| Course | HLTH 8551 Preparing for Dissertation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 3 |
| Paper type | Narrowing memo |
| Length | About 540 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8551 Week 3
Narrowing Memo: Cutting an Interest in Leaving Group Diabetes Education to One Population, Adults Who Came at Least Once and Stopped Before the Last Session, and Counting What the Cut Gives Up
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8551: Preparing for Dissertation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Narrowing Memo: Cutting an Interest in Leaving Group Diabetes Education to One Population, Adults Who Came at Least Once and Stopped Before the Last Session, and Counting What the Cut Gives Up
Subject: Narrowing, Population
This memo makes one cut to my Week 1 interest and argues for it. Other cuts, such as setting and outcome, wait for later weeks.
The Interest as Stated in Week 1
In Week 1 I wrote that I wanted to know why people who enroll in a group class on managing diabetes quit coming partway through the series.
Two Candidate Cuts
The first candidate cuts by population. The study would concern adults who started a hospital-based group diabetes series in one regional health system, a composite, by attending at least one session, and who left before its final session. People who finished the series, and people who never came, fall outside it.
The second candidate cuts by outcome. The study would concern completion of the series, finishing all six sessions or not, among everyone who enrolled, regardless of who they were or how far they got. That version would compare completers and noncompleters on characteristics such as age, distance from the hospital and insurance.
Both cuts are reasonable, and both appear in published work. Gucciardi et al. (2008) did something close to the second, comparing past users who had withdrawn from an education program with people who did not and identifying factors such as full-time work that predicted withdrawal.
The Choice and Its Reasons
I choose the population cut, for two reasons, either of which may prove mistaken.
The first is that the people who left hold the explanation the program lacks. Every adjustment our program has made came from people who stayed. A completion study would again draw much of its explanation from records and from people who were reachable, and the reasons would remain guesses fitted to characteristics. Booth et al. (2016) argue that a topic becomes a question when the researcher can say what they do not know and why it matters; what I do not know is how leaving looks from the inside.
The second is that completion as an outcome invites a records study I cannot yet justify. Our attendance records are kept by session sign-in, not by enrollment, and I do not yet know whether they could reliably identify who finished. Choosing an outcome cut now would commit me to data I have not checked.
What the Cut Excludes
The cut leaves out four groups. People who were referred and never attended are excluded; their reasons have been studied directly, in a review of twelve studies on declining diabetes education (Horigan et al., 2017), and their decision comes before any contact with the program. People who finished the series are excluded as participants, though they may return as a comparison if later weeks show a need. People in individual counseling are excluded, which may hide some who moved from group to individual sessions rather than leaving; I will need to check that. People in other health systems are excluded for now, because the setting is not yet chosen.
The first exclusion is likely permanent. The second and third may come back. The fourth will be settled when I narrow the setting.
References
Booth, W. C., Colomb, G. G., Williams, J. M., Bizup, J., & FitzGerald, W. T. (2016). The craft of research (4th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
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
Horigan, G., Davies, M., Findlay-White, F., Chaney, D., & Coates, V. (2017). Reasons why patients referred to diabetes education programmes choose not to attend: A systematic review. Diabetic Medicine, 34(1), 14-26. https://doi.org/10.1111/dme.13120
Reading the HLTH 8551 Week 3 instructions
This week students narrow their interest by making a single, argued cut. The memo should restate the earlier interest, present at least two candidate ways to narrow it, choose one with reasons and state what the chosen cut excludes. Faculty expect the reasons to be specific enough to be wrong, and they want the cost of the cut stated as clearly as its benefit. A memo format with a subject line and short headed sections is common. Narrowing on several dimensions at once usually overshoots the week, so the memo should say which choices are being deferred and when they will be made.
How the HLTH 8551 Week 3 example is put together
The memo opens with a subject line and a statement that only one cut is being made. The Week 1 sentence is quoted word for word. Two candidate cuts are described, by population and by completion as an outcome, with Gucciardi and colleagues cited as an example of a completion study. The choice section picks the population cut, arguing that leavers hold the missing explanation, citing the Booth team's guidance on how a topic becomes a question, and that the attendance records needed for a completion study have not been checked. The exclusions section lists four groups, cites Horigan and colleagues' review for people who decline education and says which exclusions may return.
HLTH 8551 Week 3 rubric: what earns full marks
Most of the grade rests on making one clear cut and actually committing to it. Memos that narrow population, setting and outcome in a single move leave nothing to argue in later weeks, while memos that describe narrowing in general terms without deciding fall short. Credit grows when the author compares named alternatives and gives reasons that could be tested. The exclusions section is where stronger memos separate from adequate ones, since faculty want evidence that the author sees what the cut costs. Continuity with the Week 1 statement, shown by quoting it, earns a smaller share. Saying which exclusions might return later shows that the narrowing is a decision made on current information.
Common HLTH 8551 Week 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Narrowing memos often tighten everything at once, which leaves the author defending a finished study before its parts have been argued. Others say a topic has been narrowed without saying how. To write a stronger memo, quote your earlier interest. Write down two different ways to cut it. Choose one and give reasons a classmate could dispute. Then list everyone and everything your cut leaves out, and say which might come back. Keep setting and outcome for later if your course spaces them. We can draft a one-cut narrowing memo for your interest that shows the reasoning step by step. Read the memo aloud to a classmate and ask which excluded group surprised them; that group usually deserves a sentence of its own.
Get a HLTH 8551 Week 3 example written to your instructions
Send your earlier interest statement, the Week 3 memo instructions and rubric, and the two cuts you are torn between if you have them. The memo makes one cut from your interest and names what it leaves outside. Expect it in 24 to 48 hours, free the first time; its health system and diabetes series were made up for this page.
More HLTH 8551 papers and PhD in Public Health samples
- HLTH 8551 Week 1: Dissertation Interest Statement
- HLTH 8551 Week 2: Topic Exclusions Post
- HLTH 8551 Week 4: Problem Statement Two Drafts
- HLTH 8551 Week 5: Literature Gap Memo
- HLTH 8551 Week 6: Research Question Draft
- HLTH 8551 Week 7: Study Alignment Table
- HLTH 8551 Week 8: Qualitative Method Rationale
- HLTH 8551 Week 9: Dissertation Feasibility Memo
- HLTH 8551 Week 10: Research Question Peer Replies
- HLTH 8551 Week 11: Dissertation Planning Document
- HLTH 8475 Week 3: Implementation Logic Model
- HLTH 8402 Week 3: Disaggregated Population Profile
- HLTH 8392 Week 3: Burnout Framing Critique
- HLTH 8317 Week 3: Revenue Streams Funding Map
HLTH 8551 Week 3 questions, answered
Why only one cut this week?
Because each cut needs its own argument, and several made at once tend to be defended by none. The course spaces the narrowing so that each reduction can be judged on its reasons. The example cuts to a population now and leaves setting and outcome for the problem statement and question weeks. If your prompt asks for more than one cut, each still gets its own reasons in the sample drafted for you.
Should I narrow by population or by outcome?
Either can work, and the better choice depends on where the unknown actually sits. In the example, the program already knows how many people finish; what it lacks is the reasons behind leaving, which only the people who left can supply, so the population cut follows. If your unknown is a measurable result rather than an experience, an outcome cut may serve the question better.
Does excluding a group mean it never comes back?
No, and the example says so explicitly for two of its exclusions. A narrowing memo records a decision made on current information, and later reading or a feasibility check can reopen it. What the course discourages is exclusion by silence, a group that disappears between drafts without comment. Naming the group and the condition under which it might return keeps your reasoning visible to a committee.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8551 Week 3 sample paper?
The Week 3 narrowing memo appears in full on this page, cutting an interest in leaving group diabetes education to one population and listing four exclusions, with three references.
Which exclusions might return later?
Adults who finished the series could return as a comparison group, and people in individual counseling may need to be checked in case some moved from group to one-on-one visits; other health systems wait until the setting is chosen.