For information and reference only – not to be submitted as your own work. This model extract shows how a 500–600 word draft research protocol can be organised under the four headings set in the UCD Chronic Illness Management research brief. It uses a different illustrative topic from any real student’s work. Use it to understand structure and depth, then write your own protocol on your own topic, following UCD’s academic integrity rules.
What the brief asks for
The UCD chronic illness management research draft brief asks for a draft protocol of 500–600 words, written in full text under four headings: Research Problem; Research Question and Paradigm; Research Design; and Methods and Tools. Some references are expected, and the reference list is not counted. For a full explanation, read how to write a draft research protocol for chronic illness management.
| Heading | What this extract shows | Approx. words |
|---|---|---|
| Research Problem | Irish context, the gap, purpose statement | 140 |
| Research Question and Paradigm | PEO question, post-positivist rationale | 120 |
| Research Design | Descriptive cross-sectional survey and its limits | 110 |
| Methods and Tools | Setting, sample, validated scale, analysis, ethics | 190 |
Model extract: draft research protocol
Working title: Self-efficacy for managing type 2 diabetes among adults attending a general practice Chronic Disease Management review in Ireland
Research Problem
Type 2 diabetes is one of the conditions covered by the HSE Chronic Disease Management (CDM) programme, which offers structured reviews in general practice to eligible patients (HSE, n.d.). Structured review alone does not guarantee better outcomes. Most day-to-day diabetes care is carried out by the person at home, and models of chronic care place the informed, activated patient at the centre of good outcomes (Wagner, 1998). Self-efficacy, a person’s confidence in their ability to manage their condition, is a recognised target of self-management programmes (Lorig et al., 2001). However, little local data describe how confident adults attending CDM reviews feel about managing symptoms, diet and medication. Without this, practice nurses cannot target education to those who need it most. This study aims to describe self-efficacy levels in this group and how they vary by age and years since diagnosis.
Research Question and Paradigm
The question was developed using the PEO framework (Population, Exposure, Outcome): “What are the levels of self-efficacy for managing chronic disease among adults with type 2 diabetes attending a CDM review in one general practice, and do they differ by age group and duration of diagnosis?”
The study sits within a post-positivist paradigm. Self-efficacy is treated as a construct that can be measured with a validated instrument, while accepting that any measurement carries error (Creswell and Creswell, 2018). This fits a question about levels and differences rather than lived experience.
Research Design
A quantitative, descriptive cross-sectional survey design will be used. Data are collected once, from each participant, at the time of their CDM review. This design is efficient for describing a characteristic within a defined population and for comparing subgroups (Polit and Beck, 2021). Its main limitation is that it cannot establish cause and effect; any difference by age or duration will be reported as an association only. Reporting will follow the STROBE guidance for observational studies (von Elm et al., 2007).
Methods and Tools
Setting and population: one general practice enrolled in the CDM programme (state the county in your own protocol). Inclusion: adults aged 18 or over with a recorded diagnosis of type 2 diabetes, able to read English, attending a CDM review during the data collection period. Exclusion: people with a recorded cognitive impairment or acute illness at the visit.
Sampling: consecutive convenience sampling over six weeks, aiming for approximately 40 participants (both figures illustrative), which is feasible for a small practice-based project.
Tool: the six-item Self-Efficacy for Managing Chronic Disease scale (Lorig et al., 2001), scored from 1 (not at all confident) to 10 (totally confident), plus a short demographic section (age group, sex, years since diagnosis). Permission and scoring guidance will be confirmed before use.
Analysis: descriptive statistics (mean, standard deviation) for the total score; comparison between subgroups using an independent t-test or Mann–Whitney U test depending on distribution.
Ethics: approval will be sought from the relevant research ethics committee. Participation is voluntary with written informed consent, and the questionnaire is anonymous. Data handling will comply with the Health Research Regulations (Government of Ireland, 2018).
Need a model protocol built around your own clinical topic? Send us your brief and a nursing specialist will prepare structured guidance and a reference answer.
Why this extract works
- Each heading does one job, and the question, paradigm, design and tool line up with each other.
- The Irish context is specific: a named national programme rather than general statistics.
- The design limitation is stated openly, which shows critical awareness even in a draft.
- Seven references are used in Harvard style, which is more than enough for a draft stage.
Related guidance
- Another Irish health research sample: GP5101 cardiovascular disease in primary care sample
- Specialist support: nursing assignment help in Ireland
Short on time before your draft is due? Submit your assignment brief. You receive guidance and a model answer for reference; the protocol you submit must be your own work.
About the expert
Murphy Birns holds a Master in Critical Care Nursing and has 2,300 completed orders on Ireland Assignment Help.
References
Creswell, J.W. and Creswell, J.D. (2018) Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. 5th edn. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Government of Ireland (2018) Data Protection Act 2018 (Section 36(2)) (Health Research) Regulations 2018 (S.I. No. 314 of 2018). Dublin: Stationery Office. Available at: https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/si/314 (Accessed: 20 October 2026).
HSE (n.d.) Enhanced Community Care: Chronic Disease Management programme. Available at: https://www.hse.ie/eng/services/list/2/primarycare/chronic-disease-management-programme (Accessed: 20 October 2026).
Lorig, K.R., Sobel, D.S., Ritter, P.L., Laurent, D. and Hobbs, M. (2001) ‘Effect of a self-management program on patients with chronic disease’, Effective Clinical Practice, 4(6), pp. 256–262.
Polit, D.F. and Beck, C.T. (2021) Nursing research: generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice. 11th edn. Philadelphia: Wolters Kluwer.
von Elm, E., Altman, D.G., Egger, M., Pocock, S.J., Gøtzsche, P.C. and Vandenbroucke, J.P. (2007) ‘The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies’, The Lancet, 370(9596), pp. 1453–1457.
Wagner, E.H. (1998) ‘Chronic disease management: what will it take to improve care for chronic illness?’, Effective Clinical Practice, 1(1), pp. 2–4.
