| Course | HLTH 8551 Preparing for Dissertation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 5 |
| Paper type | Literature gap 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 5
Literature Gap Memo: Sorting a Reading List on Diabetes Education Attendance by What Each Study Could See, and Finding That Almost All of It Watched the People Who Stayed
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8551: Preparing for Dissertation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Literature Gap Memo: Sorting a Reading List on Diabetes Education Attendance by What Each Study Could See, and Finding That Almost All of It Watched the People Who Stayed
Why Sort by Vantage Point
Saying that little research exists on why people leave diabetes education would be easy and, for this topic, false; my reading list holds fourteen studies that touch attendance. The useful question is what each of them could see. I sorted them by where their participants were found and when, because that decides whose explanations a study could hear.
The Sorting Table
Table 1
Studies on the Reading List Sorted by Vantage Point
| Vantage point | Studies on list | Who was sampled | When | What the study could observe | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Surveys of people at a session | 5 | Attendees present that day | During the series | Satisfaction and intentions of people still attending | |
| Program record analyses | 4 | Everyone enrolled | After the series | Who stopped and their recorded characteristics, but not why | |
| Mailed surveys to enrollees | 2 | All enrollees | After the series | Views of people who chose to reply, mostly completers | |
| Telephone follow-up of past users | 1 | People who had used a program | Months later | Brief stated reasons from people who withdrew | |
| Interviews with referred nonattenders | 2 | People who never came | Before any session | Reasons for declining, before contact with the program | |
Counts are for the author's working list; the two studies discussed below are cited in full.
The Gap in One Sentence
Studies have observed people who attend, records of people who left and the reasons of people who never came, but almost none have asked adults who attended and then stopped to explain, in their own words and at length, how they came to stop.
Gap or Assumption
Alvesson and Sandberg (2011) distinguish gap-spotting, finding a place the literature has not reached, from problematization, questioning an assumption the literature shares. My gap is the first kind. But the sorting raised a question of the second kind. Nearly every study on my list treats finishing the series as the goal and leaving as a failure. Some people may leave because they learned what they needed. If so, the literature has assumed what my study should ask. I am not ready to claim the field is wrong; I am noting an assumption my interviews should leave room to test.
The Two Studies Nearest the Gap
The nearest is Gucciardi et al. (2008), who reached 118 adults who had withdrawn early from a diabetes education program and asked each an open-ended question about why. Their reasons, including work schedules, confidence in their own knowledge and distance, are the best evidence available. What the study missed is depth: one question by telephone, coded into categories, cannot show how a decision unfolded across sessions or what the person weighed at each point.
The second is Schwennesen et al. (2016), who conducted fifteen semi-structured interviews with people referred to self-management education who did not attend, and found both personal and organizational reasons, including schedules of four whole days. What it missed is the people who came at least once. A review of twelve studies on declining education reached a similar picture from the same side of the door (Horigan et al., 2017).
References
Alvesson, M., & Sandberg, J. (2011). Generating research questions through problematization. Academy of Management Review, 36(2), 247-271. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2009.0188
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
Schwennesen, N., Henriksen, J. E., & Willaing, I. (2016). Patient explanations for non-attendance at type 2 diabetes self-management education: A qualitative study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 30(1), 187-192. https://doi.org/10.1111/scs.12245
Reading the HLTH 8551 Week 5 instructions
Students identify a gap in the literature related to their problem and show the evidence for it. Faculty expect more than a statement that little research exists; the memo should organize existing studies so the reader can see where they stop. A table is a common and effective tool. The gap should be stated in one clear sentence, and the studies closest to it should be discussed with what each could not see. Some prompts also ask whether the gap reflects an assumption in the literature rather than simply a missing study, and the memo should handle that question with care. A memo that ends with the gap but never names the population left out of every row leaves the reader to do that work.
How the HLTH 8551 Week 5 example is put together
The opening explains why the memo sorts studies by vantage point rather than by findings. Table 1 sorts fourteen studies on the author's working list into five rows, from session surveys to interviews with referred nonattenders, showing who was sampled, when and what each could observe. A one-sentence gap statement follows. A section applies Alvesson and Sandberg's distinction between gap-spotting and problematization and notes the literature's shared assumption that finishing is the goal. The last section discusses Gucciardi and colleagues, who asked 118 leavers one telephone question, and Schwennesen and colleagues, who interviewed fifteen people who never attended, with Horigan and colleagues' review cited alongside.
HLTH 8551 Week 5 rubric: what earns full marks
Faculty grade this memo on whether the gap is shown rather than claimed. A memo that says few studies examine a question while its own reading list contains many related studies invites the reader to check, and usually loses the argument. The rubric rewards an organizing scheme that reveals the gap, a single clear statement of it and a careful account of the studies nearest to it. A table of vantage points earns more than a table of findings, since it explains why the gap exists. Using problematization to raise a question about an assumption is credited when it stays modest. Accurate description of the nearest studies matters more than the number of sources.
Common HLTH 8551 Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Gap sections often say that research on a topic is limited, which a reader can easily disprove. Others summarize study after study without ever stating what is missing. To write a stronger memo, sort your reading by something that explains what each study could see, such as who was sampled and when. Look for the people or questions no row reaches. State the gap in one sentence. Then describe the two or three studies closest to it and say exactly what each missed. Ask whether the field shares an assumption your study could test. A literature gap memo with a sorting table can be prepared for your topic.
Get a HLTH 8551 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Bring the sources you have read so far, even a partial list, plus the Week 5 memo prompt and its rubric. The memo sorts them by what each could observe and states the opening those rows reveal. The first is free within 24 to 48 hours. Its twelve studies are composites, so the gap it finds is illustrative, not a finding about the field.
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 3: Topic Narrowing Memo
- HLTH 8551 Week 4: Problem Statement Two Drafts
- 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 5: Pre-Set Measurement Plan
- HLTH 8402 Week 5: Outreach Team Faultline Analysis
- HLTH 8392 Week 5: Weekend Rotation Message Design
- HLTH 8317 Week 5: Matching Requirement Analysis
HLTH 8551 Week 5 questions, answered
How do gap-spotting and problematization differ?
Alvesson and Sandberg describe gap-spotting as finding something the literature has not yet covered, and problematization as questioning an assumption the literature takes for granted. Both are legitimate. The example does the first and then tests the second, asking whether studies of attendance assume that finishing is the right goal. Your memo need not problematize, but noticing an assumption usually strengthens the gap.
Is a gap enough to justify a dissertation?
Not on its own. A gap shows that something has not been studied; it does not show that studying it matters. The example ties its gap to the problem stated in Week 4, a program that cannot explain its own shortfall, so the opening has a consequence attached. Committees tend to ask why a gap exists and whether filling it would change anything, and a memo that answers both reads stronger.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8551 Week 5 sample paper?
The full Week 5 literature gap memo is reproduced above, sorting fourteen studies on diabetes education attendance by vantage point and stating the gap in one sentence, with four references.
Why sort studies by vantage point instead of by findings?
Because a gap usually exists for a reason, and the reason is often where studies found their participants; sorting by vantage point shows that surveys and records could not hear from people who attended and then left.
Which studies come closest to the gap?
A telephone study that asked 118 adults who had withdrawn from a diabetes education program one open-ended question, and an interview study of fifteen people who were referred to self-management education but never attended.