| Course | NUR 656 Primary Care of Women |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 9 |
| Paper type | comprehensive preventive care plan for a midlife woman |
| Length | About 1,010 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Southern New Hampshire University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | September 2026 |
Free sample paper for NUR 656 Module 9
Final Project: A Comprehensive Midlife Prevention Plan for a 58-Year-Old Woman
[Student Name]
Southern New Hampshire University
NUR 656: Primary Care of Women
Module Nine Final Project
[Instructor Name]
[Date]
The organization, setting and figures below are a composite written as a model document. No real employer, client, colleague or patient is described.
Final Project: A Comprehensive Midlife Prevention Plan for a 58-Year-Old Woman
Midlife is when preventive care pays off most, because many cancers and fractures that screening can prevent or detect early become common in these years. It is also when many women fall behind, pulled away by work, caregiving and competing health concerns. When a woman returns after years without care, the clinician faces a long list of overdue tests and a risk of overwhelming her. Gloria, 58, came back to a composite community health center after four years away. This final project develops her prevention plan. It argues that applying each guideline precisely to her age and risk, offering real choices where they exist, sequencing tests into a manageable plan and addressing the barriers that kept her away will make prevention achievable rather than aspirational.
The Patient
Gloria works as a hotel housekeeper and has no paid sick leave. She has been generally well. She smoked a pack a day from age 20 until she quit two years ago, a history of about 36 pack-years. Her last mammogram and cervical cytology were four and six years ago, both normal. She has never had colorectal screening. Her mother had a hip fracture at 70, and Gloria has a body mass index of 21. She reached menopause at 51 and has taken no hormones. She drinks alcohol rarely. Her blood pressure today is 132/82. She says she stayed away because of cost, fear of what tests might find and not wanting to lose a day's wages.
Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening
Under the Task Force's 2024 update, women should have a mammogram every other year starting at 40 and continuing through 74 (Nicholson et al., 2024). Gloria is overdue and should resume screening now, with a mammogram every two years. For cervical cancer, women in their thirties through 65 may choose a three-year cytology cycle or one of two five-year options, HPV testing alone or combined with cytology, and screening may stop after 65 if prior screening has been adequate and normal. Gloria's last cytology was six years ago, so she is overdue. Primary HPV testing was offered, since a negative result would allow a five-year interval and could make her current test one of her last; she chose it.
Colorectal Cancer Screening
Davidson et al. (2021) presented the USPSTF recommendation to screen adults aged 45 to 75 for colorectal cancer, noting that several strategies are acceptable, including annual fecal immunochemical testing, stool DNA testing with fecal immunochemical testing every one to three years, CT colonography every five years, flexible sigmoidoscopy every five years or colonoscopy every ten years. Any positive stool-based or imaging test must be followed by colonoscopy. Gloria's concern about missing work made the choice important. Colonoscopy requires a day off plus preparation, while a fecal immunochemical test can be done at home and mailed. After discussing effectiveness and follow-up, she chose a yearly home stool immunochemical test, knowing that an abnormal result would mean a colonoscopy and that the clinic would help her arrange it.
Lung Cancer Screening
Krist et al. (2021) presented the USPSTF advice that yearly low-dose CT be offered to people in their fifties, sixties and seventies, up to 80, whose smoking adds up to 20 pack-years or more, provided they still smoke or stopped less than fifteen years ago. Gloria's 36 pack-years and quitting two years ago make her eligible. Screening should be preceded by a shared decision-making conversation about benefits, including reduced lung cancer mortality, and harms, including false positives, incidental findings and radiation exposure. After this discussion, she agreed to screening. Her success in quitting was acknowledged, and she was encouraged to stay smoke-free, which remains her most important protection.
Bone Health
Curry et al. (2018) presented the USPSTF recommendation to screen women 65 and older for osteoporosis with bone density testing and to screen postmenopausal women younger than 65 who are at increased risk, as determined by a formal clinical risk assessment tool. Gloria's parental hip fracture, history of smoking and low body weight all raise her risk. Her ten-year probability of major osteoporotic fracture calculated with a validated tool exceeded the threshold used to identify younger women at comparable risk, so a dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry scan was ordered. Calcium and vitamin D intake, weight-bearing exercise and fall prevention were discussed.
Sequencing and Barriers
Together, the plan includes a mammogram, an HPV test, a stool test, a lung CT and a bone density scan. To make it manageable, the HPV test was done at today's visit and the stool test kit sent home with her. The mammogram, lung CT and bone density scan were scheduled at the regional imaging center on a single morning on her day off, with the clinic's community health worker arranging transportation. Cost was addressed by enrolling her in the state's breast and cervical cancer early detection program and confirming that her insurance covers the other tests without cost sharing as preventive services. Her fear was addressed directly: she was told what each test looks for, how results would be communicated and that finding something early usually means simpler treatment. A follow-up visit was scheduled in six weeks to review all results together.
Conclusion
Gloria returned after four years with five overdue or newly indicated screenings. Applying each USPSTF recommendation precisely to her age, smoking history and fracture risk, offering choices where the guidelines allow, sequencing the tests into two visits and addressing cost, time off work and fear turns a daunting list into a plan she can complete, and a follow-up visit ensures that results lead to action.
Other preventive care was reviewed briefly so that nothing was lost in the focus on cancer and bone screening. Her pressure of 132/82 goes on the list for a repeat reading in six weeks, lipids and diabetes screening were drawn today and her vaccines were updated, including the recombinant zoster vaccine and a tetanus booster. Depression screening was negative. These items were kept short so that the visit stayed focused on the plan she agreed to.
References
Curry, S. J., Krist, A. H., Owens, D. K., Barry, M. J., Caughey, A. B., Davidson, K. W., Doubeni, C. A., Epling, J. W., Kemper, A. R., Kubik, M., Landefeld, C. S., Mangione, C. M., Phipps, M. G., Pignone, M., Silverstein, M., Simon, M. A., Tseng, C. W., & Wong, J. B. (2018). Screening for osteoporosis to prevent fractures: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 319(24), 2521-2531. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.7498
Davidson, K. W., Barry, M. J., Mangione, C. M., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Krist, A. H., Kubik, M., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Owens, D. K., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Stevermer, J., Tseng, C. W., & Wong, J. B. (2021). Screening for colorectal cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(19), 1965-1977. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.6238
Krist, A. H., Davidson, K. W., Mangione, C. M., Barry, M. J., Cabana, M., Caughey, A. B., Davis, E. M., Donahue, K. E., Doubeni, C. A., Kubik, M., Landefeld, C. S., Li, L., Ogedegbe, G., Owens, D. K., Pbert, L., Silverstein, M., Stevermer, J., Tseng, C. W., & Wong, J. B. (2021). Screening for lung cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 325(10), 962-970. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.1117
Nicholson, W. K., Silverstein, M., Wong, J. B., Barry, M. J., Chelmow, D., Coker, T. R., Davis, E. M., Jaén, C. R., Krousel-Wood, M., Lee, S., Li, L., Mangione, C. M., Rao, G., Ruiz, J. M., Stevermer, J. J., Tsevat, J., Underwood, S. M., & Wiehe, S. (2024). Screening for breast cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. JAMA, 331(22), 1918-1930. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.5534
What the NUR 656 Module 9 instructions ask for
The closing NUR 656 project generally calls for a single, integrated care plan for one woman that brings together screening, prevention and management across several areas. Expect to present the patient, apply current guidelines precisely to her age and risk factors and describe how the plan will be carried out. Plan on eight to ten pages in APA 7. Use the most recent version of each recommendation with its exact age range and interval, show the risk calculation where eligibility depends on it, offer choices where the guidelines allow them, include required shared decision-making conversations, sequence tests so the plan is manageable and address the barriers of cost, time and fear directly. Include the vaccines and cardiovascular checks that are due.
How this NUR 656 Module 9 final project example is built
This project builds a prevention plan for a composite 58-year-old returning after four years, a former smoker with 36 pack-years and a mother with a hip fracture. It applies the Nicholson 2024 USPSTF recommendation for biennial mammography, cervical screening through 65 with primary HPV testing, the Davidson colorectal recommendation with a choice of annual stool testing, the Krist lung recommendation with shared decision making and the Curry osteoporosis recommendation for at-risk women under 65. Tests are sequenced into two contacts, and cost, transportation and fear are each addressed. Vaccines, lipids and blood pressure are handled briefly so the main plan stays in focus, and a community health worker helps with rides.
Where the NUR 656 Module 9 rubric puts the points
Grading of the final project commonly weighs the completeness of the assessment, accurate and current application of guidelines, individualized risk assessment, patient choice and shared decision making, feasibility and sequencing, attention to barriers and equity and APA 7 writing. Top-band projects state each recommendation's age range and interval correctly, including recent changes such as the lower age for mammography. Graders reward eligibility calculations for lung and bone screening, documented shared decisions and plans that account for the patient's work and finances. Sequencing tests into a realistic schedule shows the practical judgment that distinguishes excellent work. Covering vaccines and cardiovascular risk alongside cancer screening shows completeness.
NUR 656 Module 9 help: the mistakes that cost points
Prevention plans lose points when outdated guidelines are used, when eligibility for lung or bone screening is not calculated, when choices are not offered where guidelines allow them or when the plan is a list without a schedule. Another gap is ignoring why the patient stayed away. Use current recommendations with exact ages and intervals, calculate eligibility, offer options, document shared decisions, sequence the tests and address cost, time and fear. If your project involves a younger woman, a patient with chronic disease or a woman over 65, send the details with your NUR 656 prompt so the plan fits. Update vaccines at the same visit.
Get NUR 656 Module 9 written to your instructions
Share the NUR 656 final project case, your template and the grading criteria, and the plan you receive will apply current guidelines precisely, calculate eligibility, offer real choices, sequence the tests and address the patient's barriers, within 24 to 48 hours, free the first time. The paper above is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Southern New Hampshire University document.
More NUR 656 papers and related MSN samples
- NUR 656 Module 1 Discussion: Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals by Age
- NUR 656 Module 2 SOAP Note: Contraception for a Woman With Migraine With Aura
- NUR 656 Module 3 Milestone One: The First Prenatal Visit at Nine Weeks
- NUR 656 Module 4 SOAP Note: Uncomplicated Cystitis in a 24-Year-Old
- NUR 656 Module 5 Case Study: Heavy Menstrual Bleeding at 44: Working Through PALM-COEIN
- NUR 656 Module 6 SOAP Note: Hot Flashes at 52 and a Shared Hormone Therapy Decision
- NUR 656 Module 7 Milestone Two: Screening for Intimate Partner Violence
- NUR 656 Module 8 SOAP Note: Vaginal Discharge at 29: Amsel Criteria and Bacterial Vaginosis
- NUR 603 Module 4 Study Design Critique: Vitamin D Cohorts Versus the VITAL Trial
- NUR 550 Module 5 Evidence Synthesis: What the Evidence on Multicomponent Delirium Prevention Says Together
- NUR 601 Module 10 Journal: Reasoning From the Control Loop
- NUR 555 Module 7 Milestone Two: Immune Thrombocytopenia and Heparin-Induced Thrombocytopenia Compared
NUR 656 Module 9 questions, answered
Where can I find a free NUR 656 Module 9 Final Project sample?
This page carries the full plan: a 58-year-old's breast, cervical, colorectal and lung cancer screening and bone health, sequenced around her barriers.
When should women get mammograms under the 2024 USPSTF recommendation?
Once every two years, beginning at 40 and ending after 74.
Who is eligible for lung cancer screening?
People 50 through 80 whose smoking history reaches 20 pack-years, if they still smoke or stopped within fifteen years.
What colorectal screening options are acceptable?
Annual FIT, stool DNA-FIT every one to three years, CT colonography or sigmoidoscopy every five years or colonoscopy every ten years.
Should women under 65 have bone density testing?
Postmenopausal women under 65 at increased risk by a formal risk assessment, such as those with a parental hip fracture, should be screened.