| Course | HLTH 6246 Introduction to Research in Health and Wellness Education |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 2 |
| Paper type | Problem statement |
| Length | About 680 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | MS in Health Education and Promotion |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 6246 Week 2
Problem Statement: Adults Who Start the Diabetes Self-Management Education Series at a Composite Community Health Center Mostly Do Not Finish It, and the Unfinished Sessions Are the Ones That Teach the Daily Skills
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 6246: Introduction to Research in Health and Wellness Education
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Problem Statement: Adults Who Start the Diabetes Self-Management Education Series at a Composite Community Health Center Mostly Do Not Finish It, and the Unfinished Sessions Are the Ones That Teach the Daily Skills
The Statement
Adults with type 2 diabetes who enroll in the six-session diabetes self-management education series at Eastgate Community Health Center (a composite, federally funded clinic) start the series far more often than they finish it. The center's own enrollment records for 2025, the source of every local figure here, show that of 214 adults who attended the first session, 81 attended at least five of six sessions, or 38%. Attendance falls most sharply after the second session, before the sessions on meal planning, medication timing and glucose monitoring. Attrition from such programs is a known problem outside this center as well: at one Canadian diabetes education center, 44% of 267 people with type 2 diabetes interviewed by telephone had withdrawn early, most often citing conflicts with work hours, confidence that they already knew enough, distance and unfamiliarity with the service (Gucciardi et al., 2008). If the pattern at Eastgate continues, most enrolled adults will leave with the introductory content and without the skills sessions the series was designed to deliver, and the center will keep counting them as having received education.
Why Each Element Is There
The Affected Group
The group is defined as the series is defined: adults with type 2 diabetes who attended the first session in a stated year at one center. That boundary matters because a problem statement about "patients with diabetes" in general would invite a study of everyone who never enrolled, which is a different problem with different causes.
The Shortfall
The shortfall is stated as a count and a share from a named source, the center's records, so a reader knows whose number it is. The 38% figure is the center's, not a national estimate, and the statement does not claim that national completion is better or worse. The detail about where attendance drops is the one readers will most likely carry away, and it is what makes the problem specific: losing people before the skills sessions is worse than losing them at the end.
The Consequence
The consequence is stated in two parts: what participants miss and what the center's records conceal. The second part is easy to overlook. A center that counts enrollment as delivery will report success while most participants leave early.
What Is Left Out
The statement does not say why people leave Eastgate's series, because the center has not asked them. The Canadian study offers possible reasons, and its finding that working adults were more likely to drop out (Gucciardi et al., 2008) suggests where to look, but importing its reasons as Eastgate's would claim knowledge the center does not have. Nor does the statement propose evening sessions, text reminders or shorter series. Any of those may turn out to help, but naming them here would let the solution shape how the problem is seen.
Why the Problem Is Worth a Study
Diabetes education is not meant to be a single event. A consensus report from national diabetes and education organizations describes four critical times to offer it: at diagnosis, each year or when treatment targets are not met, when complicating factors arise and when life or care transitions occur (Powers et al., 2020). A series that most people abandon after two sessions cannot serve as the first of those moments, which is why the shortfall deserves study rather than a quick fix.
How a Stranger Would Repeat It
A reader should be able to say after one reading: most adults who start the diabetes education series at this center do not finish it, they drop out before the practical sessions, and the center's records hide this. If a reader repeats it differently, the statement needs another draft. The national standards for diabetes self-management education describe ongoing assessment of whether participants achieve their goals (Davis et al., 2022), which a center cannot do for people who never reach the later sessions.
References
Davis, J., Fischl, A. H., Beck, J., Browning, L., Carter, A., Condon, J. E., Dennison, M., Francis, T., Hughes, P. J., Jaime, S., Lau, K. H. K., McArthur, T., McAvoy, K., Magee, M., Newby, O., Ponder, S. W., Quraishi, U., Rawlings, K., Socke, J., ... Villalobos, S. (2022). 2022 National standards for diabetes self-management education and support. Diabetes Care, 45(2), 484-494. https://doi.org/10.2337/dc21-2396
Gucciardi, E., DeMelo, M., Offenheim, A., & Stewart, D. E. (2008). Factors contributing to attrition behavior in diabetes self-management programs: A mixed method approach. BMC Health Services Research, 8, Article 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-8-33
Powers, M. A., Bardsley, J. K., Cypress, M., Funnell, M. M., Harms, D., Hess-Fischl, A., Hooks, B., Isaacs, D., Mandel, E. D., Maryniuk, M. D., Norton, A., Rinker, J., Siminerio, L. M., & Uelmen, S. (2020). Diabetes self-management education and support in adults with type 2 diabetes: A consensus report of the American Diabetes Association, the Association of Diabetes Care & Education Specialists, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American Academy of PAs, the American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and the American Pharmacists Association. Diabetes Care, 43(7), 1636-1649. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0023
Reading the HLTH 6246 Week 2 instructions
The second week asks students to write a problem statement, usually a paragraph or two, that a stranger could read once and repeat back. It opens on the affected group described specifically, moves immediately to what is going wrong and states the consequence of leaving it alone. Magnitude should be characterized with figures whose source is named, so readers know whose count it is; invented figures are never acceptable. Solutions do not belong in a problem statement, because naming one early lets it shape how the problem is defined. Many sections ask for a short commentary after the statement explaining why each element was included and what was deliberately left out. Outside evidence can show that the problem exists elsewhere, but it should not be presented as the local cause. References support every figure and claim in APA format.
How the HLTH 6246 Week 2 example is put together
The sample presents the statement in a single paragraph: the group is adults with type 2 diabetes who attended the first session at Eastgate in 2025, the shortfall is 38% completion with attendance falling after session two, outside evidence comes from Gucciardi and colleagues' 44% early withdrawal, and the consequence is that most participants miss the skills sessions while the center counts them as educated. Commentary sections then explain the boundary of the group, why the figure is the center's own, why the location of the drop matters and why hidden attrition in the records is part of the consequence. A section on what is left out explains why imported reasons and solutions are excluded. A section citing Powers and colleagues' consensus report explains why the problem warrants study, and a closing test asks how a stranger would repeat it.
Where the marks sit in the HLTH 6246 Week 2 rubric
Problem statements earn their credit for clarity and order. Faculty expect the affected group, the shortfall and the consequence in that sequence, and a statement that proposes a solution loses marks even if well written. The group should be specific enough to define a study population. Figures must have a named source; unattributed numbers or national figures passed off as local cost heavily. A clear consequence, stated as what happens if nothing changes, distinguishes a problem from a description. Restraint about causes is rewarded when the setting has not yet gathered evidence on them. The commentary, where required, earns credit when it reveals the reason behind each choice. Concise writing matters because the statement should survive being read aloud once. APA citations for each source complete the requirements for the assignment.
Common HLTH 6246 Week 2 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Students often lose credit by opening with national statistics on diabetes and only reaching their own setting in the last sentence. Another frequent problem is slipping a solution into the statement, such as "offering evening sessions would help." A third is borrowing reasons from another study and presenting them as local causes. To strengthen yours, write the group in one clause with a place and period. Give one or two figures with their source. State where or when the shortfall occurs if you know it. Write the consequence as what happens if nothing changes. Remove every sentence about solutions. Read it aloud to someone and ask them to repeat it. If you would like a problem statement for your own setting, our team can draft one from the data you have.
Get a HLTH 6246 Week 2 example written to your instructions
The desk will build this document to whatever prompt and rubric your section is using, turned around in 24-48 hours, with the first custom one at no charge. Send the assignment file itself rather than a summary of it, since problem statements are graded against wording that varies noticeably between sections.
More HLTH 6246 papers and MS in Health Education and Promotion samples
- HLTH 6246 Week 1: Research Question Narrowing Post
- HLTH 6246 Week 3: Activity Trial Article Critique
- HLTH 6246 Week 4: Peer Nutrition Bibliography
- HLTH 6246 Week 5: Tobacco Cessation Question Brief
- HLTH 6246 Week 6: Design and Question Fit Peer Reply
- HLTH 6246 Week 7: Church Program Design Rationale
- HLTH 6246 Week 8: Caregiver Education Review
- HLTH 6246 Week 9: School Oral Health Methods Critique
- HLTH 6246 Week 10: Fall Concern Study Proposal Draft
- HLTH 6246 Week 11: Proposed Study Research Summary
- HLTH 6207 Week 2: Funder Choice Discussion Post
- HLTH 6205 Week 2: Calumet County Community Profile
- HLTH 6112 Week 2: Inspection Frequency Post
- HLTH 6110 Week 2: Ethics Provision Standards Analysis
HLTH 6246 Week 2 questions, answered
Where can I find a free HLTH 6246 Week 2 sample paper?
The full Week 2 problem statement on unfinished diabetes self-management education at a community health center, with commentary and three references, can be read here.
What problem does the HLTH 6246 Week 2 example describe?
Only 38% of adults who attend the first session of a six-session diabetes education series finish at least five, and most leave before the practical skills sessions.
Where do the local figures come from?
From the composite health center's own 2025 enrollment records, named as the source so readers know whose count it is.
Why does the statement not explain why people leave?
The center has not asked them; outside studies suggest reasons, but importing those as local causes would claim knowledge the center does not have.
Does the problem statement suggest a solution?
No. It deliberately excludes options such as evening sessions or reminders so that a solution does not shape how the problem is defined.