| Course | HS895 Doctoral Project IV: Communication and Dissemination |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 10 |
| Paper type | Dissemination plan |
| Length | About 860 words, 6 pages double-spaced |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Purdue University Global |
| Program | Doctor of Health Science (DHSc) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HS895 Unit 10
Every Audience With a Venue, a Quarter and a Sign of Use: A Unit 10 Dissemination Plan for a Gonadal Shielding Study
[Student Name]
Purdue University Global
HS895: Doctoral Project IV: Communication and Dissemination
Unit 10 Dissemination Plan
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The study, venues' dates and figures are composite or tentative and shown as placeholders; the venues named are real organizations or publications, and the sources cited are real.
Purpose
My study showed that persistent shielders are well informed, and that habit, social expectation and room cues keep the practice alive. A finding like this is useful only if it reaches the people who set up rooms, train staff and teach students. Research on dissemination warns that studies written for academic readers rarely reach practice unless dissemination is planned for specific audiences from the start (Brownson et al., 2018). A national survey of public health researchers found that few designed their work for dissemination, even though practitioners preferred formats such as briefs and presentations (Brownson et al., 2013). This plan pairs each audience with a format, a venue, a target quarter and an observable sign that the finding was used.
Audience One: Network Operations Leadership
Format: executive summary and practice brief, already drafted. Venue: the imaging operations director's monthly leadership meeting. Quarter: [Q1 after defense]. Sign of use: a decision recorded in the meeting minutes approving the two-site pilot.
Audience Two: Site Supervisors and Staff
Format: ten-minute huddle presentation with the parent script. Venue: site huddles at the two pilot sites, then all fourteen. Quarter: [Q1 to Q2]. Sign of use: shields moved from default positions, confirmed by the pilot audit, and the script posted in rooms.
Audience Three: Radiography Educators
Format: twenty-minute talk and a two-page summary for program directors. Venue: the regional radiography educators' meeting. Quarter: [Q2]. Sign of use: a program revising its shielding competency, reported back to the student by a program director.
A dissemination plan that cannot say what would count as use is a list of places to talk, not a plan to change practice.
Audience Four: Radiographers Nationally
Format: conference abstract and poster. Venue: the annual meeting of the state society of radiologic technologists, then the national professional meeting's radiation safety track. Quarter: abstract submission [Q2], presentation [Q3 to Q4]. Sign of use: requests for the parent script through the poster's QR link, counted by the hosting page.
Audience Five: Researchers and Journal Readers
Format: manuscript prepared to GRAMMS (O'Cathain et al., 2008). Venue: Radiologic Technology, with a radiation protection journal as the alternative. Quarter: submission [Q2]. Sign of use: citation in later work or correspondence from other networks. Journal publication is slow, so this row is placed last despite its prestige.
Audience Six: Parents and Families
Format: none directly. Parents are reached through radiographers using the script, which explains the change in plain language. Sign of use: fewer parent complaints about shields in the pilot sites' complaint log, compared with the prior year.
Costs
Most rows cost only the student's time. Conference registration and poster printing are estimated at [$650], to be requested from the program's student research fund. The network pilot uses existing staff and needs no budget. Open-access fees for the journal, if charged, would be sought from the network's education department, since the network benefits from the practice brief and the script.
What the Student Controls
The student controls drafting, submitting and presenting. The student does not control acceptance, meeting calendars or decisions by the network. The plan names these limits so the committee can judge it fairly.
Sequence and Dependencies
The rows depend on one another. The leadership decision comes first, because the huddles need a change to announce and the pilot needs approval. The pilot audit then supplies local evidence that makes the educators' talk and the conference poster more persuasive, since practice audiences respond to results from a setting like their own. The manuscript is drafted in parallel but submitted after the pilot, so that it can mention whether the recommended change was feasible. Parents are reached last and indirectly, once radiographers have practiced the script.
Messages by Audience
Each audience receives the finding framed for its decision. Leadership hears the cost of continuing and the low cost of the pilot. Supervisors and staff hear that the change removes a step and comes with words for parents. Educators hear that habits learned in training persist even when knowledge changes. Researchers hear that a behavioral framework found determinants that knowledge-focused surveys missed.
Risks
Abstract deadlines may pass before the defense. The network may delay the pilot. A journal may reject the manuscript. Each risk has a fallback, set out in advance: a later meeting, a smaller presentation to the protocol committee and the alternative journal.
Tracking
The student will keep a simple log recording each submission, presentation and sign of use, reviewed with the chair at six and twelve months after the defense. Rows that show no sign of use by twelve months will be reconsidered rather than repeated, since a format that did not reach an audience once is unlikely to reach it the second time.
References
Brownson, R. C., Eyler, A. A., Harris, J. K., Moore, J. B., & Tabak, R. G. (2018). Getting the word out: New approaches for disseminating public health science. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(2), 102-111. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000673
Brownson, R. C., Jacobs, J. A., Tabak, R. G., Hoehner, C. M., & Stamatakis, K. A. (2013). Designing for dissemination among public health researchers: Findings from a national survey in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 103(9), 1693-1699. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301165
O'Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2008). The quality of mixed methods studies in health services research. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 13(2), 92-98. https://doi.org/10.1258/jhsrp.2007.007074
HS895 Unit 10 instructions, in plain terms
The final unit typically asks candidates to plan how their findings will reach the audiences who could use them, often four to six pages. Instructors expect each audience to be paired with a format, venue and timing, and increasingly with a measure of whether the finding was taken up. Plans should be honest about what the candidate controls, such as submissions, and what depends on others, such as acceptance and organizational decisions. Many prompts ask for sequencing, budgets and risks with fallbacks. A journal article is commonly one element among several rather than the whole plan. Tracking arrangements show that the plan will be followed after the defense.
Inside the HS895 Unit 10 example
The plan opens by explaining why dissemination must be planned for specific audiences, citing two studies of dissemination practice. Six audience rows follow, each with format, venue, quarter and sign of use; the highlighted sentence argues that a row without a sign of use is only a place to talk. Parents are reached indirectly through radiographers. A sequence section explains how the leadership decision and pilot feed later rows. Messages are tailored to each audience's decision. Costs are estimated and funding sources named. Sections on what the student controls, risks with fallbacks and a tracking log reviewed at six and twelve months close the plan. Every row is phrased so that the student could report its status in a single line at a later review.
Where the points sit in the HS895 Unit 10 rubric
Dissemination plans are generally graded on audience coverage and fit, specificity of venues and timing, presence of measures of use, realism about control and resources, and sequencing. Measures of use often distinguish strong plans, since they show the candidate is aiming at change rather than exposure. Fit rewards formats matched to how each audience decides. Specificity earns credit for named venues and quarters, with uncertain dates marked as such. Realism scores well when the plan separates what the candidate controls from what others decide and includes costs and fallbacks. Sequencing that reflects dependencies between rows shows strategic thinking. Clear organization and correct citations complete the grade. Plans that name fallbacks for rejected submissions tend to be judged more realistic.
Common HS895 Unit 10 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Too many plans name a journal and a conference and go no further. Another is describing presentations as scheduled or accepted when they are only hoped for. Some candidates name audiences without saying how they would know the finding was used. Others ignore cost or assume the organization will fund everything. Plans with no tracking arrangement tend to fade after the defense. If your study's audiences differ, perhaps policymakers or community organizations, send your findings and the groups you hope to reach, and a plan can be drafted with venues, timing and signs of use for each. Measuring success by the number of presentations given, rather than by change in practice, is another trap.
Get an HS895 Unit 10 example written to your instructions
List the audiences your project ought to reach and whatever meetings or journals come to mind, then attach the HS895 Unit 10 prompt and rubric. In the returned plan, each audience gets a venue, a quarter and an observable sign of uptake, with dates bracketed where others control them. Ready in 24-48h, the first custom sample is free. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Purdue University Global document.
More HS895 papers and DHSc samples
- HS895 Unit 1: Dissemination Audience Discussion Post
- HS895 Unit 2: Dissemination Audience Analysis
- HS895 Unit 3: One-Page Executive Summary
- HS895 Unit 4: Practice Recommendation Brief
- HS895 Unit 5: Research Conference Abstract
- HS895 Unit 6: Research Poster Draft
- HS895 Unit 7: Mock Defense Seminar Reflection
- HS895 Unit 8: Mixed Methods Manuscript Draft
- HS895 Unit 9: Dissertation Defense Presentation
- HS810 Unit 10: Policy Analysis Paper
- HS880 Unit 10: Mixed Methods Results Chapter Draft
- HS820 Unit 10: Rural Medicaid Recommendation Report
- HS865 Unit 10: Review and Method Chapter Draft
HS895 Unit 10 questions, answered
How specific should dissemination timing be?
Specific enough to act on, but honest about what others control. A quarter or a month tied to a known meeting cycle works well; an exact date for a committee agenda nobody has set does not. Bracketing dates that depend on calls for abstracts or meeting calendars shows the plan is realistic, and it can be updated once each date is confirmed.
What counts as evidence that a finding was taken up?
Something observable that changed because of the work: a revised policy citing it, equipment removed, a protocol rewritten, requests for materials from other sites, audit results moving in the expected direction. Attendance at a presentation or downloads of a poster show reach, not use. A plan that names both and labels each is more credible.
Should a dissemination plan include a journal article?
Often, as one row among several. A journal reaches researchers and some clinicians, but slowly and rarely the people who own a local process. Placing the manuscript after local and regional channels lets it report real change. Describe its status exactly, prepared or planned, since submission and review are steps still to come.
Where can I find a free HS895 Unit 10 sample paper?
The complete Unit 10 dissemination plan is on this page, pairing six audiences for a shielding study with venues, quarters and signs of use.
What counts as a sign that a finding was used?
Something observable that changed, such as a recorded decision, shields removed from rooms, a revised competency or requests for the parent script.