| Course | HLTH 8551 Preparing for Dissertation |
|---|---|
| Week | Week 9 |
| Paper type | Feasibility memo |
| Length | About 700 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Walden University |
| Program | PhD in Public Health |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for HLTH 8551 Week 9
Feasibility Memo: Giving Access, Time, Data and Ethics Each a Way to Fail in a Study of Adults Who Quit a Hospital's Diabetes Classes, and Saying What the Study Becomes If Contact Details Are Never Released
Student Name
Walden University
HLTH 8551: Preparing for Dissertation
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Feasibility Memo: Giving Access, Time, Data and Ethics Each a Way to Fail in a Study of Adults Who Quit a Hospital's Diabetes Classes, and Saying What the Study Becomes If Contact Details Are Never Released
How the Memo Is Organized
Each of the four tests below answers three questions: what the study needs, how it could fail, and the response if it does. The study is the one argued in earlier weeks, interviews with former members of a hospital's group diabetes classes, in a composite regional health system, who stopped coming before the end.
Access
What the study needs: approval from the hospital's research office and the diabetes program manager for program staff, not me, to contact adults who attended at least one session and then stopped, and to pass on the names of those who agree to hear about the study.
What could go wrong: the research office could refuse because the contact concerns people who are no longer active patients of the program, or it could delay a decision for months while it settles who owns the attendance records. A refusal is plausible; health systems are cautious about reaching former patients for research.
What happens then: the study moves to the fallback below. A delay beyond four months triggers the same move, because the schedule cannot absorb more.
Time
What the study needs: about twelve months from approval to a finished analysis. Months one to three cover ethics review and site approval; months four to seven, recruitment and interviews; months eight to eleven, analysis; month twelve, writing.
What could go wrong: recruitment among people who have already disengaged may be slow. If fewer than six interviews are complete by the end of month seven, the study cannot keep its schedule.
What happens then: recruitment extends by two months and analysis begins in parallel with the remaining interviews. Beyond that, the fallback applies.
Data
What the study needs: attendance records that show who attended at least one session and the date of their last session.
What could go wrong: the records may be sign-in sheets kept by session, not linked to enrollment, so that identifying who left requires matching names by hand across sheets. Some sheets may be missing.
What happens then: I would ask program staff to identify leavers from the two most recent series only, where sheets are complete, which reduces the pool. Malterud et al. (2016) argue that the number of interviews a study needs depends on its information power, which rises with a narrow aim, participants who hold specific knowledge of the topic and strong interview dialogue. A narrow aim and participants who all left the same series help; a smaller pool can still be enough.
Ethics
What the study needs: voluntary participation by people who may know me as their former educator.
What could go wrong: former attendees might feel obliged to agree, or to tell me what they think I want to hear, because I taught the class they left. Dwyer and Buckle (2009) describe how a researcher's position inside or outside the group studied shapes what participants share, and I am clearly inside this one.
What happens then: program staff, not I, make first contact; the consent process states that the interviewer is the former educator and that declining has no effect on care; and participants may choose a second interviewer, a doctoral colleague from outside the program. A reflexive journal records how my role may shape each interview. These steps follow McDermid et al. (2014), whose review of research among colleagues concluded that dual roles must be declared and acknowledged and that reflexivity is one of the main ways to manage them.
The Fallback
If access fails, I would recruit through two community pharmacies and a public library health program in the same county, using flyers asking for adults who started a group diabetes class anywhere and stopped. This keeps the question but changes who the findings describe: people from several programs, self-selected, likely more willing to talk. The findings would speak less to one program and more to group diabetes education in general. That is a real cost, and I would state it in the limitations rather than hide it.
References
Dwyer, S. C., & Buckle, J. L. (2009). The space between: On being an insider-outsider in qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 8(1), 54-63. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690900800105
Malterud, K., Siersma, V. D., & Guassora, A. D. (2016). Sample size in qualitative interview studies: Guided by information power. Qualitative Health Research, 26(13), 1753-1760. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732315617444
McDermid, F., Peters, K., Jackson, D., & Daly, J. (2014). Conducting qualitative research in the context of pre-existing peer and collegial relationships. Nurse Researcher, 21(5), 28-33. https://doi.org/10.7748/nr.21.5.28.e1232
What the HLTH 8551 Week 9 instructions ask for
Students assess whether their planned study can actually be carried out. Faculty expect the memo to address access to participants or data, time, the data themselves and ethical risks, and to describe what happens if each condition fails. A fallback plan for the most likely failure is commonly required. The memo should identify risks specific to the study rather than recite general concerns, and it should cite sources for any methodological judgments, such as sample size. Honesty about what a fallback would change in the findings is valued, and a decision rule for when to switch makes the plan usable.
Inside the HLTH 8551 Week 9 example
The opening explains the three headings used for every test. The access section names the research office and program manager, describes refusal and delay as failure cases and sets a four-month decision rule. The time section gives a twelve-month schedule and a recruitment threshold. The data section explains that records may be sign-in sheets and cites Malterud and colleagues on information power to justify a smaller pool. The ethics section addresses the author's dual role, cites Dwyer and Buckle on insider positions and McDermid and colleagues on declaring dual roles, and describes staff contact, a second interviewer and a reflexive journal. The fallback section describes community recruitment and states how it changes the findings.
HLTH 8551 Week 9 rubric: what earns full marks
Candor about failure is the center of this grade. A feasibility section that says access will be obtained through appropriate channels describes a hope, and faculty mark it as one. Credit goes to memos that name the office, the approval and the specific consequence of refusal, and that set a decision rule for switching plans. The ethics discussion earns more when it identifies the risk particular to the study, such as a dual role, instead of general consent language. Faculty also reward honesty about what a fallback costs, since changing recruitment changes who the findings describe. Sources used to support judgments, such as sample size, add weight when applied specifically. A memo whose fallback would leave the same study untouched has usually not imagined a real failure.
HLTH 8551 Week 9 help from the desk
Feasibility sections often assure the reader that everything will go smoothly, which gives a committee no way to judge risk. To write a stronger memo, list each condition your study depends on: access, time, data and ethics. For each, write what you need, how it could fail and what you will do then. Set a date or threshold for switching to a fallback. Name the ethical risk that applies to you in particular. Say honestly how your fallback changes the study. Cite sources for judgments such as sample size. A feasibility memo with failure cases for your own study can be drafted for you. Share the memo with someone who knows the site and ask which failure they would bet on.
Get a HLTH 8551 Week 9 example written to your instructions
Describe where your participants or records would come from and who controls them, then add the rubric and the Week 9 memo wording. Every condition gets a failure case, and a fallback is named with its cost. There is no fee for the first, which arrives in 24 to 48 hours. Approvals and site agreements remain yours to seek; the hospital here is invented.
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 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 10: Research Question Peer Replies
- HLTH 8551 Week 11: Dissertation Planning Document
- HLTH 8475 Week 9: Site-Level Outcome Analysis
- HLTH 8402 Week 9: Research Trust Analysis
- HLTH 8392 Week 9: Vaccine Storage Crisis Analysis
- HLTH 8317 Week 9: Billing Versus Earmark Analysis
HLTH 8551 Week 9 questions, answered
Is it pessimistic to plan for access failing?
It reads as maturity rather than pessimism to most committees. Access problems stall doctoral studies often enough that a plan assuming smooth approval gives a reader no way to judge risk. The example keeps its preferred design and adds a decision rule for when to switch. Planning the failure case now also shortens the delay if it happens, because the alternative is already written.
Should I study my own workplace?
It can work, but it adds a problem the example spends a full section on: people who know you in another role may feel unable to decline. Recruiting through a colleague, separating the invitation from your job, and saying so in the memo all help. Some institutions restrict such studies, and whatever review yours requires is a step only you can take; no sample substitutes for it.
What is information power?
It is Malterud and colleagues' argument that the number of interviews a study needs depends on how much each one contributes, which varies with the narrowness of the aim, the specificity of the sample, the use of theory, the quality of dialogue and the analysis planned. The example uses it to justify a range rather than a fixed number, and to explain why a narrow question needs fewer participants.
Where can I find a free HLTH 8551 Week 9 sample paper?
This page presents the complete Week 9 feasibility memo, testing access, time, data and ethics for a planned study of people who quit a hospital's group diabetes classes and stating its fallback, with three references.
What does the fallback change about the study?
Recruiting through pharmacies and a library program keeps the question but draws self-selected adults from several programs, so the findings describe group diabetes education in general rather than one hospital's series.