| Course | DNP 899 DNP Project Capstone |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 1 |
| Paper type | Revision paper |
| Length | About 1,001 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | DNP |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DNP 899 Module 1
Six Comments and a Better Chapter: Revising the Final Chapter of a Maternal Depression Screening DNP Project
Student Name
Doctor of Nursing Practice Program, Aspen University
DNP 899: DNP Project Capstone
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Six Comments and a Better Chapter: Revising the Final Chapter of a Maternal Depression Screening DNP Project
Committee feedback on a final chapter is the last chance to fix problems before a project is defended and published. Handled well, it strengthens the argument; handled defensively, it produces a patched chapter that still carries the original weaknesses. This paper describes how I revised chapter five of my DNP project, which introduced routine screening of mothers for postpartum depression at their infants' well-child visits, with a same-day warm handoff to an embedded behavioral health clinician. It lists the committee's comments, shows the response to each, explains two that led to deeper changes, describes one point I defended and outlines the checks used to make sure the revisions did not create new errors. The program followed national pediatric guidance that mothers be screened across the first half-year of well-child care (Earls et al., 2019), in a clinic where published estimates suggested that up to one mother in five might experience depression in the months after birth (Gavin et al., 2005).
The Comments Received
The committee returned six comments on the draft. The chair asked that every percentage give its denominator, since screening rates, positive rates and referral rates used different bases. The second member asked for a section on confidentiality, because the screening is of the mother but is recorded in the infant's chart. The third member questioned the phrase improved maternal outcomes, noting that the project measured rescreening scores for a subset of mothers, not outcomes for all. The chair asked for the cost of the program. The second member asked what was known about the 31 mothers who declined screening. And the third member asked whether the cut-off of 10 on the screening tool was justified when some sources recommend 13.
The Response Table
Each comment was answered in a table that went back to the committee with the revised chapter.
| Comment | Change made | Where |
|---|---|---|
| Give denominators for every percentage | Every rate now states its base, such as 118 of 1,042 screened mothers | Throughout; summary table added |
| Address confidentiality | New subsection on consent, the confidential chart field and who can see results | Implications |
| Soften improved maternal outcomes | Replaced with lower rescreening scores among the 64 mothers rescreened | Summary, interpretation, conclusion |
| Report cost | Staff minutes per screen and per handoff, and total staff hours | Implications |
| Describe mothers who declined | Counts by visit age and language; reasons where recorded | Limitations |
| Justify the cut-off of 10 | Added evidence on accuracy at different cut-offs | Interpretation |
Two Comments That Went Deeper
Two comments led to more than the change requested. The question about denominators exposed a real inconsistency: in one paragraph, the rate of warm handoffs had been calculated over all positive screens and, in another, over mothers seen on days the behavioral health clinician was present. Fixing it meant choosing one definition, over all 118 positive screens, and rewriting the paragraph that had used the other. The phrase about maternal outcomes, once removed, also changed the chapter's conclusion. The project showed that screening and connection to care improved; its evidence on mothers' symptoms came from 64 mothers who were rescreened at the next well-child visit. The revised conclusion says exactly that.
The Point I Defended
On the cut-off, I kept 10 and explained why. An individual participant data meta-analysis of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale found that a cut-off of 11 or higher maximized combined sensitivity and specificity, and that a cut-off of 10 or higher gave sensitivity of about 0.85 and specificity of about 0.84 against semi-structured interviews (Levis et al., 2020). For a screening program whose next step is a conversation with a behavioral health clinician rather than a diagnosis or treatment, a slightly more sensitive threshold is reasonable, because a false positive leads to a brief assessment while a false negative may leave a mother without help. The revised chapter states that reasoning and cites the evidence, and it notes that a threshold of 11 would have identified fewer mothers.
Revising With the Site
Two of the revisions touched the practice directly, so they were reviewed with the site before going back to the committee. The confidentiality subsection described how mothers' results are stored in a restricted field of the infant's chart, visible to the pediatric clinicians and the behavioral health clinician but not printed on visit summaries. The practice manager confirmed that description against the record's actual settings and corrected one detail: results are hidden from the patient portal by default. The cost figures were checked with the manager as well, using the practice's own staff rates. Involving the site in the revision kept the chapter accurate and gave the practice a chance to see how it would be described in public.
Checking That Nothing Else Broke
Revisions can introduce new errors. After the changes, three checks were run. Every number in chapter five was compared with chapter four. The chapter was reread against the alignment matrix used earlier, to confirm that the population, intervention and outcomes still matched the rest of the manuscript. And the structured abstract was updated, since two of its sentences had used the phrase that the committee questioned. The revised chapter was then read aloud, which caught two sentences that had become awkward after edits.
What the Revision Taught
The comments were fair, and several pointed to places where I had written with more confidence than the evidence allowed. The experience confirmed a habit worth keeping: state every rate with its base, and describe outcomes in the words the data support. It also showed the value of answering each comment visibly, which turned a potentially adversarial review into a quick confirmation.
Conclusion
Six comments produced a clearer and more accurate final chapter. Four were addressed directly, two led to deeper changes in how results were described, and one choice was defended with evidence. A response table and three checks made the revision easy for the committee to verify.
The chair approved the revised chapter within a week.
References
Earls, M. F., Yogman, M. W., Mattson, G., Rafferty, J., & Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health. (2019). Incorporating recognition and management of perinatal depression into pediatric practice. Pediatrics, 143(1), Article e20183259. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2018-3259
Gavin, N. I., Gaynes, B. N., Lohr, K. N., Meltzer-Brody, S., Gartlehner, G., & Swinson, T. (2005). Perinatal depression: A systematic review of prevalence and incidence. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 106(5), 1071-1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000183597.31630.db
Levis, B., Negeri, Z., Sun, Y., Benedetti, A., & Thombs, B. D. (2020). Accuracy of the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) for screening to detect major depression among pregnant and postpartum women: Systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data. BMJ, 371, Article m4022. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m4022
What the DNP 899 Module 1 instructions ask for
Aspen's catalog says the capstone course centers on finalizing the manuscript's last chapter, with dissemination and a defense before the full committee; the module prompt is visible to enrolled students only, so the example was built on that description. A revision assignment usually asks you to respond to committee feedback on your final chapter, show how each comment was addressed and submit the revised chapter. Your chair may ask for a response letter, tracked changes or both. Some committees expect a second review before the defense is scheduled. Read the deadline and format requirements, and keep a copy of the chapter as it stood before revision so you can show what changed. If the committee's comments conflict with each other, ask your chair how to resolve them before you revise.
How this DNP 899 Module 1 example is built
The example runs to roughly 1,000 words under nine headings. The opening explains why revision can strengthen or merely patch a chapter, and places the project in its evidence. The comments received are summarized one by one. A response table lists each comment, the change and its location. Two comments that went deeper are explained, including a denominator inconsistency. The point defended is argued with evidence on screening accuracy. Revising with the site describes how the practice checked the confidentiality and cost sections. Checking that nothing else broke lists three checks. What the revision taught draws two habits, and the conclusion summarizes.
DNP 899 Module 1 rubric: what earns full marks
Revision work is usually judged on responsiveness, thoroughness and judgment. Responsiveness shows in a table that answers every comment, and the margin notes explain how naming locations speeds the committee's second review. Thoroughness appears where a comment revealed a deeper problem and the fix went beyond the request. Judgment is shown in defending one choice with evidence rather than simply complying, which faculty tend to respect when the reasoning is sound. Involving the site in revisions that describe it shows professionalism. Formatting points depend on citing the professional recommendation, the prevalence review and the accuracy meta-analysis in correct APA style.
Common DNP 899 Module 1 mistakes, and how to avoid them
The most common mistake is making the smallest change that answers each comment, leaving the underlying problem in place. Ask what each comment reveals. Students also revise silently, sending back a new draft without showing what changed, which forces the committee to reread everything. Use a response table. Another frequent error is agreeing with every comment even when you have good reasons to disagree; defend a choice when the evidence supports it, respectfully. Some revisions introduce new errors elsewhere, such as numbers that no longer match the results chapter. Recheck. Finally, update the abstract, which often repeats phrases the committee has just questioned. Keep a list of every comment with its status, so nothing is missed when the chapter goes back.
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 899 and DNP sample papers
- DNP 899 Module 2: Clinical Significance Beyond P Values
- DNP 899 Module 3: Interprofessional Collaboration: What Worked and What Did Not
- DNP 899 Module 4: The Project as Scholarship
- DNP 899 Module 5: Leadership Development: Decisions and Conflicts
- DNP 899 Module 6: A Toolkit for the Organization and a Brief for the Profession
- DNP 899 Module 7: The Defense Presentation
- DNP 899 Module 8: Final Reflection on Growth
- DNP 851B Module 8: Results Chapter With Tables and Figures
- DNP855 Module 4: Clinical Microsystem Analysis
- DNP 840 Module 3: Operating Budget and Narrative
- DNP880 Module 1: Project Problem and PICOT
DNP 899 Module 1 questions, answered
What does DNP 899 Module 1 usually ask for?
Aspen's DNP 899 description says the capstone course finalizes the final chapter of the manuscript, so revising it after committee feedback is a typical first assignment. Check your classroom for the prompt.
How should I respond to committee feedback on my DNP chapter?
Answer every comment in a table that names the change and where it appears, make deeper changes where a comment exposes a real problem, and defend a choice with evidence when you have good reason to keep it.
Is it acceptable to disagree with a committee comment?
Yes, if you explain your reasoning with evidence and show you considered the comment. Committees value judgment, but they expect disagreement to be rare and well supported.
Where can I find a free DNP 899 Module 1 sample paper?
Every part of the revision paper, response table included, is reproduced here with notes and costs nothing to read. It opens the DNP 899 series, which follows one capstone on maternal depression screening through revision, significance, collaboration, scholarship, leadership, dissemination, defense and reflection.
How should I respond to feedback in DNP 899 Module 1?
Answer every comment in a table that names the change and where it appears, make deeper fixes when a comment exposes a real problem, defend choices with evidence when warranted and recheck the chapter against your results.