| Course | DNP 850B Project Proposal |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Setting and sample section |
| Length | About 1,012 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 850B Module 3
Who Will Be Enrolled and Why: Setting, Population and Sample for a Nurse-Led Home Monitoring Program
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 850B: Project Proposal
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Who Will Be Enrolled and Why: Setting, Population and Sample for a Nurse-Led Home Monitoring Program
Someone reading a proposal's methods should be able to picture exactly where the project will happen and who will take part. This paper drafts that section for my project, in which nurse care managers will review home blood pressure readings and titrate medication by protocol for 12 weeks. It describes the setting, narrows the population step by step, states the inclusion and exclusion criteria with a reason for each, estimates the sample needed, explains recruitment and the historical comparison group, and closes with what the sample can support.
Setting
The project site is one of three clinics belonging to a composite health center in a mid-sized Southern city. The clinic sees about 9,000 patients a year for primary care, most of them uninsured or covered by Medicaid, and more than a third, 38%, choose Spanish for their care. Four primary care clinicians work there alongside two nurse care managers, five medical assistants, a community health worker and the front-desk team. The clinic uses an electronic health record with a patient portal that can receive readings from validated home cuffs, and it maintains a hypertension registry updated monthly. The clinic was chosen because it has the highest rate of uncontrolled hypertension in the health center and because its leaders asked for help closing that gap.
Population
The target population is adults with uncontrolled hypertension who receive primary care at the clinic. The registry lists 1,040 adults with a diagnosis of hypertension, and the most recent visit found 45% of them, about 468 people, at or above 140/90 mm Hg. Limiting the age range to 18 through 75 leaves roughly 400, and applying the exclusion criteria described below is expected to leave about 330 eligible patients. That number is large enough to recruit from without approaching every eligible person, which matters because recruitment will depend on scheduled visits.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Each criterion is listed in the table with its reason. The thresholds follow the national guideline's definition of stage 2 hypertension and its guidance on confirming elevated readings before acting on them (Whelton et al., 2018).
| Criterion | Reason |
|---|---|
| Include: age 18 to 75 | Protocol targets and drug steps were written for this range; older adults need individualized goals |
| Include: two office readings on separate days averaging 140/90 mm Hg or higher in the past six months | Confirms sustained elevation and reduces regression to the mean |
| Include: at least one clinic visit in the past 12 months | Ensures an established patient with a clinician who can receive nurse notes |
| Include: able to take readings, alone or with a caregiver, and report by portal or telephone | The intervention depends on transmitted readings |
| Include: English or Spanish | Teaching materials and nurse contact are available in both |
| Exclude: pregnancy | Different targets and medications; managed by obstetric care |
| Exclude: dialysis or advanced kidney disease under specialist care | Titration requires specialist input |
| Exclude: systolic 180 mm Hg or higher at screening | Needs same-day clinical evaluation, not enrollment |
| Exclude: upper arm too large or small for available validated cuffs | Wrong cuff size produces inaccurate readings |
| Exclude: hospice enrollment | Goals of care differ |
Sample Size
The primary analysis will compare each patient's baseline office systolic pressure with the reading at 12 weeks. For a paired comparison, detecting a mean change of 5 mm Hg, when the standard deviation of individual changes is about 15 mm Hg, corresponds to an effect size of about 0.33, which Cohen (1992) classifies between small and medium. With a two-sided alpha of .05 and power of .80, that requires about 73 patients with complete data. Allowing for 15% attrition, the project will aim to enroll 85. The grant provides 70 validated cuffs, and patients who already own a validated device, identified by checking its model against the national validated device listing, will use their own, which is expected to cover the difference.
The comparison with the historical group is a secondary analysis. Detecting the same difference between two independent groups would need more than 140 patients in each, which the project cannot reach, so that comparison will be reported descriptively with its confidence interval rather than tested for significance.
Recruitment
Recruitment will run for four weeks. Each week the registry will produce a list of eligible patients with visits scheduled in the coming week, and the nurse care managers will review it with the primary care clinicians to confirm eligibility. At the visit, the medical assistant will take a standardized office reading following the national scientific statement on measurement, including rest, posture, correct cuff size and two readings averaged (Muntner et al., 2019). Patients who remain eligible will be invited by the nurse, in English or Spanish, with the community health worker available for questions. Patients without scheduled visits will receive a telephone invitation. Enrollment is voluntary, and patients who decline will continue with usual care.
Historical Comparison Group
Records from the matching four months one year earlier will supply the comparison group, using the same inclusion and exclusion criteria applied to documented data. For each patient, the baseline will be the average of two qualifying readings and the follow-up will be the office reading closest to 12 weeks later, within a window of plus or minus three weeks. Patients without a follow-up reading in that window will be counted as missing and reported.
Because the comparison relies on routine records, its readings were not taken with the standardized technique the project introduces, and chapter three will list that difference among the threats to validity.
What the Sample Can Support
The sample can support a paired estimate of change in blood pressure among enrolled patients and a descriptive comparison with usual care. It cannot support claims about patients over 75, patients who do not speak English or Spanish, or patients at other clinics, and it will not be large enough to test differences between subgroups. The proposal will state these limits, and the results chapter will report outcomes by preferred language descriptively because that question matters to the clinic.
References
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Muntner, P., Shimbo, D., Carey, R. M., Charleston, J. B., Gaillard, T., Misra, S., Myers, M. G., Ogedegbe, G., Schwartz, J. E., Townsend, R. R., Urbina, E. M., Viera, A. J., White, W. B., & Wright, J. T., Jr. (2019). Measurement of blood pressure in humans: A scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Hypertension, 73(5), e35-e66. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000087
Whelton, P. K., Carey, R. M., Aronow, W. S., Casey, D. E., Jr., Collins, K. J., Dennison Himmelfarb, C., DePalma, S. M., Gidding, S., Jamerson, K. A., Jones, D. W., MacLaughlin, E. J., Muntner, P., Ovbiagele, B., Smith, S. C., Jr., Spencer, C. C., Stafford, R. S., Taler, S. J., Thomas, R. J., Williams, K. A., Sr., . . . Wright, J. T., Jr. (2018). 2017 ACC/AHA/AAPA/ABC/ACPM/AGS/APhA/ASH/ASPC/NMA/PCNA guideline for the prevention, detection, evaluation, and management of high blood pressure in adults. Hypertension, 71(6), e13-e115. https://doi.org/10.1161/HYP.0000000000000065
DNP 850B Module 3 instructions, in plain terms
Here the proposal turns to who will take part. Because Aspen's module prompt sits inside the course, the example rests on the catalog's statement that DNP 850B settles the project's methodology. A setting and sample assignment usually asks you to describe the site, define the population, state inclusion and exclusion criteria, justify the sample size and explain recruitment. Your chair may want a power analysis, a flow diagram of how the sample is reached, or a description of any comparison group. Some programs ask for site demographics from public reports. Check the length and source rules, and make sure your criteria match those in your PICOT question and chapter one, since committees compare them line by line.
How this DNP 850B Module 3 example is built
About 1,020 words make up the example, set out in eight sections. The introduction states what a sampling section must let a reader picture. The setting section describes the clinic, its staff, its patients and its information systems, and explains why it was chosen. The population section narrows from the registry to the expected eligible group. A table lists each criterion with its reason. The sample size section reports the effect size, alpha, power and attrition allowance behind the target, and explains why the comparison with usual care is reported descriptively. Recruitment describes weekly registry lists, the standardized screening reading and invitations in the patient's language. The comparison group section sets the rules for drawing records from the prior year, and a final section states what the sample can support.
Where the marks sit in the DNP 850B Module 3 rubric
Rubrics for this section reward clarity about the site, criteria that are justified and a sample size that is defended. This example earns the first with concrete detail about staffing, population and systems. It earns the second with a reason for every criterion, and the margin notes explain why reasons let a committee judge whether exclusions are fair. The sample size is supported with a named effect size, alpha and power, which meets the methods criterion many programs grade closely. Stating that the between-group comparison is underpowered shows honesty that graders credit. Recruitment steps add feasibility. The remaining marks cover APA format, including a clear table and correct citation of the guideline and the measurement statement.
DNP 850B Module 3 help: mistakes that cost marks
A common gap is a setting description so vague that the reader cannot tell what kind of organization it is. Give size, population, staffing and systems without naming the site. Students also list exclusion criteria with no reasons, which invites the question of whether difficult patients were removed. Give a reason for each. Another frequent mistake is a sample size chosen because it seemed reasonable. Show the calculation or cite a method, and say what effect it can detect. Papers also forget attrition, then fall short of the needed number. Finally, check that your criteria match the PICOT and the purpose statement exactly, including age limits and the definition of uncontrolled blood pressure.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More DNP 850B and DNP sample papers
- DNP 850B Module 1: Literature Synthesis for the Intervention
- DNP 850B Module 2: Conceptual Framework for the Project
- DNP 850B Module 4: The Intervention and Its Timeline
- DNP 850B Module 5: Measures and Instruments
- DNP 850B Module 6: Data Analysis Plan
- DNP 850B Module 7: Ethics, Human Subjects Training and Review
- DNP 850B Module 8: Final Proposal: Literature and Methods
- DNP 899 Module 4: The Project as Scholarship
- DNP 850A Module 6: Choosing the Project Design
- DNP 800 Module 4: Environmental Science and Practice
- DNP 852A Module 1: Planning the Final Chapter
DNP 850B Module 3 questions, answered
What does DNP 850B Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 850B description covers solidifying the project's methodology, so a section on the setting, population, sample and eligibility criteria is a typical assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
Does a DNP project need a power analysis?
Many committees expect one when the project uses an inferential test. State the expected effect, alpha and power, and say plainly if a comparison will be underpowered and reported descriptively.
Why give a reason for each exclusion criterion?
Reasons show that exclusions protect safety, measurement or feasibility rather than removing patients who might make results look worse. Committees and readers use them to judge who the results apply to.
Where can I find a free DNP 850B Module 3 sample paper?
A full setting, population and sample section is printed on this page, with the criteria table and notes beside each section, free of charge. The project it describes is the same one used across the DNP 850B samples, so the sample can be matched to the intervention and analysis.
How do I justify sample size in DNP 850B Module 3?
State the outcome, the smallest change worth detecting, the expected variability, alpha and power, then give the resulting number and add an allowance for attrition. This example targets 73 completers and enrolls 85.