prevention, the Wilson and Jungner (1968) screening criteria, Rose’s (1985) population and high-risk strategies, proportionate universalism from Marmot (2010), the wider determinants model of Dahlgren and Whitehead (1991), and the Ottawa Charter (World Health Organization, 1986).
A quick test: after every paragraph, ask whether you named the concept, defined it with a citation and then said what it shows about your intervention. If one of those is missing, the paragraph earns less.
Q2: the element table markers like
Q2 rewards a clear table. List each element of the intervention, say what it is for and state how you would measure it. Keep tables out of your word count worries: the brief excludes them from the total, but the marker still reads them, so the table must be precise.
| Element | Purpose | Evaluation indicator |
|---|---|---|
| Target population | Direct resources to those at greatest risk | Coverage of the target group, by deprivation |
| Delivery settings | Make access easy | Tests or doses by setting |
| Treatment pathway | Stop transmission and harm | Proportion treated within a set time |
| Partner notification | Prevent reinfection | Partners treated per index case |
Then name an evaluation framework. The logic model (inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes) and RE-AIM, set out by Glasgow, Vogt and Boles (1999), both work. Use one properly rather than listing three badly. Our HCR5001 public health report model extract shows a worked version, for reference only.
Q3: building an evidence review that reaches a verdict
The word “decide” in the brief is the trap. A description of studies earns a pass; a reasoned verdict earns a first. Put your sources into a table with design, finding and weight, then write a paragraph that weighs them against each other.
With chlamydia screening, for example, a US trial reported a relative risk of pelvic inflammatory disease of 0.44 among screened women (Scholes et al., 1996), while a later London trial found 0.65 with a confidence interval that included no effect (Oakeshott et al., 2010). An Australian cluster trial found no clear difference in prevalence between testing and control clinics (Hocking et al., 2018). Weighing those three honestly gives you a verdict such as “effective for individual harm, unproven for population prevalence”.
Where marks are lost in Q3
| Common error | What markers want instead |
|---|---|
| Listing studies one after another | Comparing designs and sample sizes |
| Quoting a statistic without its source or confidence interval | Figures tied to the exact paper |
| Ending with “more research is needed” | A clear judgement, then limits of that judgement |
| Using blogs or press articles as evidence | Peer-reviewed papers and government reports |
Q4: choosing one evaluation and discussing recommendations
Describe a single evaluation fully: who carried it out, when, how, and what it concluded. Then discuss its recommendations rather than copying them. Say which are measurable, which depend on funding, and which were contested.
The strongest Q4 answers state what happened next. For chlamydia screening, the external peer review recommended continued screening of young women, testing on partner change and a faster treatment pathway (Public Health England, 2019), and the programme later narrowed its proactive community offer to young women (Public Health England, 2021). Showing that link between evaluation and policy is what separates analysis from summary.
Mark-maximising checklist
- One intervention, one country, named in the first paragraph.
- Every question headed clearly, with the mark value in your plan.
- Six or more peer-reviewed sources plus official government or WHO documents.
- One table each in Q2 and Q3, with a sentence interpreting it.
- A verdict in Q3 that you could defend in a viva.
- Word count checked with citations included, within 4,400 words including tolerance.
- AU Harvard referencing, with every in-text citation matched in the list.
Common mistakes on this brief
Changing intervention between questions is the most serious. The brief demands one intervention throughout, and a Q4 that evaluates a different programme from Q2 will be marked down hard.
Other frequent problems are writing Q1 as a generic essay on public health history, using out-of-date policy (the English chlamydia programme changed focus in 2021) and padding with background statistics about STIs that do not help any of the four questions.
What students ask before starting
Students usually tell us they cannot tell where principles end and evaluation begins, they are unsure which country to choose, and they fear running over 4,000 words. A short plan solves most of this: write the Q1 concepts as bullet points, attach one source to each, and only then draft. If you want to see the structure applied to a real programme, read the reference sample, and if you want a second pair of eyes on your plan, see our public health assignment help page.
cta_essay_sample_2
Other healthcare modules use the same report logic, and our healthcare assignment help and report writing help pages explain how we support structure and referencing. You can also look at how other students rated us on the reviews page, or browse other Arden University assessment briefs.
Frequently asked questions
Which STI intervention is best for HCR5001?
The best intervention is one with a published policy, trial or survey evidence and at least one formal evaluation. Chlamydia screening in England, HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis commissioning and school HPV vaccination all meet that test. Choose the one for which you can find the most peer-reviewed material before you commit.
Can I choose a country other than the UK?
Yes, the brief lets you choose any country. Pick one whose government or health agency publishes programme documents in English, because you need an official source for the aims and a published evaluation for Q4. Using the UK is simpler for most students.
How should I split 4,000 words across four questions?
Give Q1 about 1,500 to 1,600 words because it carries 40 marks, and the other three roughly 750 to 800 words each. In-text citations count, tables, appendices and the reference list do not, and the brief allows a 10% tolerance.
What is the difference between Q2 and Q4?
Q2 asks how the intervention would be evaluated, so it is about indicators and frameworks you propose. Q4 asks you to describe one evaluation that was actually carried out and discuss its recommendations. Q2 is design; Q4 is a real, published example.
Do I need a framework like RE-AIM or a logic model?
You are not told to use one, but a framework makes your Q2 evaluation structured and checkable. RE-AIM covers reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation and maintenance. A logic model links inputs to outcomes. Use one and apply it to each element.
Will the report be checked for similarity and AI use?
Universities commonly run similarity checks, so write in your own words and cite everything. Our samples are for reference only and must not be submitted as your own work. Check Arden’s current academic integrity rules before you use any support.
cta_essay_sample_3
If your deadline is close, start with the plan, not the prose: choose the intervention today and list your Q1 concepts. When you want support with structure or referencing, our nursing assignment help team can guide you, and the sample extract above shows the shape of a finished answer.
Psychology (social psychology: social influence, group dynamics and social cognition). Master’s degree in Psychology, University of Edinburgh. 3 years as a research assistant at the University of Edinburgh and 2 years as an academic writer at Students Assignment Help UK.
Completed: 2156 Orders
References
Dahlgren, G. and Whitehead, M. (1991) Policies and strategies to promote social equity in health. Stockholm: Institute for Futures Studies.
Glasgow, R.E., Vogt, T.M. and Boles, S.M. (1999) ‘Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework’, American Journal of Public Health, 89(9), pp. 1322-1327.
Hocking, J.S. et al. (2018) ‘Population effectiveness of opportunistic chlamydia testing in primary care in Australia: a cluster-randomised controlled trial’, The Lancet, 392(10156), pp. 1413-1422. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31816-6.
Marmot, M. (2010) Fair society, healthy lives: the Marmot Review. London: University College London Institute of Health Equity.
Oakeshott, P. et al. (2010) ‘Randomised controlled trial of screening for Chlamydia trachomatis to prevent pelvic inflammatory disease: the POPI (prevention of pelvic infection) trial’, BMJ, 340, c1642. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c1642.
Public Health England (2019) NCSP external peer review panel report. London: Public Health England. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/858606/NCSP_external_peer_review_panel_report.pdf (Accessed: 13 October 2026).
Public Health England (2021) Changes to the National Chlamydia Screening Programme (NCSP). Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/changes-to-the-national-chlamydia-screening-programme-ncsp/changes-to-the-national-chlamydia-screening-programme-ncsp (Accessed: 13 October 2026).
Rose, G. (1985) ‘Sick individuals and sick populations’, International Journal of Epidemiology, 14(1), pp. 32-38.
Scholes, D. et al. (1996) ‘Prevention of pelvic inflammatory disease by screening for cervical chlamydial infection’, New England Journal of Medicine, 334(21), pp. 1362-1366.
Wilson, J.M.G. and Jungner, G. (1968) Principles and practice of screening for disease. Geneva: World Health Organization.
World Health Organization (1986) Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization.
