| Course | DPH 870 Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 8 |
| Paper type | Literature review chapter |
| Length | About 1,090 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Doctor of Public Health |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for DPH 870 Module 8
Chapter 2: Literature Review on Community Health Workers and Blood Pressure Control
Student Name
Doctor of Public Health Program, Aspen University
DPH 870: Evidence-Based Practice and Advanced Research Methods
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Chapter 2: Literature Review on Community Health Workers and Blood Pressure Control
Chapter 2 of a doctoral capstone presents the literature review: what is known about the problem, how strong that knowledge is and where it falls short. It prepares readers for the capstone's methods by showing why the study is needed and how it builds on prior work. This paper drafts Chapter 2 for a capstone evaluating a county program that pairs adults with uncontrolled blood pressure with community health workers.
Purpose and Audience
The chapter's audience is the capstone committee, health department partners and eventual journal readers. Its purpose is to establish that community health workers are able to lower blood pressure, to explain how and for whom, to judge the certainty of that evidence and to identify gaps the capstone will address.
Chapter Sections
The table outlines the chapter's sections.
| Section | Content |
|---|---|
| Introduction | Purpose, scope and organization of the chapter |
| Search strategy summary | Databases, terms, limits, flow of records; full log in appendix |
| Theoretical framework | Social ecological model linked to program components |
| Review of evidence | Five themes from the synthesis matrix |
| Appraisal and certainty | Quality of key studies; GRADE certainty by theme |
| Gaps | What remains unknown and why it matters locally |
| Summary | Main conclusions and link to Chapter 3 |
Search Strategy Summary
The chapter summarizes the documented search: three databases and gray literature from 2000 onward, three concept blocks, English language and adult populations, two-stage screening with a second reviewer for 20% of records and 31 included studies. Reporting follows the PRISMA 2020 statement, with a flow diagram and full strings in an appendix (Page et al., 2021).
Theoretical Framework
The social ecological model frames the chapter. Community health workers act at several levels: individual, through education and self-monitoring; interpersonal, through trusted relationships; organizational, by linking residents to clinics and pharmacies; and community, by addressing social needs. Mapping program components to levels explains why effects may vary with context.
Review of Evidence
The review is organized by five themes: effects on blood pressure, mechanisms, delivery models, populations and equity, and costs and sustainability. A systematic review found improvements in blood pressure control and related behaviors (Brownstein et al., 2007); a randomized trial linked worker support to better patient-rated primary care and fewer days in hospital (Kangovi et al., 2018); and evidence from lower-income countries supports benefits for chronic disease (Jeet et al., 2017).
Appraisal and Certainty
Each theme reports the quality of key studies and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE categories (Guyatt et al., 2008). Evidence for improved blood pressure is judged moderate in certainty; evidence on mechanisms, equity and costs is low, reflecting fewer and weaker studies.
Gaps
The chapter identifies four gaps: few evaluations of programs run by local health departments, limited evidence on which components matter, little evidence on effects on disparities and scarce cost data. The capstone addresses the first directly and contributes to the others through visit-level data and cost records. Each gap is stated as a question the capstone will help answer.
Complex Interventions
Because community health worker programs are complex interventions, the chapter draws on guidance that urges attention to components, context and implementation as well as outcomes (Craig et al., 2008). This framing explains why results vary across studies and supports the capstone's mixed-methods design.
Chapter Summary
The summary restates the main conclusions: moderate-certainty evidence favors community health workers for lowering blood pressure, likely through adherence, monitoring and social support; delivery models vary; and local evidence on health department programs is lacking. It closes by explaining how Chapter 3's methods address these gaps.
Length and Citation Practice
The chapter is expected to run 25 to 35 pages. Citations follow APA style, paraphrasing rather than quoting, with every claim supported by a source. Older landmark studies are included where they remain important, but recent evidence receives priority.
Committee Expectations
Committees look for synthesis rather than summary, balanced treatment of evidence, appropriate appraisal and a clear link between gaps and the capstone's aims. Sharing a detailed outline with the chair before drafting avoids major restructuring later.
Introducing the Chapter
The chapter's introduction states its purpose, describes how evidence was found and previews the sections. It also reminds readers of the research questions from Chapter 1, so that each section's relevance is clear from the start.
Balancing Breadth and Depth
The chapter covers enough studies to show the breadth of evidence while examining key studies in depth. Supporting studies may be grouped and cited together, while landmark trials and reviews receive fuller discussion of methods, findings and limitations.
Linking Framework and Evidence
The theoretical framework is not a separate section to be forgotten; it returns throughout the review. For example, evidence on help with social needs is interpreted as action at the community level of the social ecological model, and evidence on trust as action at the interpersonal level.
Revising With the Committee
The chair reviewed an outline before drafting and a full draft before the proposal defense, suggesting that the equity theme be strengthened and that the gap on health department programs be stated earlier. Incorporating such feedback early saves major revisions later.
Appendices
Appendices include the full search log and strings, the PRISMA flow diagram, the synthesis matrix and the appraisal tables. Placing detail in appendices keeps the chapter readable while preserving transparency.
Writing Style for Chapter 2
The chapter uses past tense to report what studies found and present tense for conclusions that remain true. It avoids long quotations, attributes findings accurately and keeps paragraphs focused on single ideas, making a long chapter easier to follow.
Checking the Chapter Against the Aims
Before submission, each research question from Chapter 1 is checked against the chapter to confirm that relevant evidence and gaps have been addressed. Any question without supporting discussion signals a gap in the review itself.
Proposal Versus Final Chapter
The version of Chapter 2 in the capstone proposal is updated for the final manuscript. New studies from the updated search are added, and the gaps section is revised to reflect how the capstone addressed them.
Integrity
Every source cited is read in full, paraphrased accurately and credited. Plagiarism checks are run before submission, and any close paraphrase is rewritten or quoted.
Conclusion
Chapter 2 presents a documented search, a theoretical framework, a thematic review with appraisal and certainty, clear gaps and a summary linking to methods. Organized this way, it shows the committee what is known about community health workers and blood pressure, how strongly it is known and why a local evaluation is needed.
References
Brownstein, J. N., Chowdhury, F. M., Norris, S. L., Horsley, T., Jack, L., Zhang, X., & Satterfield, D. (2007). Effectiveness of community health workers in the care of people with hypertension. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 32(5), 435-447. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.01.011
Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: The new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 337, Article a1655. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a1655
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008). GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, 336(7650), 924-926. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
Jeet, G., Thakur, J. S., Prinja, S., & Singh, M. (2017). Community health workers for non-communicable diseases prevention and control in developing countries: Evidence and implications. PLOS ONE, 12(7), Article e0180640. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0180640
Kangovi, S., Mitra, N., Norton, L., Harte, R., Zhao, X., Carter, T., Grande, D., & Long, J. A. (2018). Effect of community health worker support on clinical outcomes of low-income patients across primary care facilities: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Internal Medicine, 178(12), 1635-1643. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4630
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, Article n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
DPH 870 Module 8 instructions, in plain terms
Chapter 2 of the capstone is where Aspen's DPH 870 description culminates, and the eighth module's prompt is reserved for enrolled students, so this example drafts the chapter. Chapter 2 assignments usually ask for a search summary, a theoretical framework, a thematic review with appraisal, gaps and a summary linking to methods. Summarize the search and put details in appendices. Choose a framework that explains your program. Organize by theme. State certainty for each theme. Name gaps as questions. Link the summary to Chapter 3, and check each research question against the chapter before submitting. Place the full search log in an appendix.
How the DPH 870 Module 8 example is put together
Roughly a thousand words across twenty-one headings move from purpose and audience to a two-column table of chapter sections. The search summary, theoretical framework, review of evidence, appraisal and certainty, gaps, complex interventions, summary, length and citation practice and committee expectations follow. Introducing the chapter, balancing breadth and depth, linking framework and evidence, revising with the committee, appendices, style, checking against aims, proposal versus final versions and integrity follow; a margin comment gives the reason the audience comes first. The sections table doubles as the chapter's outline, and each later heading adds guidance on writing that section well. Its final headings address the move from proposal to final manuscript. Style guidance covers tense, paraphrase and paragraph focus.
DPH 870 Module 8 rubric: what earns full marks
Literature review chapters are graded on a transparent search, a relevant framework, synthesis by theme, appropriate appraisal and a clear case for the study. The chapter's APA references combine three community health worker studies with GRADE, complex intervention guidance and PRISMA 2020. The sections table works as a checklist. The framework is used throughout, not only introduced. Revising with the chair's feedback shows the collaborative process committees expect. Its checklist of research questions against chapter content is a simple step that prevents gaps in the review itself. Appendices keep the chapter readable while preserving the full search and appraisal record. Integrity checks before submission are described. Four gaps are named as questions the capstone will address.
DPH 870 Module 8 help from the desk
Students often write Chapter 2 as a series of study summaries, or introduce a framework and never use it again. Others leave the gap vague. Group the studies by what they found rather than by author. Apply the framework to your evidence. State certainty. Phrase every gap as a question a study could answer. Put search details in appendices. If your chapter runs long, a tutor can help you decide what to condense. End with how Chapter 3 addresses the gaps, and rerun your search before the final version so recent studies are included. Draft the summary section last, after the themes are complete. Ask your chair how long the chapter should be before you start. Reread the chapter against your committee's rubric.
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 DPH 870 and Doctor of Public Health sample papers
- DPH 870 Module 1: The Steps of Scientific Research
- DPH 870 Module 2: Formulating the Research Problem
- DPH 870 Module 3: Matching Designs to the Problem
- DPH 870 Module 4: A Documented Search Strategy
- DPH 870 Module 5: Critical Appraisal of Key Studies
- DPH 870 Module 6: A Synthesis Matrix by Theme
- DPH 870 Module 7: Writing the Literature Review Argument
- DPH 840 Module 7: Strategy for a Vulnerable Population
- DPH 830 Module 1: Measuring Global Health and Its Burden
- DPH 850 Module 7: Data Equity and Vulnerable Populations
- DPH 810 Module 6: Bias, Confounding and Alternatives
DPH 870 Module 8 questions, answered
What does DPH 870 Module 8 usually ask for?
Aspen's DPH 870 builds the literature review for Chapter 2 of the capstone, so drafting that chapter is a typical final assignment. Follow your classroom prompt.
What goes into Chapter 2?
An introduction, search summary, theoretical framework, thematic review of evidence, appraisal and certainty, gaps and a summary.
How long is a typical Chapter 2?
Often 25 to 35 pages, though committees and programs vary.
Where can I find a free DPH 870 Module 8 sample paper?
The Chapter 2 draft appears above with a table of its sections and content.
What goes into Chapter 2 in DPH 870 Module 8?
A search summary, a theoretical framework, a thematic review with appraisal and certainty, gaps and a summary that leads into the methods chapter.