Skills

Public Health Intervention Design

10 weeks · 0 milestones

Design a real public health intervention for a specific population and health problem. Proof requires a proposal covering: problem statement with epidemiological evidence (cited), target population with demographic specificity, intervention logic model (inputs → activities → outputs → outcomes), implementation plan with timeline, evaluation framework with measurable indicators, and budget rationale. Must be for a real community or population — not a hypothetical scenario. Reviewed by a public health practitioner with experience in intervention design or programme management.

Part of: Health & Medicine · Proves for: UG

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define the target population and the health problem

1–2 weeks

Choose a public health problem in a specific population (e.g. low physical activity in adults aged 40–65 in urban GP-registered patients, or high smoking prevalence among 16–24 year olds in a specific borough). Document the epidemiological justification for choosing this population and problem: prevalence data, burden of disease, known risk factors, social determinants, and health inequalities relevant to this group. Your documentation must cite published data (PHE, WHO, NHS, or peer-reviewed sources).

Proof required

Submit your 2-page population and problem definition with all prevalence figures, burden of disease estimates, and health inequalities data cited to published sources.

What gets checked

Population is specific and bounded — a named demographic, geographic area, or clinical cohort, not 'the general population'.
Prevalence data is cited to published sources with year — not estimated or derived without reference.
Health inequalities section identifies a specific disparity relevant to your chosen population — not a generic statement about health inequalities.

Common mistakes

Population that is too broad to design a specific intervention for — 'adults in the UK' is not a target population.
Burden of disease that only names the condition without specifying its magnitude in the target population.
Health inequalities section that is general rather than specific to your chosen population and problem.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Ask the student to name the prevalence of the health problem in their target population — they should cite a figure and its source immediately.
Check that the population is specific enough that an intervention could be designed for it.
Ask what the most significant health inequality is for this population.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Design the intervention using a recognised behaviour change framework

2–3 weeks

Design a public health intervention targeting your defined population and problem. Apply a recognised behaviour change or public health framework to structure your intervention: COM-B model, Behaviour Change Wheel, Health Belief Model, Social Cognitive Theory, or equivalent. Your design must specify: the intervention's theory of change (what mechanism links the intervention to the health behaviour), delivery format (individual, group, community, digital), who delivers it, the setting, estimated reach, and how it addresses social determinants of health for your population.

Proof required

Submit your intervention design (3–4 pages) with your chosen framework explicitly applied — name the model, describe how each component of your design maps to the model's constructs, and justify any design choices that required departing from the model's standard approach.

What gets checked

Framework is explicitly applied — each design choice is linked to a specific construct of the chosen model.
Theory of change is specific: 'this intervention will increase physical activity' is not a theory of change; 'this intervention targets low perceived self-efficacy (Social Cognitive Theory) by providing supervised sessions with graduated challenge and peer modelling' is.
Social determinants are addressed: the design acknowledges barriers specific to the target population (cost, access, language, cultural acceptability) and how the intervention design mitigates them.

Common mistakes

Framework named but not applied — the design could have been produced without the framework, which just appears as an introductory reference.
Theory of change that is the desired outcome rather than the mechanism — 'the intervention will improve mental health' is an outcome, not a mechanism.
Social determinants acknowledged but not addressed — listing barriers without designing around them is not intervention design.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Ask the student to explain how their intervention design maps to a specific construct of their chosen framework.
Ask what the mechanism of change is — the answer must be specific, not 'it will change behaviour'.
Ask how the design addresses one specific barrier that their target population faces.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present the intervention design to a public health or clinical audience and revise

1–2 weeks (presentation + revision)

Present your intervention design in a 15-minute structured presentation to a public health professional, clinical team, or academic with public health or health promotion experience. Collect written feedback on at least: the intervention's evidence base, feasibility for the target population, and whether the theory of change is convincing. Revise your design based on the feedback and produce a revision note documenting at least two substantive changes made.

Proof required

Submit your revised intervention design, written feedback from the reviewer (with their name and role), and a one-page revision note identifying each change and the reviewer feedback that prompted it.

What gets checked

Reviewer has public health, health promotion, or clinical research expertise — not a general clinician without public health experience.
Revision note identifies at least two specific changes — not 'the design was improved overall'.
Each change is linked to a specific piece of reviewer feedback — not general improvements made independently of the review.

Common mistakes

Reviewer without public health or health promotion expertise — a GP who has never designed an intervention is not a qualified reviewer for this milestone.
Revision note that lists changes without linking them to specific reviewer feedback.
No substantive changes made — the revision section must reflect genuine engagement with the critique, not cosmetic edits.

Powstik Guide

Your intervention presented, critiqued and revised.

Steps

Show the problem, target group and logic model.
Present for 15 minutes to a qualified reviewer.
Collect written feedback with their name and role.
Revise and list each change.

Template

Reviewer name and role:
Date:
Feedback points:
1.
2.
3.
| Feedback | What I changed |
|----------|----------------|

What gets sent back

A reviewer who doesn't meet the stated bar.
Notes without the reviewer's name and role.
No revision note.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Ask the student what the most challenging critique was and whether they agreed with it.
Check that the revision note links specific changes to specific feedback.
Verify reviewer credentials — ask what the reviewer's professional role and background is.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Part of

Prove Your Public Health Chops →

Related outcomes

Milestone map

3 milestones

Define the target population and the health problem

1–2 weeks

Proof required

Submit your 2-page population and problem definition with all prevalence figures, burden of disease estimates, and health inequalities data cited to published sources.

What gets checked

Population is specific and bounded — a named demographic, geographic area, or clinical cohort, not 'the general population'.
Prevalence data is cited to published sources with year — not estimated or derived without reference.
Health inequalities section identifies a specific disparity relevant to your chosen population — not a generic statement about health inequalities.

Common mistakes

Population that is too broad to design a specific intervention for — 'adults in the UK' is not a target population.
Burden of disease that only names the condition without specifying its magnitude in the target population.
Health inequalities section that is general rather than specific to your chosen population and problem.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Ask the student to name the prevalence of the health problem in their target population — they should cite a figure and its source immediately.
Check that the population is specific enough that an intervention could be designed for it.
Ask what the most significant health inequality is for this population.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Design the intervention using a recognised behaviour change framework

2–3 weeks

Proof required

What gets checked

Framework is explicitly applied — each design choice is linked to a specific construct of the chosen model.
Theory of change is specific: 'this intervention will increase physical activity' is not a theory of change; 'this intervention targets low perceived self-efficacy (Social Cognitive Theory) by providing supervised sessions with graduated challenge and peer modelling' is.
Social determinants are addressed: the design acknowledges barriers specific to the target population (cost, access, language, cultural acceptability) and how the intervention design mitigates them.

Common mistakes

Framework named but not applied — the design could have been produced without the framework, which just appears as an introductory reference.
Theory of change that is the desired outcome rather than the mechanism — 'the intervention will improve mental health' is an outcome, not a mechanism.
Social determinants acknowledged but not addressed — listing barriers without designing around them is not intervention design.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Ask the student to explain how their intervention design maps to a specific construct of their chosen framework.
Ask what the mechanism of change is — the answer must be specific, not 'it will change behaviour'.
Ask how the design addresses one specific barrier that their target population faces.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Present the intervention design to a public health or clinical audience and revise

1–2 weeks (presentation + revision)

Proof required

What gets checked

Reviewer has public health, health promotion, or clinical research expertise — not a general clinician without public health experience.
Revision note identifies at least two specific changes — not 'the design was improved overall'.
Each change is linked to a specific piece of reviewer feedback — not general improvements made independently of the review.

Common mistakes

Reviewer without public health or health promotion expertise — a GP who has never designed an intervention is not a qualified reviewer for this milestone.
Revision note that lists changes without linking them to specific reviewer feedback.
No substantive changes made — the revision section must reflect genuine engagement with the critique, not cosmetic edits.

Powstik Guide

Your intervention presented, critiqued and revised.

Steps

Show the problem, target group and logic model.
Present for 15 minutes to a qualified reviewer.
Collect written feedback with their name and role.
Revise and list each change.

Template

Reviewer name and role:
Date:
Feedback points:
1.
2.
3.
| Feedback | What I changed |
|----------|----------------|

What gets sent back

A reviewer who doesn't meet the stated bar.
Notes without the reviewer's name and role.
No revision note.

Resources

Foundationstart here

Depthgo deeper

What a verifier looks for

Ask the student what the most challenging critique was and whether they agreed with it.
Check that the revision note links specific changes to specific feedback.
Verify reviewer credentials — ask what the reviewer's professional role and background is.

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.