| Course | PA 502 Evidence Based Medicine |
|---|---|
| Week | 7 |
| Paper type | Patient decision aid draft |
| Length | About 900 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Physician Assistant Studies (MPAS) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PA 502 Week 7
Decision Aid Draft: Should You Aim for a Lower Blood Pressure? A One-Page Guide for Adults 75 and Older With Treated High Blood Pressure
Student Name
Chamberlain University
PA 502: Evidence Based Medicine
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Decision Aid Draft: Should You Aim for a Lower Blood Pressure? A One-Page Guide for Adults 75 and Older With Treated High Blood Pressure
Purpose of the Draft
This is a one-page decision aid, drafted for patients aged 75 or older with treated high blood pressure and no diabetes or prior stroke, such as the 76-year-old whose question started this course's thread. It is meant to be read before or during a visit and discussed with a clinician. The draft is reproduced below as the patient would see it, followed by notes on how its numbers were built and what it leaves out.
The Aid, as the Patient Would Read It
Your blood pressure is treated, and your top number is usually in the 130s or 140s. Some guidelines suggest aiming lower, below 130 or even 120, measured carefully in the clinic. Others suggest staying below 140 or 150 for most people your age. This page shows what is known about aiming lower, so you can decide with your clinician what matters most to you.
What happens to 100 people like you over about 3 years.
Table 1
Aiming Lower Versus Keeping the Current Target, Out of 100 People Over About 3 Years
| Keep your current target, about 140 | Aim lower, about 120 | |
|---|---|---|
| Heart attack, stroke, heart failure or death from heart disease | About 11 of 100 people | About 8 of 100 people |
| Death from any cause | About 8 of 100 people | About 6 of 100 people |
| Serious episode of kidney injury | About 3 of 100 people | About 4 of 100 people |
| Serious episode of very low blood pressure | About 1 of 100 people | About 2 of 100 people |
| Fainting serious enough to need hospital care | About 2 of 100 people | About 2 of 100 people |
| Extra medicine or higher doses | No change | Usually one more medicine or a higher dose |
| Extra blood tests and visits | Usual schedule | More often for the first few months |
Note. Note. Benefit and death figures from SPRINT participants aged 75 or older (Williamson et al., 2016); harm figures from all SPRINT participants (SPRINT Research Group, 2015).
Things to think about. Which matters more to you: lowering your chance of a heart attack or stroke a little, or avoiding extra pills, blood tests and the chance of feeling dizzy? Do you have trouble with dizziness or falls now? Would you be able to come in or call more often for a few months? There is no wrong answer. Many people choose each option.
How the Numbers Were Built
The benefit figures come from the trial's older subgroup, in which 148 of 1,319 in the standard group and 102 of 1,317 in the intensive group had a primary outcome event, and 107 and 73 died, over a median of 3.14 years (Williamson et al., 2016). These round to about 11 and 8 of 100 for events and about 8 and 6 of 100 for deaths. The harm figures come from the whole trial, because the subgroup report did not give each serious adverse event separately in the material I used: acute kidney injury in 2.5% and 4.1%, hypotension in 1.4% and 2.4%, and syncope in 1.7% and 2.3% of the standard and intensive groups (SPRINT Research Group, 2015). Rounded to whole people, these become 3 and 4, 1 and 2, and 2 and 2 of 100. The table states this difference in source in its note, because mixing populations without saying so would mislead.
One Denominator, One Period
Every figure on the page is per 100 people over about three years. Benefits are not given as relative risk reductions, which would make the lower target look more impressive than the absolute difference warrants, and harms are not given as rare-sounding percentages while benefits are given as counts. Using the same format on both sides lets the reader see that the benefit is about 3 fewer events per 100, and the harms are about 1 more kidney injury and 1 more episode of low pressure per 100.
What the Aid Leaves Out
The aid does not explain the trial's measurement method, which used several automated readings after rest. That point matters for the clinician, who must measure blood pressure the same way before applying the lower target, but it would clutter a one-page aid. It also does not cover people with diabetes, a prior stroke or limited mobility, for whom the evidence differs.
Room for What the Reader Values
The aid ends with questions rather than a recommendation, because the right choice depends on what the person values. Some people would accept more pills and tests for a small reduction in stroke risk; others, especially those already troubled by dizziness, would not. A guideline from internal medicine and family medicine recommends that targets for adults over 60 be chosen through periodic discussion of benefits and harms with the patient (Qaseem et al., 2017), and this aid is a tool for that discussion.
Testing the Draft
Before use, I would test the draft with three patients over 75 for readability and ask whether any line pushed them toward one option. If it did, that line would be rewritten.
References
Qaseem, A., Wilt, T. J., Rich, R., Humphrey, L. L., Frost, J., & Forciea, M. A. (2017). Pharmacologic treatment of hypertension in adults aged 60 years or older to higher versus lower blood pressure targets: A clinical practice guideline from the American College of Physicians and the American Academy of Family Physicians. Annals of Internal Medicine, 166(6), 430-437. https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-1785
SPRINT Research Group. (2015). A randomized trial of intensive versus standard blood-pressure control. New England Journal of Medicine, 373(22), 2103-2116. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1511939
Williamson, J. D., Supiano, M. A., Applegate, W. B., Berlowitz, D. R., Campbell, R. C., Chertow, G. M., Fine, L. J., Haley, W. E., Hawfield, A. T., Ix, J. H., Kitzman, D. W., Kostis, J. B., Krousel-Wood, M. A., Launer, L. J., Oparil, S., Rodriguez, C. J., Roumie, C. L., Shorr, R. I., Sink, K. M., . . . Pajewski, N. M. (2016). Intensive vs standard blood pressure control and cardiovascular disease outcomes in adults aged 75 years or older: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 315(24), 2673-2682. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.7050
What the PA 502 Week 7 assignment asks for
The seventh week asks you to draft a one-page decision aid for patients facing a choice. Write to the person, in the second person, and state the decision as they face it. Set the options side by side, including doing nothing or keeping current care as its own option. Present benefits and harms as whole people out of 100, with one denominator and one period throughout. Avoid relative risk figures, which make benefits look larger than they are. Explain in notes how the numbers were built and from which sources. Leave room for what the reader values, and end with questions rather than a recommendation. Plan how you would test the draft with real readers.
Inside the PA 502 Week 7 example
The aid tells the reader their pressure is treated and that guidelines disagree on how low to aim. Its table shows, out of 100 people over about three years, about 11 versus 8 with a heart attack, stroke, heart failure or cardiac death, about 8 versus 6 deaths, about 3 versus 4 serious kidney injuries and about 1 versus 2 serious low-pressure episodes, plus extra pills and visits. Questions ask what matters more, avoiding a stroke or avoiding pills and dizziness. Notes explain that benefits come from the older subgroup and harms from the whole trial, why every figure uses the same denominator and why measurement detail was left for the clinician.
Where the points sit in the PA 502 Week 7 rubric
The draft that loses most argues a case, producing a leaflet that recommends a course of action instead of something that helps a person choose. Next is a mismatch of formats, with benefit given as a number and harm as a list of side effects, or benefit as a relative reduction and harm as a small percentage. Aids that omit the option of keeping current care, mix denominators or periods, or end with a recommendation also lose points. Strong drafts speak to the reader, show options in parallel columns including doing nothing, use whole people out of 100 over one period, explain their sources and leave room for the reader's values. Planning to test the draft with real readers shows awareness that a decision aid is judged by its users.
PA 502 Week 7 help from the desk
Decision aids look simple, but keeping them balanced is hard, and most drafts drift toward recommending one option. If you share the decision and the evidence you are using, we can help you convert results into whole people out of 100, keep one denominator and period throughout and present the option of keeping current care fairly. We can also help you write questions that draw out what the reader values. Your draft remains your own. If your instructor names a standard for decision aids, such as international criteria, tell us, and the custom sample will check the draft against it.
Get a PA-502 Week 7 example written to your instructions
Send the assignment instructions and whichever figures your section wants converted, or the paper they came from, and the draft is built on those rather than on invented numbers. A custom PA-502 Week 7 decision aid written to your rubric is returned within 24-48h, and the first one is free.
More PA 502 papers and MPAS samples
- PA 502 Week 1: Clinical Question Post
- PA 502 Week 2: Bedside Question Brief
- PA 502 Week 3: NNT Calculation
- PA 502 Week 4: Surrogate Outcome Critique
- PA 502 Week 5: Applicability Write-Up
- PA 502 Week 6: Guideline Comparison
- PA 502 Week 8: Journal Club Brief
- PA 501 Week 7: Professional Conduct Case
PA 502 Week 7 questions, answered
Do I need a graphic, or will the numbers do?
Check the assignment wording, since a visual element is required in some sections and left to the writer in others. Where nobody insists, a simple grid of a hundred squares with the affected ones shaded carries more than a chart type nobody recognizes. The figure in the picture has to be the figure in the text, which sounds obvious and is the commonest inconsistency in these drafts.
How do I show uncertainty without alarming anybody?
In a short sentence beside the number, in the same register as the rest of the page: this figure comes from one study and could change. Readers handle that better than most drafts assume, and removing it produces a page that overclaims. What causes alarm is a range with no explanation, not the admission itself.
Should the aid say what I would recommend?
Most rubrics mark this down, because the document is meant to inform a choice rather than steer one. Where a section does ask for a recommendation, keep it separate and labeled, so a reader can see where the figures end and an opinion begins. The rest of the page stays even in the space each option gets.
Where can I find a free PA 502 Week 7 sample paper?
This page holds the complete PA 502 Week 7 decision aid draft on lower blood pressure targets for adults 75 and older.
How does the PA 502 Week 7 sample show benefit and harm?
As whole people out of 100 over about three years for both options, such as about 11 versus 8 with a major cardiovascular event.