Capstone Project Change Proposal

Assessment Description

While the implementation plan prepares students to apply their research to the problem or issue they have identified for their capstone project change proposal, the literature review enables students to map out and move into the active planning and development stages of the project.

A literature review analyzes how current research supports the PICOT, as well as identifies what is known and what is not known in the evidence. Students will use the information from the earlier PICOT Question Paper and Literature Evaluation Table assignments to develop a review (750-1,000 words) that includes the following sections:

Title page
Introduction section
A comparison of research questions
A comparison of sample populations
A comparison of the limitations of the study
A conclusion section, incorporating recommendations for further research
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.





Capstone Project Change Proposal


Student’s Name



Instructor’s Name


Capstone Project Change Proposal

Type 2 diabetes is one of the fastest-growing health conditions globally. Type 2 diabetes is associated with detrimental impacts on the individual’s health and morbidity and mortality rates (Himalowa et al., 2020). The proposed capstone project aims to examine the impact of community-based diabetes and healthy lifestyle education on disease knowledge and prevalence over six months. In that regard, this paper presents a review of the literature related to the proposed capstone project.

A Comparison of Research Questions

These studies exploited research questions that are relevant to the proposed research. For Gutierrez (2020), the research question states: Can online diabetes education programs in schools enhance the diabetes management of students with the disease? Harris. (2022) hypothesized that diabetes self-management education for patients with type 2 diabetes can improve patients’ self-efficacy and glycemic control. For Rafie et al. (2021) the study question is what is the effect of the Balanced Living with Diabetes program (BLD) on blood glucose control, self-management, and lifestyle behaviors. T-Malek & Ahmad, (2022) hypothesized that Web-based educational programs will improve diabetic self-efficacy management (DSEM) and diabetic self-care behavior management (DSCM).

In addition, Moreno et al.  (2019) hypothesized that Spanish Diabetes Self-Management Program (SDSMP) is more effective for type 2 diabetes care. The hypothesis by Dietz et al. (2022) is that community-based diabetes self-management support (DSMS) will improve Patient Activation Measure (PAM) scores. Metonnou et al. (2022) hypothesized that community-based education on lifestyle changes will improve metabolic indicators and intensity of leisure activity and dietary score in type 2 diabetes patients. Finally, Alkaabi et al. (2021) hypothesized that community-based (family-oriented) diabetes education is effective in the prevention of type 2 diabetes mellitus.

A Comparison of Sample Populations

Gutierrez (2020) used the purpose-sampling method. The sampling population includes employees from 36 rural school districts within South Central Texas. Participants included those who completed level two (non-medical personnel) and level three (continuing nursing education (CNE)) training. The sampling population included nurses, teachers, principals, bus drivers, and food service staff. Harris (2022) recruited six patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in a primary care setting. Initially, the 11 participants agreed to take part however, 5 did not show up for the training. The sample population recruited by Rafie et al. (2021) included adults with type 2 diabetes. A total of 291 participants were recruited for the study.

Furthermore, T-Malek & Ahmad, (2022) carried out a study whose sampling population was type 2 diabetes patients who attended an orthopedic treatment clinic at Hospital Sultanah Nur Zahirah (HSNZ) Kuala Terengganu. There were 120 participants divided into intervention groups (IG) (n = 60) and control groups (CG) (n = 60). Dietz et al. (2022) recruited participants at community-based locations such as churches and activity centers.

Participants included adults who had a clinical diagnosis of either type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Additionally, Moreno et al. (2019) recruited adult patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Patients aged 80 years and above and those with mental disorders were excluded. The sample population Metonnou, (2022) were residents of the municipality of Tchaourou, aged 15 to 60 years, of both sexes, and at risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Lastly, Alkaabi et al. (2021) recruited a sample population that included e people who are overweight or obese, between 18 and 55 years old, and having one parent with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

A Comparison of The Limitations of The Study

Besides the strengths of the studies including clear research methodologies, they also have some limitations. Gutierrez (2020) identified some limitations including that the data were limited to school workers (the nurses and other laypersons who completed the online program) in South Central Texas. This situation could have affected the study’s generalizability. Harris. (2022) had a small sample size whereby only six individuals participated in the study. Rafie et al. (2021) was not a randomized study. T-Malek & Ahmad (2022) was a single-site study, which has a negative influence on its generalizability.

Moreno et al. (2019) conducted a study based on a convenience sample; hence, people willing to participate may have not been representative of the target population. Dietz et al. (2022) reported that only those who completed the intervention collected post-intervention PAM scores, however, there is a possibility that people who did not complete the full intervention differed from those who did.

Limitations of the study done by Metonnou (2022) did not include a clear number of all participants. However, the treatment group has between 8 and 10 participants, which is a small sample size. For Alkaabi et al. (2021), the limitations of this pilot study are its nonrandomized observational design, small sample size, and unequal gender ratio. About 75% of all participants were female.


Type 2 diabetes mellitus can cause detrimental health impacts on the patient. Patient education can enhance healthy lifestyle changes to improve patients’ health. A literature review helps to gain more knowledge regarding the topic. Most of the articles examined the efficacy of patient education to control blood sugar levels. Further research is needed to assess the efficacy of a combined intervention involving patient education and pharmacological intervention to manage blood sugar levels.


Alkaabi, J. M., Al-Maskari, F., Afandi, B., Yousef, S., Shah, S. M., Heideman, W. H., & Snoek, F. J. (2021). Effects of diabetes prevention education program for overweight and obese subjects with a family history of type 2 diabetes mellitus: A pilot study from the United Arab Emirates. Oman Medical Journal36(3), e268.

Dietz, C. J., Sherrill, W. W., Stancil, M., Rennert, L., Parisi, M., & McFall, D. (2022). Health Extension for Diabetes: Impact of a Community-Based Diabetes Self-Management Support Program on Older Adults’ Activation. Diabetes Spectrum.

Gutierrez, C. (2020). Improving the care of students with diabetes in rural schools utilizing an online diabetes education program for school personnel. Rural and Remote Health20(1). .

Harris, C. (2022). Effects of diabetes self-management education in the primary care setting on self-efficacy and glycosylated hemoglobin levels among adults with type 2 diabetes mellitus (Doctor Of Nursing Practice Final Manuscripts: University of San Diego).

Metonnou, C. G., Azandjeme, C. S., Sossa, C. J., Issiako, B. N., Paraïso, M. N., & Agueh, V. (2022). Effects of a Community-Based Intervention on the Lifestyle and Health of People at Risk of Type 2 Diabetes in Benin. Food and Nutrition Sciences13(10), 842-860.

Moreno, E. G., Mateo-Abad, M., de Retana García, L. O., Vrotsou, K., del Campo Pena, E., Perez, Á. S., & Osakidetza Active Patient Research Group. (2019). Efficacy of a self-management education program on patients with type 2 diabetes in primary care: a randomized controlled trial. Primary Care Diabetes13(2), 122-133.

Rafie, C., Hosig, K., Wenzel, S. G., Borowski, S., Jiles, K. A., & Schlenker, E. (2021). Implementation and outcomes of the Balanced Living with Diabetes program conducted by Cooperative Extension in rural communities in Virginia. Rural and Remote Health21(3). /10.22605/RRH6620

T-Malek, T. M. M. B., & Ahmad, A. B. (2022). The Effect of Web-Based Education Programs on Self-Efficacy and Self-Care Behavior in Quality of Life Among Diabetic Type 2 Patients in Public Hospital. Research Square, 2022.