Executive Solution Overview
– ## MSNCapstoneProjectfinal.docx – ## CapstonePart1.1.docx – capstonepart2.docx **## MSNCapstoneProjectfinal.docx** MSN Capstone Project-DBX-DL01 Carmen Lazo Final Capstone Project Part I, II, III **CAPSTONE: PART I, II, III** *PRESENT AS ONE COHESIVE FINAL CAPSTONE PAPER. USE THE CONTENT FROM CAP…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Need a Fresh Custom Paper?
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Assignment Prompt & Instructions
– ## MSNCapstoneProjectfinal.docx
– ## CapstonePart1.1.docx
– capstonepart2.docx
**## MSNCapstoneProjectfinal.docx**
MSN Capstone Project-DBX-DL01 Carmen Lazo
Final Capstone Project Part I, II, III
**CAPSTONE: PART I, II, III**
*PRESENT AS ONE COHESIVE FINAL CAPSTONE PAPER. USE THE CONTENT FROM CAPSTONE I,II,III COMBINED. YOUR TITLE PAGE SHOULD YOUR REFLECT THE HEALTH PROBLEM. DO NOT WRITE I, II, OR III.
NOTE: DO
**NOT** PROPOSE A CHANGE THAT REQUIRES IRB APPROVAL OR DIRECT HUMAN SUBJECT INVOLVEMENT.
**CAPSTONE: PART I**
1.
Title Page
2. Introduction to your proposed problem:
– Significance of the Practice Problem: Discuss the identified Practice Problem.
-Introduce the topic of the paper.
-Describe the health problem. Don't type "Introduction.” OR "PICOT"
-Present PICOT in a paragraph format
-Using data and statistics, support your claim that your selected issue is a problem.
– Include your purpose statement and what specifically you will address in your proposed program.
-Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
3. PICOT- Should be discussed in detail. This section should include your PICOT question but also should provide thorough descriptions of your population, intervention, comparison intervention, outcome, and timing (if appropriate to your question).
The word PICOT is a mnemonic derived from the elements of a clinical research question – patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and (sometimes) time. The PICOT process begins with a case scenario, and the question is phrased to elicit an answer. P – Patient/Problem I – Intervention C – Comparison O – Outcome T – Timeframe
4. Describe the vulnerable population
-Discuss the impact of social determinants on health for your selected population.
-What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population?
-Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
5. Research should be from scholarly journals of evidence-based interventions that address the problem.
-Peer-reviewed research articles not older than five years (all articles must be used in your paper)
6. Proposal
-Propose addressing the selected health problem using an evidence-based intervention in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting.
-Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which include resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
-Be sure to include a timeline for the intervention proposed.
7. Theoretical Framework/Nursing Theory- This section should include the theoretical framework which supports your project. Describe a theory or model to serve as the foundation for your project.
– Overall, you should be able to introduce the problem and why this is significant to the healthcare system. For example: What impact does it have on the patient, community, cost of care, quality of life, readmissions and so forth
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 3-4 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
**CAPSTONE: PART II**
1. Review of Literature
– Review and discuss literature: Synthesize at least 10 primary research studies and/or systematic reviews; do not include summary articles. This section is all about the scientific evidence rather than someone else’s opinion of the evidence. Do not use secondary sources; you need to get the article, read it, and make your own decision about quality and applicability to your question even if you did find out about the study in a review of the literature. This is a synthesis rather than a study by study review. Address the similarities, differences, and controversies in the body of evidence.
2. Analyze and apply knowledge directly to your PICOT- The studies that you cite in this section must relate directly to your PICOT question.
3. Provide precise body of evidence for your Practice Change
4. Discuss objectives for your practice change
5. Discuss where the problem exists, why it exists, what is the preposition for change
6. Apply all that is relevant to the problem. For example: Pros vs Cons, current state of problem
NOTE:
_It should not reflect your opinion,_ but rather Evidence Based Practice should be applied
-After completing a literature search on interventions addressing your chosen health problem, write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found.
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 4-6 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
**CAPSTONE: PART III**
1. Implementation/Conclusion
– Implement the change you are proposing- This should be a continuation of Part I and Part II
2. Describe the practice change; is it in the community, organizational, clinic setting and so forth
3. Discuss how you would implement and assess the change; this should include time frame, setting, participants, barriers, external and internal factors.
4. How would you evaluate the change process?
-The change must be measurable
-How would you measure or evaluate? Is there a tool to measure?
5. The literature review must support your change and implementation. Use leadership qualities and skills that will be utilized for successful completion of the project.
6. Discuss who will be invited to the proposal: who are the stakeholders?
-How will you present the information to your stakeholders?
_OVERALL:_ The conclusion should have your Part I, II, II all put together in a thorough APA format.
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 3-4 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-The final Capstone project should be a minimum of 8 pages and maximum of 12 pages.
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
Capstone Poster Presentation
**Part 1** Attempt feedback
**The assignment is missing a Conclusion and References as per APA. At the Master's level, you should present appropriate APA assignments. See my comments.**
****
****
****
****
**Correct part 2 feedback**
**Attempt feedback**
**The goal of the Capstone is to identify a real life issue in your community or workplace. Overall, you did not discuss your specific population (are they in Miami-Dade?) Where is your specific setting? What is the current status in the setting you identified and why did you determine change was needed? You discussed cost and reduction without statistical data. You need to show national and local data. You did not discuss articles of APRNs as leaders for the Capstone. See my comments.**
****
****
## image6.png
## image7.png
## image1.png
## image2.png
## image3.png
## image4.png
## image5.png
**## CapstonePart1.1.docx**
**Improving Knowledge of Ozempic Use through Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes**
Student Name
Course
Institution
Date
**Improving Knowledge of Ozempic Use through Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes**
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic and progressive metabolic disease that still impacts millions of Americans. Semaglutide (Ozempic), one of the newer pharmacological agents designed to improve glycemic control and help reduce weight, was recently licensed to manage T2D. While Ozempic has clinically proven to work, many patients are unaware of proper use, adverse effects, and how to incorporate the new drug therapy into their overall diabetes self-management plan. Such ignorance develops a massive issue within the treatment regimen for T2D. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 202), diabetes currently impacts more than 38 million Americans, and an estimated 90-95% live with type 2 diabetes. Successful education regarding new drug therapy, such as Ozempic, serves a crucial role to improve self-management and outcomes among patients.
The objective behind this proposed program is to enact a Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) intervention specifically designed to increase adult patient knowledge on Ozempic use and lifestyle self-management. The intervention will utilize pre- and post-program surveys to track self-reported change in knowledge. Educating without changing medical care or private medical information, the program does not entail Institutional Review Board (IRB) and HIPAA breaches while focusing on improved patient empowerment. The proposed end result is measurable and attainable by focusing on improved self-reported knowledge within an eight-week timeframe.
**PICOT Question**
In adult patients with type 2 diabetes (P), how does participation in a Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) program focused on Ozempic (semaglutide) use (I), compared to no DSME intervention (C), affect self-reported knowledge of medication use and lifestyle management (O) over an eight-week period (T)?
**Population (P):** Adult patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, aged 18 and above, capable of participating in an educational intervention.
**Intervention (I):** A structured DSME program focused on educating patients about Ozempic usage, mechanisms, side effects, administration, and integration with lifestyle modifications.
**Comparison (C):** A group of patients with T2D who receive standard care without participation in the DSME program.
**Outcome (O):** Improvement in self-reported knowledge and confidence regarding Ozempic and general diabetes management, measured using pre- and post-intervention surveys.
**Time (T):** Eight weeks, allowing for sufficient exposure to educational materials and measurable changes in knowledge.
**Vulnerable Population**
The targeted population includes type 2 diabetes adult populations, which are highly prone to negative health outcomes due to poor health literacy, comorbidities, socioeconomic problems, and problems managing chronic diseases. Many T2D sufferers experience problems following medications, embracing lifestyle changes, and regular care, especially among underserved populations. Social determinants of health (SDOH), such as income, education, food security, and care accessibility, have significant impacts on diabetes outcomes. According to the American Diabetes Association (2023), diabetes victims with poor health literacy possess increased risks of diabetes complications, including cardiovascular disease, limb loss, and kidney failure.
The impacted are disproportionately members of ethnic and racial minorities, foremost among them African Americans and Hispanics, and cultural and linguistic disparities intensify communication barriers between patients and care providers. The evidence abounds that DSME programs are up to the task, by providing targeted education and support, to diminish these barriers (Coningsby et al., 2022). Thematic focus on knowledge development empowers this most vulnerable group to manage their condition proactively.
**Literature Review**
Interventions incorporating Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) have consistently demonstrated to improve patient outcomes effectively among type 2 diabetes (T2D) adult patients. Ernawati et al. (2021) confirmed that DSME significantly enhances self-care and lifestyle behaviors among T2D sufferers, thereby leading to clinical improvement. Osonuga et al. (2024) also found that DSME enhanced Nigerian patients' quality of life, self-management competence, and glycometabolic control, especially in poor-resource settings. Chowdhury et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis on 21 low-income and middle-income countries and revealed DSME interventions reduced the level of HbA1c and improved psycho-social well-being and cardiometabolic risk. Longwitz and Palokas (2022), additionally, revealed that DSME incorporating telehealth was very effective, recording an exceptional increase in best practice and personal care adherence. Individually, these studies justify the implementation of DSME programs by embracing a structured approach, while highlighting accessibility, education, and person-centered support, especially to improve diabetes control.
**Proposal**
This capstone project proposes the implementation of an eight-week, systematic DSME program to improve knowledge among adult T2D patients on Ozempic and its pairing with lifestyle management. The program will comprise one 1-hour session every week, which will involve use of visual aids, culturally appropriated tools, demonstrations, and Q&A time. The participants will undergo a self-administered knowledge survey pre-program and post-program.
Additional resources required are a certified diabetes educator (CDE), education materials both printed and electronic, and a quiet room to facilitate group learning. Nurses in advanced roles can facilitate the sessions and track participation. Community clinics, faith-based organizations, or virtual platforms can host the sessions, improving accessibility.
A timeline would include:
· Week 1: Pre-survey and orientation
· Weeks 2–7: Weekly educational sessions
· Week 8: Post-survey and evaluation
The intervention is low-cost, scalable, and aligns with current standards of diabetes education. It avoids IRB and HIPAA concerns by not accessing patient records or managing treatment directly.
**Theoretical Framework**
The Health Belief Model (HBM) is the guiding theoretical framework for this project. HBM posits that individuals are more likely to adopt health behaviors if they perceive a personal risk, believe in the efficacy of the behavior, and feel empowered to act. This aligns perfectly with DSME, which addresses perceived severity (complications of T2D), benefits (proper use of Ozempic), and self-efficacy (managing lifestyle changes). By using HBM, the DSME sessions will emphasize personal relevance, reinforce benefits of proper medication use, and reduce perceived barriers through demonstration and discussion. The theory supports structured educational interventions that engage, motivate, and empower patients to change their health behaviors. This initiative addresses a significant healthcare challenge. Poor medication literacy leads to complications, hospitalizations, and increased healthcare costs. Empowering patients with knowledge can reduce readmissions, improve quality of life, and foster independence in managing chronic conditions like T2D, even without directly modifying their medical care.
**Conclusion**
This capstone presentation describes an evidence-based, culturally sensitive DSME intervention designed to improve the knowledge and self-management of adults with type 2 diabetes treated with Ozempic. Grounded in the Health Belbelief Model, the eight-week intervention aims to enhance patients' understanding and belief in semaglutide through educationally framed sessions, real-world demonstrations, and peer support. Filling knowledge gaps without compromising patient confidentiality, the project offers a cost-effective, scalable, and ethical solution. Ultimately, the education-based intervention can achieve improved long-term health outcomes, improved adherence to medications, empowerment of vulnerable populations, and reduction of complications of diabetes, thereby enhancing patient autonomy in managing chronic disease.
**References**
American Diabetes Association. (2023).
_Annual Report on American Diabetes Association_. https://diabetes.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/ADA_2023_AnnualReport.pdf
Chowdhury, H. A., Harrison, C. L., Siddiquea, B. N., Tissera, S., Afroz, A., Ali, L., Joham, A. E., & Billah, B. (2024). The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education intervention on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk in adults with type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_PLoS ONE_,
_18_(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297328
Coningsby, I., Ainsworth, B., & Dack, C. (2022). A Qualitative Study Exploring the Barriers to Attending Structured Education Programmes among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.
_BMC Health Services Research_,
_22_(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07980-w
Ernawati, U., Wihastuti, T. A., & Utami, Y. W. (2021). Effectiveness of Diabetes self-management Education (DSME) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients: Systematic Literature Review.
_Journal of Public Health Research_,
_10_(2), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2021.2240
Longwitz, A., & Palokas, M. (2022). Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes via telehealth in conjunction with remote patient monitoring: a best practice implementation project.
_JBI Evidence Implementation_,
_21_(2). https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000360
Osonuga, A., Olufemi, K., Osonuga, O., Osonuga, A., Okoye, G., & Osonuga, A. (2024). The Impact of Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) on the Quality of Life of patients living with type-2 Diabetes Mellitus in Nigeria.
_West African Journal of Medicine_,
_41_(8), 868–873. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39736162/
**capstonepart2.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/capstonepart2-docx-10375547)
**capstonepart2.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/capstonepart2-docx-10375547)
**## MSNCapstoneProjectfinal.docx**
MSN Capstone Project-DBX-DL01 Carmen Lazo
Final Capstone Project Part I, II, III
**CAPSTONE: PART I, II, III**
*PRESENT AS ONE COHESIVE FINAL CAPSTONE PAPER. USE THE CONTENT FROM CAPSTONE I,II,III COMBINED. YOUR TITLE PAGE SHOULD YOUR REFLECT THE HEALTH PROBLEM. DO NOT WRITE I, II, OR III.
NOTE: DO
**NOT** PROPOSE A CHANGE THAT REQUIRES IRB APPROVAL OR DIRECT HUMAN SUBJECT INVOLVEMENT.
**CAPSTONE: PART I**
1.
Title Page
2. Introduction to your proposed problem:
– Significance of the Practice Problem: Discuss the identified Practice Problem.
-Introduce the topic of the paper.
-Describe the health problem. Don't type "Introduction.” OR "PICOT"
-Present PICOT in a paragraph format
-Using data and statistics, support your claim that your selected issue is a problem.
– Include your purpose statement and what specifically you will address in your proposed program.
-Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
3. PICOT- Should be discussed in detail. This section should include your PICOT question but also should provide thorough descriptions of your population, intervention, comparison intervention, outcome, and timing (if appropriate to your question).
The word PICOT is a mnemonic derived from the elements of a clinical research question – patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and (sometimes) time. The PICOT process begins with a case scenario, and the question is phrased to elicit an answer. P – Patient/Problem I – Intervention C – Comparison O – Outcome T – Timeframe
4. Describe the vulnerable population
-Discuss the impact of social determinants on health for your selected population.
-What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population?
-Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
5. Research should be from scholarly journals of evidence-based interventions that address the problem.
-Peer-reviewed research articles not older than five years (all articles must be used in your paper)
6. Proposal
-Propose addressing the selected health problem using an evidence-based intervention in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting.
-Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which include resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
-Be sure to include a timeline for the intervention proposed.
7. Theoretical Framework/Nursing Theory- This section should include the theoretical framework which supports your project. Describe a theory or model to serve as the foundation for your project.
– Overall, you should be able to introduce the problem and why this is significant to the healthcare system. For example: What impact does it have on the patient, community, cost of care, quality of life, readmissions and so forth
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 3-4 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
**CAPSTONE: PART II**
1. Review of Literature
– Review and discuss literature: Synthesize at least 10 primary research studies and/or systematic reviews; do not include summary articles. This section is all about the scientific evidence rather than someone else’s opinion of the evidence. Do not use secondary sources; you need to get the article, read it, and make your own decision about quality and applicability to your question even if you did find out about the study in a review of the literature. This is a synthesis rather than a study by study review. Address the similarities, differences, and controversies in the body of evidence.
2. Analyze and apply knowledge directly to your PICOT- The studies that you cite in this section must relate directly to your PICOT question.
3. Provide precise body of evidence for your Practice Change
4. Discuss objectives for your practice change
5. Discuss where the problem exists, why it exists, what is the preposition for change
6. Apply all that is relevant to the problem. For example: Pros vs Cons, current state of problem
NOTE:
_It should not reflect your opinion,_ but rather Evidence Based Practice should be applied
-After completing a literature search on interventions addressing your chosen health problem, write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found.
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 4-6 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
**CAPSTONE: PART III**
1. Implementation/Conclusion
– Implement the change you are proposing- This should be a continuation of Part I and Part II
2. Describe the practice change; is it in the community, organizational, clinic setting and so forth
3. Discuss how you would implement and assess the change; this should include time frame, setting, participants, barriers, external and internal factors.
4. How would you evaluate the change process?
-The change must be measurable
-How would you measure or evaluate? Is there a tool to measure?
5. The literature review must support your change and implementation. Use leadership qualities and skills that will be utilized for successful completion of the project.
6. Discuss who will be invited to the proposal: who are the stakeholders?
-How will you present the information to your stakeholders?
_OVERALL:_ The conclusion should have your Part I, II, II all put together in a thorough APA format.
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 3-4 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-The final Capstone project should be a minimum of 8 pages and maximum of 12 pages.
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
Capstone Poster Presentation
**Part 1** Attempt feedback
**The assignment is missing a Conclusion and References as per APA. At the Master's level, you should present appropriate APA assignments. See my comments.**
****
****
****
****
**Correct part 2 feedback**
**Attempt feedback**
**The goal of the Capstone is to identify a real life issue in your community or workplace. Overall, you did not discuss your specific population (are they in Miami-Dade?) Where is your specific setting? What is the current status in the setting you identified and why did you determine change was needed? You discussed cost and reduction without statistical data. You need to show national and local data. You did not discuss articles of APRNs as leaders for the Capstone. See my comments.**
****
****
## image6.png
## image7.png
## image1.png
## image2.png
## image3.png
## image4.png
## image5.png
**## CapstonePart1.1.docx**
**Improving Knowledge of Ozempic Use through Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes**
Student Name
Course
Institution
Date
**Improving Knowledge of Ozempic Use through Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes**
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic and progressive metabolic disease that still impacts millions of Americans. Semaglutide (Ozempic), one of the newer pharmacological agents designed to improve glycemic control and help reduce weight, was recently licensed to manage T2D. While Ozempic has clinically proven to work, many patients are unaware of proper use, adverse effects, and how to incorporate the new drug therapy into their overall diabetes self-management plan. Such ignorance develops a massive issue within the treatment regimen for T2D. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 202), diabetes currently impacts more than 38 million Americans, and an estimated 90-95% live with type 2 diabetes. Successful education regarding new drug therapy, such as Ozempic, serves a crucial role to improve self-management and outcomes among patients.
The objective behind this proposed program is to enact a Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) intervention specifically designed to increase adult patient knowledge on Ozempic use and lifestyle self-management. The intervention will utilize pre- and post-program surveys to track self-reported change in knowledge. Educating without changing medical care or private medical information, the program does not entail Institutional Review Board (IRB) and HIPAA breaches while focusing on improved patient empowerment. The proposed end result is measurable and attainable by focusing on improved self-reported knowledge within an eight-week timeframe.
**PICOT Question**
In adult patients with type 2 diabetes (P), how does participation in a Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) program focused on Ozempic (semaglutide) use (I), compared to no DSME intervention (C), affect self-reported knowledge of medication use and lifestyle management (O) over an eight-week period (T)?
**Population (P):** Adult patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, aged 18 and above, capable of participating in an educational intervention.
**Intervention (I):** A structured DSME program focused on educating patients about Ozempic usage, mechanisms, side effects, administration, and integration with lifestyle modifications.
**Comparison (C):** A group of patients with T2D who receive standard care without participation in the DSME program.
**Outcome (O):** Improvement in self-reported knowledge and confidence regarding Ozempic and general diabetes management, measured using pre- and post-intervention surveys.
**Time (T):** Eight weeks, allowing for sufficient exposure to educational materials and measurable changes in knowledge.
**Vulnerable Population**
The targeted population includes type 2 diabetes adult populations, which are highly prone to negative health outcomes due to poor health literacy, comorbidities, socioeconomic problems, and problems managing chronic diseases. Many T2D sufferers experience problems following medications, embracing lifestyle changes, and regular care, especially among underserved populations. Social determinants of health (SDOH), such as income, education, food security, and care accessibility, have significant impacts on diabetes outcomes. According to the American Diabetes Association (2023), diabetes victims with poor health literacy possess increased risks of diabetes complications, including cardiovascular disease, limb loss, and kidney failure.
The impacted are disproportionately members of ethnic and racial minorities, foremost among them African Americans and Hispanics, and cultural and linguistic disparities intensify communication barriers between patients and care providers. The evidence abounds that DSME programs are up to the task, by providing targeted education and support, to diminish these barriers (Coningsby et al., 2022). Thematic focus on knowledge development empowers this most vulnerable group to manage their condition proactively.
**Literature Review**
Interventions incorporating Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) have consistently demonstrated to improve patient outcomes effectively among type 2 diabetes (T2D) adult patients. Ernawati et al. (2021) confirmed that DSME significantly enhances self-care and lifestyle behaviors among T2D sufferers, thereby leading to clinical improvement. Osonuga et al. (2024) also found that DSME enhanced Nigerian patients' quality of life, self-management competence, and glycometabolic control, especially in poor-resource settings. Chowdhury et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis on 21 low-income and middle-income countries and revealed DSME interventions reduced the level of HbA1c and improved psycho-social well-being and cardiometabolic risk. Longwitz and Palokas (2022), additionally, revealed that DSME incorporating telehealth was very effective, recording an exceptional increase in best practice and personal care adherence. Individually, these studies justify the implementation of DSME programs by embracing a structured approach, while highlighting accessibility, education, and person-centered support, especially to improve diabetes control.
**Proposal**
This capstone project proposes the implementation of an eight-week, systematic DSME program to improve knowledge among adult T2D patients on Ozempic and its pairing with lifestyle management. The program will comprise one 1-hour session every week, which will involve use of visual aids, culturally appropriated tools, demonstrations, and Q&A time. The participants will undergo a self-administered knowledge survey pre-program and post-program.
Additional resources required are a certified diabetes educator (CDE), education materials both printed and electronic, and a quiet room to facilitate group learning. Nurses in advanced roles can facilitate the sessions and track participation. Community clinics, faith-based organizations, or virtual platforms can host the sessions, improving accessibility.
A timeline would include:
· Week 1: Pre-survey and orientation
· Weeks 2–7: Weekly educational sessions
· Week 8: Post-survey and evaluation
The intervention is low-cost, scalable, and aligns with current standards of diabetes education. It avoids IRB and HIPAA concerns by not accessing patient records or managing treatment directly.
**Theoretical Framework**
The Health Belief Model (HBM) is the guiding theoretical framework for this project. HBM posits that individuals are more likely to adopt health behaviors if they perceive a personal risk, believe in the efficacy of the behavior, and feel empowered to act. This aligns perfectly with DSME, which addresses perceived severity (complications of T2D), benefits (proper use of Ozempic), and self-efficacy (managing lifestyle changes). By using HBM, the DSME sessions will emphasize personal relevance, reinforce benefits of proper medication use, and reduce perceived barriers through demonstration and discussion. The theory supports structured educational interventions that engage, motivate, and empower patients to change their health behaviors. This initiative addresses a significant healthcare challenge. Poor medication literacy leads to complications, hospitalizations, and increased healthcare costs. Empowering patients with knowledge can reduce readmissions, improve quality of life, and foster independence in managing chronic conditions like T2D, even without directly modifying their medical care.
**Conclusion**
This capstone presentation describes an evidence-based, culturally sensitive DSME intervention designed to improve the knowledge and self-management of adults with type 2 diabetes treated with Ozempic. Grounded in the Health Belbelief Model, the eight-week intervention aims to enhance patients' understanding and belief in semaglutide through educationally framed sessions, real-world demonstrations, and peer support. Filling knowledge gaps without compromising patient confidentiality, the project offers a cost-effective, scalable, and ethical solution. Ultimately, the education-based intervention can achieve improved long-term health outcomes, improved adherence to medications, empowerment of vulnerable populations, and reduction of complications of diabetes, thereby enhancing patient autonomy in managing chronic disease.
**References**
American Diabetes Association. (2023).
_Annual Report on American Diabetes Association_. https://diabetes.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/ADA_2023_AnnualReport.pdf
Chowdhury, H. A., Harrison, C. L., Siddiquea, B. N., Tissera, S., Afroz, A., Ali, L., Joham, A. E., & Billah, B. (2024). The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education intervention on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk in adults with type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_PLoS ONE_,
_18_(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297328
Coningsby, I., Ainsworth, B., & Dack, C. (2022). A Qualitative Study Exploring the Barriers to Attending Structured Education Programmes among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.
_BMC Health Services Research_,
_22_(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07980-w
Ernawati, U., Wihastuti, T. A., & Utami, Y. W. (2021). Effectiveness of Diabetes self-management Education (DSME) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients: Systematic Literature Review.
_Journal of Public Health Research_,
_10_(2), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2021.2240
Longwitz, A., & Palokas, M. (2022). Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes via telehealth in conjunction with remote patient monitoring: a best practice implementation project.
_JBI Evidence Implementation_,
_21_(2). https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000360
Osonuga, A., Olufemi, K., Osonuga, O., Osonuga, A., Okoye, G., & Osonuga, A. (2024). The Impact of Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) on the Quality of Life of patients living with type-2 Diabetes Mellitus in Nigeria.
_West African Journal of Medicine_,
_41_(8), 868–873. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39736162/
**capstonepart2.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/capstonepart2-docx-10375547)
**## MSNCapstoneProjectfinal.docx**
MSN Capstone Project-DBX-DL01 Carmen Lazo
Final Capstone Project Part I, II, III
**CAPSTONE: PART I, II, III**
*PRESENT AS ONE COHESIVE FINAL CAPSTONE PAPER. USE THE CONTENT FROM CAPSTONE I,II,III COMBINED. YOUR TITLE PAGE SHOULD YOUR REFLECT THE HEALTH PROBLEM. DO NOT WRITE I, II, OR III.
NOTE: DO
**NOT** PROPOSE A CHANGE THAT REQUIRES IRB APPROVAL OR DIRECT HUMAN SUBJECT INVOLVEMENT.
**CAPSTONE: PART I**
1.
Title Page
2. Introduction to your proposed problem:
– Significance of the Practice Problem: Discuss the identified Practice Problem.
-Introduce the topic of the paper.
-Describe the health problem. Don't type "Introduction.” OR "PICOT"
-Present PICOT in a paragraph format
-Using data and statistics, support your claim that your selected issue is a problem.
– Include your purpose statement and what specifically you will address in your proposed program.
-Be sure your proposed outcome is realistic and measurable.
3. PICOT- Should be discussed in detail. This section should include your PICOT question but also should provide thorough descriptions of your population, intervention, comparison intervention, outcome, and timing (if appropriate to your question).
The word PICOT is a mnemonic derived from the elements of a clinical research question – patient, intervention, comparison, outcome, and (sometimes) time. The PICOT process begins with a case scenario, and the question is phrased to elicit an answer. P – Patient/Problem I – Intervention C – Comparison O – Outcome T – Timeframe
4. Describe the vulnerable population
-Discuss the impact of social determinants on health for your selected population.
-What are the risk factors that make this a vulnerable population?
-Use evidence to support the risk factors you have identified.
5. Research should be from scholarly journals of evidence-based interventions that address the problem.
-Peer-reviewed research articles not older than five years (all articles must be used in your paper)
6. Proposal
-Propose addressing the selected health problem using an evidence-based intervention in your literature search to address the problem in the selected population/setting.
-Include a thorough discussion of the specifics of this intervention which include resources necessary, those involved, and feasibility for a nurse in an advanced role.
-Be sure to include a timeline for the intervention proposed.
7. Theoretical Framework/Nursing Theory- This section should include the theoretical framework which supports your project. Describe a theory or model to serve as the foundation for your project.
– Overall, you should be able to introduce the problem and why this is significant to the healthcare system. For example: What impact does it have on the patient, community, cost of care, quality of life, readmissions and so forth
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 3-4 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
**CAPSTONE: PART II**
1. Review of Literature
– Review and discuss literature: Synthesize at least 10 primary research studies and/or systematic reviews; do not include summary articles. This section is all about the scientific evidence rather than someone else’s opinion of the evidence. Do not use secondary sources; you need to get the article, read it, and make your own decision about quality and applicability to your question even if you did find out about the study in a review of the literature. This is a synthesis rather than a study by study review. Address the similarities, differences, and controversies in the body of evidence.
2. Analyze and apply knowledge directly to your PICOT- The studies that you cite in this section must relate directly to your PICOT question.
3. Provide precise body of evidence for your Practice Change
4. Discuss objectives for your practice change
5. Discuss where the problem exists, why it exists, what is the preposition for change
6. Apply all that is relevant to the problem. For example: Pros vs Cons, current state of problem
NOTE:
_It should not reflect your opinion,_ but rather Evidence Based Practice should be applied
-After completing a literature search on interventions addressing your chosen health problem, write a review that evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of all the sources you have found.
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 4-6 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
**CAPSTONE: PART III**
1. Implementation/Conclusion
– Implement the change you are proposing- This should be a continuation of Part I and Part II
2. Describe the practice change; is it in the community, organizational, clinic setting and so forth
3. Discuss how you would implement and assess the change; this should include time frame, setting, participants, barriers, external and internal factors.
4. How would you evaluate the change process?
-The change must be measurable
-How would you measure or evaluate? Is there a tool to measure?
5. The literature review must support your change and implementation. Use leadership qualities and skills that will be utilized for successful completion of the project.
6. Discuss who will be invited to the proposal: who are the stakeholders?
-How will you present the information to your stakeholders?
_OVERALL:_ The conclusion should have your Part I, II, II all put together in a thorough APA format.
-Use appropriate APA 7th Ed. format along with Syllabus outline
-Scholarly, peer-reviewed, and research articles cited should be within the last five years.
-This section should be 3-4 pages long (not including the title and reference page).
-The final Capstone project should be a minimum of 8 pages and maximum of 12 pages.
-Use proper in-text citations with a properly formatted reference list.
-All papers must be written in the 3rd person.
Capstone Poster Presentation
**Part 1** Attempt feedback
**The assignment is missing a Conclusion and References as per APA. At the Master's level, you should present appropriate APA assignments. See my comments.**
****
****
****
****
**Correct part 2 feedback**
**Attempt feedback**
**The goal of the Capstone is to identify a real life issue in your community or workplace. Overall, you did not discuss your specific population (are they in Miami-Dade?) Where is your specific setting? What is the current status in the setting you identified and why did you determine change was needed? You discussed cost and reduction without statistical data. You need to show national and local data. You did not discuss articles of APRNs as leaders for the Capstone. See my comments.**
****
****
## image6.png
## image7.png
## image1.png
## image2.png
## image3.png
## image4.png
## image5.png
**## CapstonePart1.1.docx**
**Improving Knowledge of Ozempic Use through Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes**
Student Name
Course
Institution
Date
**Improving Knowledge of Ozempic Use through Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) in Adults with Type 2 Diabetes**
Type 2 diabetes (T2D) is a chronic and progressive metabolic disease that still impacts millions of Americans. Semaglutide (Ozempic), one of the newer pharmacological agents designed to improve glycemic control and help reduce weight, was recently licensed to manage T2D. While Ozempic has clinically proven to work, many patients are unaware of proper use, adverse effects, and how to incorporate the new drug therapy into their overall diabetes self-management plan. Such ignorance develops a massive issue within the treatment regimen for T2D. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC, 202), diabetes currently impacts more than 38 million Americans, and an estimated 90-95% live with type 2 diabetes. Successful education regarding new drug therapy, such as Ozempic, serves a crucial role to improve self-management and outcomes among patients.
The objective behind this proposed program is to enact a Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) intervention specifically designed to increase adult patient knowledge on Ozempic use and lifestyle self-management. The intervention will utilize pre- and post-program surveys to track self-reported change in knowledge. Educating without changing medical care or private medical information, the program does not entail Institutional Review Board (IRB) and HIPAA breaches while focusing on improved patient empowerment. The proposed end result is measurable and attainable by focusing on improved self-reported knowledge within an eight-week timeframe.
**PICOT Question**
In adult patients with type 2 diabetes (P), how does participation in a Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) program focused on Ozempic (semaglutide) use (I), compared to no DSME intervention (C), affect self-reported knowledge of medication use and lifestyle management (O) over an eight-week period (T)?
**Population (P):** Adult patients diagnosed with type 2 diabetes, aged 18 and above, capable of participating in an educational intervention.
**Intervention (I):** A structured DSME program focused on educating patients about Ozempic usage, mechanisms, side effects, administration, and integration with lifestyle modifications.
**Comparison (C):** A group of patients with T2D who receive standard care without participation in the DSME program.
**Outcome (O):** Improvement in self-reported knowledge and confidence regarding Ozempic and general diabetes management, measured using pre- and post-intervention surveys.
**Time (T):** Eight weeks, allowing for sufficient exposure to educational materials and measurable changes in knowledge.
**Vulnerable Population**
The targeted population includes type 2 diabetes adult populations, which are highly prone to negative health outcomes due to poor health literacy, comorbidities, socioeconomic problems, and problems managing chronic diseases. Many T2D sufferers experience problems following medications, embracing lifestyle changes, and regular care, especially among underserved populations. Social determinants of health (SDOH), such as income, education, food security, and care accessibility, have significant impacts on diabetes outcomes. According to the American Diabetes Association (2023), diabetes victims with poor health literacy possess increased risks of diabetes complications, including cardiovascular disease, limb loss, and kidney failure.
The impacted are disproportionately members of ethnic and racial minorities, foremost among them African Americans and Hispanics, and cultural and linguistic disparities intensify communication barriers between patients and care providers. The evidence abounds that DSME programs are up to the task, by providing targeted education and support, to diminish these barriers (Coningsby et al., 2022). Thematic focus on knowledge development empowers this most vulnerable group to manage their condition proactively.
**Literature Review**
Interventions incorporating Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) have consistently demonstrated to improve patient outcomes effectively among type 2 diabetes (T2D) adult patients. Ernawati et al. (2021) confirmed that DSME significantly enhances self-care and lifestyle behaviors among T2D sufferers, thereby leading to clinical improvement. Osonuga et al. (2024) also found that DSME enhanced Nigerian patients' quality of life, self-management competence, and glycometabolic control, especially in poor-resource settings. Chowdhury et al. (2024) conducted a meta-analysis on 21 low-income and middle-income countries and revealed DSME interventions reduced the level of HbA1c and improved psycho-social well-being and cardiometabolic risk. Longwitz and Palokas (2022), additionally, revealed that DSME incorporating telehealth was very effective, recording an exceptional increase in best practice and personal care adherence. Individually, these studies justify the implementation of DSME programs by embracing a structured approach, while highlighting accessibility, education, and person-centered support, especially to improve diabetes control.
**Proposal**
This capstone project proposes the implementation of an eight-week, systematic DSME program to improve knowledge among adult T2D patients on Ozempic and its pairing with lifestyle management. The program will comprise one 1-hour session every week, which will involve use of visual aids, culturally appropriated tools, demonstrations, and Q&A time. The participants will undergo a self-administered knowledge survey pre-program and post-program.
Additional resources required are a certified diabetes educator (CDE), education materials both printed and electronic, and a quiet room to facilitate group learning. Nurses in advanced roles can facilitate the sessions and track participation. Community clinics, faith-based organizations, or virtual platforms can host the sessions, improving accessibility.
A timeline would include:
· Week 1: Pre-survey and orientation
· Weeks 2–7: Weekly educational sessions
· Week 8: Post-survey and evaluation
The intervention is low-cost, scalable, and aligns with current standards of diabetes education. It avoids IRB and HIPAA concerns by not accessing patient records or managing treatment directly.
**Theoretical Framework**
The Health Belief Model (HBM) is the guiding theoretical framework for this project. HBM posits that individuals are more likely to adopt health behaviors if they perceive a personal risk, believe in the efficacy of the behavior, and feel empowered to act. This aligns perfectly with DSME, which addresses perceived severity (complications of T2D), benefits (proper use of Ozempic), and self-efficacy (managing lifestyle changes). By using HBM, the DSME sessions will emphasize personal relevance, reinforce benefits of proper medication use, and reduce perceived barriers through demonstration and discussion. The theory supports structured educational interventions that engage, motivate, and empower patients to change their health behaviors. This initiative addresses a significant healthcare challenge. Poor medication literacy leads to complications, hospitalizations, and increased healthcare costs. Empowering patients with knowledge can reduce readmissions, improve quality of life, and foster independence in managing chronic conditions like T2D, even without directly modifying their medical care.
**Conclusion**
This capstone presentation describes an evidence-based, culturally sensitive DSME intervention designed to improve the knowledge and self-management of adults with type 2 diabetes treated with Ozempic. Grounded in the Health Belbelief Model, the eight-week intervention aims to enhance patients' understanding and belief in semaglutide through educationally framed sessions, real-world demonstrations, and peer support. Filling knowledge gaps without compromising patient confidentiality, the project offers a cost-effective, scalable, and ethical solution. Ultimately, the education-based intervention can achieve improved long-term health outcomes, improved adherence to medications, empowerment of vulnerable populations, and reduction of complications of diabetes, thereby enhancing patient autonomy in managing chronic disease.
**References**
American Diabetes Association. (2023).
_Annual Report on American Diabetes Association_. https://diabetes.org/sites/default/files/2024-06/ADA_2023_AnnualReport.pdf
Chowdhury, H. A., Harrison, C. L., Siddiquea, B. N., Tissera, S., Afroz, A., Ali, L., Joham, A. E., & Billah, B. (2024). The effectiveness of diabetes self-management education intervention on glycaemic control and cardiometabolic risk in adults with type 2 diabetes in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
_PLoS ONE_,
_18_(2), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0297328
Coningsby, I., Ainsworth, B., & Dack, C. (2022). A Qualitative Study Exploring the Barriers to Attending Structured Education Programmes among Adults with Type 2 Diabetes.
_BMC Health Services Research_,
_22_(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-022-07980-w
Ernawati, U., Wihastuti, T. A., & Utami, Y. W. (2021). Effectiveness of Diabetes self-management Education (DSME) in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) patients: Systematic Literature Review.
_Journal of Public Health Research_,
_10_(2), 198–202. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2021.2240
Longwitz, A., & Palokas, M. (2022). Diabetes self-management education for adults with type 2 diabetes via telehealth in conjunction with remote patient monitoring: a best practice implementation project.
_JBI Evidence Implementation_,
_21_(2). https://doi.org/10.1097/xeb.0000000000000360
Osonuga, A., Olufemi, K., Osonuga, O., Osonuga, A., Okoye, G., & Osonuga, A. (2024). The Impact of Diabetes Self-Management Education (DSME) on the Quality of Life of patients living with type-2 Diabetes Mellitus in Nigeria.
_West African Journal of Medicine_,
_41_(8), 868–873. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39736162/
**capstonepart2.docx**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/capstonepart2-docx-10375547)
– 1
– 2
– 3