PHN 652 Topic 1 DQ 1: Sources of Evidence
Clinical evidence answers what works for a patient. Public health practice also needs to know what is happening in this population, and that evidence lives in different places.
Editorial process
Last reviewed · August 16, 2026
Sources of evidence is broader than published literature
Broaden the category before listing anything, because the useful answer here is not the clinical one. A public health nurse draws on at least four kinds of evidence and they answer different questions. Effectiveness evidence — systematic reviews, trials, the Community Guide — says what interventions work at population level. Surveillance and population data — BRFSS, vital statistics, notifiable disease reporting, county health rankings — says what is happening here and to whom. Guidelines and recommendations from bodies such as the Preventive Services Task Force convert the first into practice. And community-generated evidence — needs assessments, community advisory input, local programme evaluations — says what will work in this population, which the first three often cannot answer. Say which question your own practice problem is asking before listing anything, because the type of evidence you need follows from it. A problem framed as what is happening here and one framed as what should we do need different sources entirely.
The prompt asks for at least two sources cited, so name specific ones rather than categories and say what each contains. Then answer the application half, which is where posts thin out. Applying evidence in public health means combining these rather than choosing among them: surveillance identifies the problem and the affected group, effectiveness evidence supplies candidate interventions, guidelines indicate what is recommended and at what strength, and local assessment decides which candidate is feasible and acceptable here. Add the point that distinguishes population practice from clinical practice: an intervention with good average effectiveness can widen a disparity if uptake is unequal, so the applicability question is not only whether it works but for whom it works and who will actually receive it. That is why community evidence is not a courtesy but a necessary input. Say which of your two cited sources you would go to first and why, since the ordering is itself a practice decision.
Likely learning objectives
Inferred from the brief — check these against your own rubric.
- 01Distinguish effectiveness, surveillance, guideline and community evidence.
- 02Name specific sources rather than categories.
- 03Combine evidence types in a practice decision.
- 04Recognise that average effectiveness can widen a disparity.
Read the full question
Review every instruction before using the planning guidance that follows.
Turn the brief into deliverables
- 01Four kinds of evidence with the question each answers.
- 02At least two named and cited sources.
- 03An application sequence combining the types.
- 04A statement of what community evidence adds.
- 05The equity point about uptake and disparity.
The kinds of source, two cited, then the application
Four kinds of evidence
Distinguish the types by the question each answers.
Two sources, named
Cite specific sources and say what each holds.
How they combine in a decision
Show the sequence from problem to chosen intervention.
What community evidence adds
Explain feasibility and acceptability as evidence questions.
Effectiveness and equity
Show how unequal uptake can widen a gap.
Population data as evidence in its own right
Recommended databases
- CDC surveillance systems
- County Health Rankings
- PubMed Central
- US Preventive Services Task Force
Search sequence
- 1.Open two population data sources and note what each actually reports.
- 2.Find one recommendation with its evidence grade.
- 3.Search for an intervention whose uptake differed by group.
- 4.Check what a community health needs assessment in your area contains.
Reference shortlist
These are authoritative starting points, not a ready-made bibliography. A qualified reviewer must confirm that each source fits the assignment and supports the claim beside which it is cited.
Nothing here is cleared for citation until you have read it.
- 01
Healthy People 2030
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · 2024
The national objectives framework, which is where population targets and their evidence live.
- 02
Social Determinants of Health
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion · 2024
Determinants that explain why a population measure moves, or fails to.
- 03
County Health Rankings & Roadmaps
University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation · 2025
Local population data — one of the two sources the prompt asks you to cite.
- 04
MMWR Home Page | MMWR
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · 2026
Surveillance findings published in near real time, the other half of the population picture.
- 05
Communities in Action: Pathways to Health Equity
National Academies, NCBI Bookshelf · 2017
Equity evidence, for the argument that average effectiveness is not enough.
Review before submission
Common mistakes
- Listing clinical databases only.
- Naming categories without citing specific sources.
- Treating the evidence types as alternatives rather than inputs.
- Assuming an effective intervention benefits everyone equally.
Submission checklist
- Are surveillance and community evidence both included?
- Are at least two specific sources cited?
- Does your application combine rather than choose?
- Is the equity point present?
Use this guide to plan and review your own work. Follow your institution's rules and read our academic-integrity policy.

Written by
Aaron Bishop
MA, Education
assignment interpretation and research-methods coaching across disciplines
Aaron leads the EssayCrackers editorial desk. He works on how assignment briefs are read — what a rubric is actually asking for, and where students most often answer a different question than the one set.

Reviewed by
Dr. Nathan Cole
PhD, Rhetoric & Composition
Argumentation and thesis development
Nathan teaches first-year composition and directs a university writing center. He reviews EssayCrackers guides for argumentative soundness and citation accuracy.