Prevention and Management - Free Paper Sample

Introduction

Diabetes is one of the major health conditions affecting people in America. In the hospital facility, many patients have diabetes, and some are pre-diabetic. The change project proposal is the prevention and management of diabetes in patients with limited mobility. Interventions such as lifestyle changes could help in the prevention and management of diabetes. Additionally, myriads of literature examine the prevention and management of diabetes through evidence-based solutions. The literature review for this change project supports my patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and timeframe (PICOT) question. The PICOT question is as follows; in adult patients (P), do lifestyle interventions such as diet and exercise (I) compared to patients with no lifestyle interventions (C) manage their diabetes condition (O) within twelve weeks (T)? In a change project, conducting an extensive review of literature helps map out evidence-based solutions applicable to the project and move towards the active stages of project development. This paper provides a literature review comparing the research questions, sample populations, and limitations of literature.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

A Comparison of Research Questions

Research questions are important because they help to determine the direction of research. Even though the research questions of the studies for the project are different, they all incline towards the prevention and management of diabetes. For example, in the research by Basterra-Gortari and Martínez-González (2008), the research question was whether randomized diabetes people that receive Modified Mediterranean Diet (MMD) show a greater reduction in alanine aminotransferase levels at 6 and 12 months. In another study, the research question was the principles could apply to obtaining universal dominance data and projected trends for type 2 diabetes (Green et al., 2003). Additionally, other studies wanted to determine the cost-effectiveness and efficacies of a diabetes prevention project (Härmä-Rodriquez, 2016; Herman, 2016). Additionally, Makrilakis and Katsilambros (2018) wanted to identify the risk factors associated with type 2 diabetes development. Also, Meetoo (2016) investigated the advantages of insulin therapy compared to conventional methods. More so, the report by the CDC (2020) the estimates and burden of diabetes in America. Furthermore, Walker et al. (2008) examined diabetes risks that result from shared genetic and lifestyle factors. In the studies, the research questions focused on preventing diabetes through diet as an intervention and the costs related to the prevention of the disease.

A Comparison of Sample Populations

Sample sizes are significant considerations in research because they help make inferences about the population used in the study. In the research by Basterra-Gortari and Martínez-González (2008), the sample population discussed consisted of 13380 participants included in the Seguimiento Universidad de Navarra study. In the study by Härmä-Rodriquez (2016), the sample consisted of 2080 contributors who participated in the prevention project. The contributors consisted of health care professionals as well as national and regional coordinators. The population that the contributors targeted was 1.5 million people with diabetes across Finland. In the study by Walker et al. (2008), the sample population consisted of patients who participated in the Finnish Diabetes Prevention and Diabetes Prevention Program. In the report by CDC (2020), the sample included 34.2 million Americans with diabetes. In the study by Meetoo (2016), the population was patients with types 1 and 2 diabetes. Other studies did not have a population to study (Makrilakis & Katsilambros, 2018; Green et al., 2003). The people in the research by Herman (2015) had a population of diabetes patients who participated in a diabetes prevention program. All participants in the study were diabetes patients.

A Comparison of the Limitations

Examining the limitations of research is important because they help place the research findings in context and interpret the validity of the scientific research. In the study by Basterra-Gortari and Martínez-González (2008), the limitation was that the researchers did not provide an in-depth discussion of their study methodology. A deeper analysis of the method would help health care providers apply the approaches used in clinical practice. The limitation of the study by Härmä-Rodriquez (2016) was that it was impossible to evaluate the project’s effectiveness because of insufficient date about the population. In the research by Walker et al. (2008), the limitation was that the research depended heavily on another study instead of the researcher’s skills. The limitation of the report by CDC (2020) is that its methodology of using 2018 statistics can result in overestimated or underestimated diabetes rates. In other literature, the limitation was that its findings are not tested to prove whether they are statistically significant (Meetoo, 2016; Makrilakis & Katsilambros, 2018; Green et al. 2003). In Herman (2015) research, the limitation was the lack of a sample, which would have added clinical significance. Comparing the limitations help establish the credibility of the research presented.

Conclusion

Diabetes education to patients and their families, is essential to create awareness on the lifestyle changes needed in the prevention and management of diabetes. The examination of the research questions, sample population, and limitations of the studies will help the change project find scientific evidence. The evidence presented will help find more research on the intervention of lifestyle behaviors in diabetes patients with limited mobility. Further research needs to be known on nurse-led diet programs that can achieve remission in diabetes patients.

References

Basterra-Gortari, F., & Martínez-González, M. (2008). Mediterranean diet in type 2 diabetes. Diabetologia, 51(10), 1933-1934.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00125-008-1121-x

CDC. (2020, August 9). National Diabetes statistics report, 2020.
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/data/statistics-report/index.html?CDC_AA_refVal=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fdiabetes%2Fdata%2Fstatistics%2Fstatistics-report.html

Green, A., Christian Hirsch, N., & Krøger Pramming, S. (2003). The changing world demography of type 2 diabetes. Diabetes/Metabolism Research and Reviews, 19(1), 3-7.
https://doi.org/10.1002/dmrr.34

Härmä-Rodriquez, S. (2016). Prevention of type 2 diabetes: The Finnish experience. European Diabetes Nursing, 4(3), 119-123.
https://doi.org/10.1002/edn.92

Herman, W. (2016). The cost-effectiveness of diabetes prevention: Results from the Diabetes Prevention Program and the Diabetes Prevention Program Outcomes Study. Clinical Diabetes and Endocrinology, 1(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40842-015-0009-1

Makrilakis, K., & Katsilambros, N. (2018). Prediction and prevention of type 2 diabetes. HORMONES, 2(1), 22-34. https://doi.org/10.14310/horm.2002.1179

Meetoo, D. (2016). Insulin: An evolving paradigm in diabetes management. Practice Nursing, 27(Sup3), 11-16. https://doi.org/10.12968/pnur.2016.27.sup3.11

Walker, M., Walker, L., & Jayapaul, M. (2018). Type 2 diabetes in families and diabetesprevention. European Diabetes Nursing, 5(2), 52-56.
https://doi.org/10.1002/edn.108.