NURS 8310 Epidemiology and Population Health Weekly Discussions & Assignments

NURS 8310 WEEK 2 DISCUSSION: DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY: DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION

Descriptive epidemiology deals with describing disease patterns using three major categories: person, place, or time (Friis & Sellers, 2021). Consider the following example:

Over the last weekend, six people went to the Alcan City Hospital emergency room with similar symptoms. The laboratory results for the six patients were indicative of an infection due to Escherichia coli (E. coli). Patient interviews revealed they had all eaten a meal at Sam’s Sandwich Food Truck during the Alcan City Fair within 48 hours of going to the hospital. Further inquiries by the Alcan City public health officials identified that the source of the E. coli contamination was the lettuce that Sam’s had purchased from M&L Produce (a produce supplier located in Tempe, Arizona). Epidemiologists from the Arizona State Health Department determined that the lettuce that M&L supplied Sam’s was from a farm located in Xion, California (the key supplier for M&L Produce).

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8310 Epidemiology and Population Health Weekly Discussions & Assignments HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

Aside from the six patients who sought treatment, epidemiologists tracked down and conducted interviews with 400 of the fair attendees to identify any potential cases who did not seek treatment and compare data with those who attended but did not become ill. Interview questions pertained to descriptive aspects of the outbreak (person, place, and time). Analysis of data collected on foods eaten allowed the epidemiologists to narrow it down and identify sandwiches served by Sam’s Sandwich Food Truck at the fair on Saturday as the source of infection. Alcan City public health officials were quick to visit the food truck to inquire into their food management and handling. The food truck owner was cooperative and helpful in providing licensing, permits, operations, and sales information.

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS 8310 Epidemiology and Population Health Weekly Discussions & Assignments

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

Descriptive epidemiologic studies are often conducted as precursors to analytic studies. Epidemiologic concepts are used to gather data to better understand and evaluate health trends in populations. Data, such as characteristics of the persons affected, place where an incident occurred, and time of occurrence, are collected and analyzed to look for patterns in an effort to identify emerging health problems. It was in just this way that the HIV/AIDS epidemic was first identified.

In this Discussion, you will apply the epidemiologic concepts of time, place, and person to a specific population health problem. You will also consider methods for obtaining data to study an issue.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 6, “Using Information Technology to Improve Population Outcomes”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 4, “Descriptive Epidemiology: Person, Place, Time”

Chapter 5, “Sources of Data for Use in Epidemiology”

National Institutes of Health National Library of Medicine. (2019). Finding and using health statistics.Links to an external site. https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/stats_tutorial/cover.html

SECONDARY DATA SOURCES

Use the following resources to locate secondary data sources for this week’s Assignment:

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). Data.CDC.gov: Home.Links to an external site. https://data.cdc.gov/

National Center for Health Statistics. (2015). Resources for researchers.Links to an external site. https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nchs_for_you/researchers.htm

Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services. (n.d.). Explore existing datasets.Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/student-research/data-sources

World Health Organization. (2021). WHO Data collectionsLinks to an external site. [Data sets]. https://www.who.int/data/collections

Required Media

Secondary Data Sources for Population Health

Time Estimate: 2 minutes

Walden University, LLC. (2021). Descriptive epidemiology—person, place, and timeLinks to an external site. [Interactive media]. Walden University Blackboard. https://class.waldenu.edu

Walden University, LLC. (2021). Theoretical models—One Health and socioecological modelLinks to an external site.[Interactive media]. Walden University Blackboard. https://class.waldenu.edu

TO PREPARE:

Examine Table 2.2 in your Curley textbook. Select a topic from the table to use for this Discussion.

Locate two scholarly articles that provide background information about the problem.

Identify a specific population affected by your selected health problem.

Research the patterns of the disease in your selected population using the epidemiologic characteristics of person, place, and time.

Consider methods for obtaining data to examine the association you selected.

Ask yourself: How would the methods I select influence the accuracy of case identification, definition, and diagnosis

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 2

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Describe your selected health problem using the epidemiologic model (person, place, and time), with a focus on the population affected by this problem.

Discuss sampling methods you could use to collect primary data to describe and study your health problem.

Identify two secondary data sources that you could use to collect the data needed to address this topic.

Explain how these methods and sources would influence the completeness of case identification as well as the case definition/diagnostic criteria used.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 2

Respond to at least two colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

NURS_8310_Week2_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
10 pts

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 2 ASSIGNMENT: STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF SECONDARY DATA SOURCES

In this information age, where data are readily accessible and there is both a great demand for accelerated research projects and strict limitations on research funding, using existing data makes sense. Data used in this way are called secondary data; they come in many forms and contain information on just about anything—depending on who collected the information in the first place, and why.

As a health professional, you have access to a wide range of secondary data sources, including government agencies (such as, the Census Bureau or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private sources, including local health service providers. Global and international data are available from familiar sources, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. In addition, nearly every nation maintains statistics on social, economic, and environmental indicators, which contain a wealth of health information.

As a member of the Walden community, you have access to the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the world’s largest archival database of secondary data. You also have access to the Social Change Impact Report (SCIR) data sets—a Walden-owned database. There are also a number of sources and tutorials available to you through Walden’s Office of Research and Doctoral Quality.

No matter the topic—be it vaccination rates, women’s access to mammography, or chronic lung disease—you can probably find an existing secondary data source related to the specific population health problem you are investigating. The next steps are to identify the variables in the data source that you would need to analyze to examine the association of interest and to assess the validity of the data source. For this Assignment, you delve into these issues in greater detail.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources lik to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

TO PREPARE:

Consider a variety of population health problems and then select one of professional interest on which to focus for this Assignment.

Explore three data sources (data sets) presented in the Learning Resources that could aid you in describing the population and magnitude of the problem you selected. Consider the strengths and limitations of each data source.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In 3–4 pages (not including title page and references), analyze the data sources you selected by addressing the following:

Briefly identify the population health problem you selected.

Identify each data set you selected.

Identify the variables in each data set you would need to examine the association of interest.

Assess the validity of each data set. Has it been used for prior studies/publications?Explain challenges you might face as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 2

Submit your Assignment.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK2Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial

Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week2_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 3–4 pages (not including title page and references), analyze the data sources you selected by addressing the following: Briefly identify the population health problem you selected.
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies the selected population health problem.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

The response accurately identifies the selected population health problem.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the selected population health problem.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the selected population health problem, or it is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIdentify each data set you selected. Identify the variables in each data set you would need to examine the association of interest.
40 to >35.0 pts

Excellent

The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies each data set…. The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies the variables in each data set needed to examine the association of interest.

35 to >31.0 pts

Good

The response accurately identifies each data set…. The response accurately identifies the variables in each data set needed to examine the association of interest.

31 to >27.0 pts

Fair

The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies each data set…. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the variables in each data set needed to examine the association of interest.

27 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies each data set, or it is missing…. The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the variables in each data set needed to examine the association of interest, or it is missing.
40 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAssess the validity of each data set. Has it been used for prior studies/publications?

40 to >35.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of the validity of each data set is provided, including whether it has been used in prior studies/publications.

35 to >31.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of the validity of each data set is provided, including whether it has been used in prior studies/publications.

31 to >27.0 pts
Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of the validity of each data set and whether it has been used in prior studies/publications is provided.

27 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague, or incomplete explanation of the validity of each data set and whether it has been used in prior studies/publications is provided, or it is missing.
40 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain challenges you might face as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it.

35 to >31.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of potential challenges as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it is provided.

31 to >27.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of potential challenges as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it is provided.

27 to >24.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of potential challenges as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it is provided.

24 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague explanation of potential challenges as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it is provided, or it is missing.

35 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

3 to >0 pts
Poor

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
5 pts

Total Points: 150

PreviousNext

NURS 8310 WEEK 3 DISCUSSION: OBSERVATIONAL STUDY DESIGNS

A clinical pediatric nurse has noticed a rise in childhood asthma diagnoses among the Hispanic population served by the local clinic. The nurse is concerned about this increase in asthma incidence in the patient population and turns to the literature to explore current research on this topic. The nurse finds, through the reading, that there appears to be an association between parental smoking and childhood asthma and wonders if this could be the cause of the rise in cases.

This type of suspected association between a risk factor (exposure) and a particular outcome (childhood asthma) can be evaluated using an observational study design. A relevant case-control study would match a group of controls (no asthma) with the case group (asthma diagnosis). Both groups would then be assessed on certain historical exposures like (a) family history; (b) early childhood respiratory infections; (c) secondhand smoke exposure; (d) urban residence (ozone); and (e) obesity. Measures might include interviews, surveys, and medical records. If results show the case group has a higher rate of exposure to a given risk factor, the researcher may conclude that exposure results in greater odds of asthma.

In any epidemiological study, the design and methodology used should be appropriate for that study and for the research question. It is important for researchers to understand the strengths and limitations of each of the study designs and methods. This gives them a better chance of correctly interpreting results and synthesizing them for use in developing and implementing evidence-based population health programs. For this Discussion, you will explore the strengths and limitations of various types of observational study designs and critique their appropriateness for specific studies.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 6, “Study Designs: Ecologic, Cross-Sectional, Case Control”

Chapter 7, “Study Designs: Cohort Studies”

Bahr, R., Clarsen, B., Derman, W., Dvorak, J., Emery, C. A., Finch, C. F., Hägglund, M., Junge, A., Kemp, S., Khan, K. M., Marshall, S. W., Meeuwisse, W., Mountjoy, M., Orchard, J. W., Pluim, B., Quarrie, K. L., Reider, B., Schwellnus, M., Soligard, T., Stokes, K. A., … Chamari, K. (2020). International Olympic Committee consensus statement: methods for recording and reporting of epidemiological data on injury and illness in sport 2020 (including STROBE Extension for Sport Injury and Illness Surveillance (STROBE-SIIS))Links to an external site.. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 54(7), 372–389. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2019-101969

Community Preventative Services Task Force. (n.d.). The community guideLinks to an external site.. https://www.thecommunityguide.org/

Framingham Heart Study. (n.d.). Epidemiological background and design: The Framingham heart studyLinks to an external site.. https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/fhs-about/history/epidemiological-background/

STROBE. (2021). HomeLinks to an external site.. https://www.strobe-statement.org/

The STROBE Checklist is considered the gold-standard in assessing the quality of observational research studies.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (n.d.). Healthy People 2030Links to an external site.. https://health.gov/healthypeople

ARTICLES FOR THIS WEEK’S DISCUSSION:
Note: By Day 1, your Instructor will assign you to a small group. Your group will be assigned two of the following articles to analyze.

Batty, G. D., & Hamer, M. (2020). Vascular risk factors, Framingham risk score, and COVID-19: Community-based cohort studyLinks to an external site.. Cardiovascular Research, 116(10), 16641665. https://doi.org/10.1093/cvr/cvaa178

Hillyer, G. C., Nazareth, M., Lima, S., Schmitt, K. M., Reyes, A., Fleck, E., Schwartz, G. K., & Terry, M. B. (2021). E-cigarette use among young adult patients: The opportunity to intervene on risky lifestyle behaviors to reduce cancer riskLinks to an external site.. Journal of Community Health. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-021-01027-7

Kebede, E., Kekulawala, M. (2021).Risk factors for stillbirth and early neonatal death: A case-control study in tertiary hospitals in Addis Ababa, EthiopiaLinks to an external site.. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth,21(1), Article 641. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12884-021-04025-8

Najafpour, Z., Godarzi, Z., Arab, M., & Yaseri, M. (2019). Risk factors for falls in hospital in-patients: A prospective nested case control studyLinks to an external site.. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, (5), 300–306. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2019.11

Whittle, R. S., Diaz-Artiles, A. (2020). An ecological study of socioeconomic predictors in detection of COVID-19 cases across neighborhoods in New York CityLinks to an external site.. BMC Medicine, 18(1),Article 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01731-6

Spector, A. L., Quinn, K. G., McAuliffe, T. L., DiFranceisco, W., Bendixen, A., Dickson-Gomez, J. (2020). Health-related quality of life and related factors among chronically homeless adults living in different permanent supportive housing models: A cross-sectional studyLinks to an external site.. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 29(8), 20512061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02482-w

Palència, L., Ferrando J., Marí-Dell’Olmo, M., Gotsens, M., Morrison, J., Dzurova, D., Lustigova, M., Costa, C., Rodríguez-Sanz, M., Bosakova, L, Santana, P., & Borrell, C. (2020). Socio-economic inequalities on cancer mortality in nine European areas: The effect of the last economic recessionLinks to an external site.. Cancer Epidemiology, 69, Article 101827. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.canep.2020.101827

Nguyen, L. H., Örtqvist, A. K., Cao, Y., Simon, T. G., Roelstraete, B., Song, M., Joshi, A. D., Staller, K., Chan, A. T., Khalili, H., Olén, O., & Ludvigsson, J. F. (2020). Antibiotic use and the development of inflammatory bowel disease: A national case-control study in SwedenLinks to an external site.. The Lancet. Gastroenterology & Hepatology, (11), 986–995. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8034612/

Required Media

The Challenges of Conducting Trials

Time Estimate: 2 minutes

Let’s Learn Public Health. (2017, May 5). Epidemiological studies—made easy! [Video].Links to an external site. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd3gFT0-C4s

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 10 minutes.

TO PREPARE:

Review the different types of observational study designs presented in the Learning Resources: ecologic, cross-sectional, case-control, and cohort.

Carefully examine the characteristics, strengths, and limitations of each design.

Consider when it is appropriate to use each of the observational study designs.

Consider how using observational study designs can lead to improvements in population health.

By Day 1 of this week, you should have received a communication from your Instructor assigning you to a small group to review two specific articles. Review the two articles your group was assigned, with a critical eye toward the researchers’ use of study design and their selected methods. Although several students will be assigned the same articles, this is NOT a group project; please submit your Discussion posts individually. You will then have the opportunity to discuss and share your thoughts with your colleagues.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 3

In your assigned group area:

Post a brief description of the two studies you were assigned, with a particular focus on the study design and methods. Then:

Describe at least one strength and one limitation of each study’s design.

Identify the population, data sources, and epidemiologic measures of association that the authors used.

Finally, share your insights about the appropriateness of the design for the study. Do you agree with the researchers’ choice of design?

Do you agree with the researchers’ conclusions? Justify your reasoning.

BY DAY 5 OF WEEK 3

Post at least two substantive responses to peers in a different group who analyzed at least one different article in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on each peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about study designs, ask a question to further the discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the discussion. At least one of your response posts should address the applicability of observational studies for improving population health status.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 3

Respond to any questions you may have been asked by your peers in your assigned group area. Note what you have learned and/or any insights you have gained as a result of reading the comments your peers made.

NURS_8310_Week3_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

18 to >0 pts

Poor

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)
10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 4 DISCUSSION: RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.

Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.

For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 2, “Identifying Outcomes in Population-Based Nursing”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 8, “Experimental Study Designs”

Goldstein, C. E., Weijer, C., Brehaut, J. C., Fergusson, D. A., Grimshaw, J. M., Horn, A. R., & Taljaard, M. (2018). Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: A review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentationLinks to an external site.. BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0253-x

Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services. (n.d.). Developing researchLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/student-research/developing-research

EXAMPLES OF STUDIES UTILIZING EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY DESIGNS

These studies should be used as informative examples. Please locate another article on your own to use for the Discussion.

Hooshmand, M., & Foronda, C. (2018). Comparison of telemedicine to traditional face-to-face care for children with special needs: A quasiexperimental study. Telemedicine Journal and E-health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 24(6), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0116

Sawyer, A., Kaim, A., Le, H.-N., McDonald, D., Mittinty, M., Lynch, J., & Sawyer, M. (2019). The effectiveness of an app-based nurse-moderated program for new mothers with depression and parenting problems (eMums Plus): Pragmatic randomized controlled trialLinks to an external site.. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e13689. https://doi.org/10.2196/13689

Optional Resource

Dennis, C. L., Grigoriadis, S., Zupancic, J., Kiss, A., & Ravitz, P. (2020). Telephone-based nurse-delivered interpersonal psychotherapy for postpartum depression: Nationwide randomised controlled trialLinks to an external site.. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.275

TO PREPARE:

Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. (Tip: When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)

Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:

Purpose

Study population

Length of the trial

Data collection methods

Outcome measures

Results and conclusions

Ethical issues associated with the study

Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.

Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.

Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 4

Respond to at least two colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 2, “Identifying Outcomes in Population-Based Nursing”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 8, “Experimental Study Designs”

EXAMPLES OF STUDIES UTILIZING EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY DESIGNS

These studies should be used as informative examples. Please locate another article on your own to use for the Discussion.

Optional Resource

NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

18 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 4 ASSIGNMENT: EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY DESIGNS

As introduced in the first few weeks of this course, investigators use various epidemiological study designs to study health problems and the effects of health interventions. You have examined several study designs, including descriptive designs (in Week 2) and analytic study designs that are observational (in Week 3) or experimental (this week). As an MSN or DNP student, you should be able to determine which study design would be most suitable for addressing a health problem of interest to you, as this is a foundation for evidence-based practice.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 2, “Identifying Outcomes in Population-Based Nursing”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 8, “Experimental Study Designs”

EXAMPLES OF STUDIES UTILIZING EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY DESIGNS

These studies should be used as informative examples. Please locate another article on your own to use for the Discussion.

Optional Resource

TO PREPARE

Consider an association between a risk factor and a particular health outcome that is of interest to you. Table 2.2, in Curley, has some excellent options. You may use this to guide your selection of topics or select your own population health topic.

Then, select an observational OR experimental study design you think would be the most appropriate for exploring this association. You may select from any of the designs covered in this module.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following:

Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. (Consult the Walden “Developing Research” resource for guidance on crafting a research question.)

Explain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem.

Summarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.).

Explain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls?

Consider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach?

Explain ethical considerations pertaining to your study.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 4

Submit your Assignment.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK4Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial

Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following: Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study.

25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies the selected population health problem…. A clear and focused research question appropriate for the population health problem is presented.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good

The response accurately identifies the selected population health problem…. An appropriate research question for the population health problem is presented.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fair

The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the selected population health problem…. A somewhat vague research question for the population health problem is presented.

17 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the selected population health problem, or it is missing…. The research question for the population health problem is vague, misaligned, or missing.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem.
25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good

The response accurately explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fair

The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.

17 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design for the population health problem or is missing.

25 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.).

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

A clear and concise summary of selected data collection activities is provided.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

A clear summary of selected data collection activities is provided.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided, or it is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls?
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague explanation of methodologic strategies is provided, or it is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach?
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided, or it is missing.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain ethical considerations pertaining to your study.

25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.

17 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided, or it is missing.

25 pts

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
5 pts

Excellent

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.

5 pts

Total Points: 150

NURS 8310 WEEK 5 DISCUSSION: MEASURES USED IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use measures of effect to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:

Odds ratio: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)

Risk ratio (also called relative risk): Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.

Mortality: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.

Morbidity: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval

Incidence: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)

Prevalence: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)

What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 3, “Epidemiological Methods and Measurements in Population-Based Nursing Practice: Part I”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 3, “Measures of Morbidity and Mortality Used in Epidemiology”

Chapter 9, “Measures of Effect”

Required Media

The Importance of Epidemiologic Measures to the Advanced Practice Nurse Time Estimate: 1 minute

TO PREPARE:

Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.

Odds ratio and risk ratio

Mortality and morbidity

Incidence and prevalence

Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.

Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.

Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.

Assess limitations of not using measures of effect in nursing practice.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 5

Respond to at least two colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

18 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Total Points: 100

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE NURS 8310 Epidemiology and Population Health Weekly Discussions & Assignments HERE

NURS 8310 WEEK 6 ASSIGNMENT: BLOG: CRITIQUING SOURCES OF ERROR IN POPULATION RESEARCH TO ADDRESS GAPS IN NURSING PRACTICE

As a DNP-educated nurse, part of your role will be to identify the differences, or gaps, between current knowledge and practice and opportunities for improvement leading to an ideal state of practice. Being able to recognize and evaluate sources of error in population research is an important skill that can lead to better implementation of evidence-based practice.

In order to effectively critique and apply population research to practice, you should be familiar with the following types of error:

Selection Bias

Selection bias in epidemiological studies occurs when study participants do not accurately represent the population for whom results will be generalized, and this results in a measure of association that is distorted (i.e., not close to the truth). For example, if persons responding to a survey tend to be different (e.g., younger) than those who do not respond, then the study sample is not representative of the general population, and study results may be misleading if generalized.

Information Bias

Information bias results from errors made in the collection of information obtained in a study. For example, participants’ self-report of their diet may be inaccurate for many reasons. They may not remember what they ate, or they may want to portray themselves as making healthier choices than they typically make. Regardless of the reason, the information collected is not accurate and therefore introduces bias into the analysis.

Confounding

Confounding occurs when a third variable is really responsible for the association you think you see between two other variables. For example, suppose researchers detect a relationship between consumption of alcohol and occurrence of lung cancer. The results of the study seem to indicate that consuming alcohol leads to a higher risk of developing lung cancer. However, when researchers take into account that people who drink alcohol are much more likely to smoke than those who do not, it becomes clear that the real association is between smoking and lung cancer and the reason that those who consume alcohol had a higher risk of lung cancer was because they were also more likely to be smokers. In this example, smoking was a confounder of the alcohol-lung cancer relationship.

Random Error

The previous three types of errors all fall under the category of systematic errors, which are reproducible errors having to do with flaws in study design, sampling, data collection, analysis, or interpretation. Random errors, on the other hand, are fluctuations in results that arise from naturally occurring differences in variables or samples. While unavoidable to a small degree even under the most careful research parameters, these types of errors can still affect the validity of studies.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 4, “Epidemiological Methods and Measurements in Population-Based Nursing Practice: Part II”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 10, “Data Interpretation Issues”

Enzenbach, C., Wicklein, B., Wirkner, K., & Loeffler, M. (2019). Evaluating selection bias in a population-based cohort study with low baseline participation: The LIFE-Adult-StudyLinks to an external site.. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 19(1), Article 135. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-019-0779-8

Khalili, P., Nadimi, A. E., Baradaran, H. R., Janani, L., Rahimi-Movaghar, A., Rajabi, Z., Rahmani, A., Hojati, Z., Khalagi, K., & Motevalian, S. A. (2021). Validity of self-reported substance use: Research setting versus primary health care settingLinks to an external site.. Substance abuse Treatment, Prevention, and Policy, 16(1), Article 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13011-021-00398-3

Karr, J. E., Iverson, G. L., Isokuortti, H., Kataja, A., Brander, A., Öhman, J., & Luoto, T. M. (2021). Preexisting conditions in older adults with mild traumatic brain injuries. Brain Injury, 1–9 Download Preexisting conditions in older adults with mild traumatic brain injuries. Brain Injury, 1–9. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699052.2021.1976419

PreviousNext

TO PREPARE:

Review this week’s Learning Resources, focusing on how to recognize and distinguish selection bias, information bias, confounding, and random error in research studies.

Select a health issue and population relevant to your professional practice and a practice gap that may exist related to this issue.

Consider how each type of measurement error may influence data interpretation in epidemiologic literature and how you might apply the literature to address the identified practice gap.

Consider strategies you might use to recognize these errors and the implications they may have for addressing gaps in practice relevant to your selected issue.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 6

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Describe your selected practice gap.

Explain how your treatment of this population/issue could be affected by having awareness of bias and confounding in epidemiologic literature.

Explain two strategies researchers can use to minimize these types of bias in studies, either through study design or analysis considerations.

Finally, explain the effects these biases could have on the interpretation of study results if not minimized.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 6

Respond to at least two colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

NURS_8310_Week6_Blog_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeMain Posting: Idea and Content

60 to >49.0 pts

Excellent

• Thoroughly responds to the blog prompt/s. • Post provides comprehensive insight, understanding, or reflection about the topic through a focused analysis of the topic supported by personal experiences and/or examples. • Personal opinions are expressed and are clearly related to the topic, activity or process identified in blog prompts. • The post reflects in-depth engagement with the topic. • Posts main blog by due date.

49 to >38.0 pts

Good

• Responds to all of the blog prompt/s. • Post provides insight, understanding, or reflection about the topic through a reasonably focused analysis of the topic supported by personal experiences and/or examples. • Personal opinions are expressed and are but not fully developed to align with blog prompts. • The post reflects moderate engagement with the topic. • Posts main blog by due date.

38 to >27.0 pts

Fair

• Partially responds to the blog prompt/s. • Posts are typically short and may contain some irrelevant material. • The post is mostly description or summary without connections or analysis between ideas. • The post reflects minimal engagement with the topic. • Posts main blog by due date.

27 to >0 pts

Poor

• Does not respond to the blog prompt/s or entries lack insight, depth or are superficial. • The entries are short and are frequently irrelevant to the events. • They do not express opinion clearly and show little understanding. • The post does not reflect engagement with the topic. • Does not post main blog by due date.
60 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeFirst Response: Post to colleague’s main blogpost shows evidence of insight, understanding, or reflective thought about the topic. NOTE: Responses to faculty are not counted as first or second colleague responses.
20 to >11.0 pts

Excellent

• Presents a focused and cohesive viewpoint in addressing this response. • Response includes focused questions or examples related to colleague’s post. • Response stimulates dialogue and commentary. • Posts by due date.

11 to >6.0 pts

Good

• Presents a specific viewpoint that is focused and cohesive. • Response includes at least one focused question or example related to colleague’s post. • There is some attempt to stimulate dialogue and commentary. • Posts by due date.

6 to >2.0 pts

Fair

• Presents a specific viewpoint but lacks supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The posting is brief and reflects minimal effort to connect with colleague. • Posts by due date.

2 to >0 pts

Poor

• Response lacks a specific viewpoint and supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The post does not stimulate dialogue or connect with the colleague. • Does not post by due date.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSecond Response: Post to second colleague blog post shows evidence of insight, understanding, or reflective thought about the topic.

20 to >11.0 pts

Excellent

11 to >6.0 pts

Good

6 to >2.0 pts

Fair

2 to >0 pts

Poor

• Response lacks a specific viewpoint and supporting examples or focused questions related to colleague’s post. • The does not stimulate dialogue or connect with the colleague. • Does not post by due date.

20 pts

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 7 DISCUSSION: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY DESIGNS IN THE MEDIA

Nearly every day, population health studies appear in the media. The studies often include epidemiological research. The type of study design used can have a profound impact on how the study results are analyzed, interpreted, and reported. Common study designs include case control, cohort, cross-sectional, and community intervention trials

Based on media descriptions of the research, however, facts about the issue under study may appear less than obvious. Media reports may sensationalize results and overstate outcomes. Someone familiar with epidemiological methodology may note a lack of detail in mass media reports of research findings compared to articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

For this Discussion, you will compare an epidemiological study to a mass media article written about the study to examine ways epidemiologic information is disseminated to and utilized by different audiences.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 5, “Applying Evidence at the Population Level”

Chapter 6, “Using Information Technology to Improve Population Outcomes”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practiceLinks to an external site.(6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Appendix A, “Guide to the Critical Appraisal of an Epidemiologic/Public Health Research Article”

American Journal of Health Behavior. (n.d.). Writing a press releaseLinks to an external site.. https://ajhb.org/journal/writing-press-release/

Walden University Doctoral Capstone Form and Style. (n.d.). APA style for capstone writers: Abstracts for the capstone.Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/apa/abstracts#:~:text=The%20abstract%20should%20begin%20on,exceed%20one%20page%20in%20length

Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals.Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

TO PREPARE:

Locate a mass media article published within the last year that describes findings of an epidemiological study. Be sure that the article is about an epidemiological study and not another area of population health.

Then, use the Walden Library to locate the peer-reviewed research article on which the mass media report is based.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 7

Post a response to the following:

Briefly summarize the study you found, and then include the citations for both the mass media and the peer-reviewed articles.

Explain what epidemiological concepts are included in the mass media article (e.g., measures of association, study design, confounders, and bias) and how they compare to those in the peer-reviewed article.

Give your assessment of how well the mass media article represented the actual research that was conducted. Describe any obvious omissions from the mass media article that epidemiologists critiquing the study would need to know.

Finally, imagine that a patient brings this mass media article to you and asks you for your informed opinion. Explain how you would respond or interpret the article for the patient.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 7

Respond to at least two colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Compare your selected articles with respect to differences in study design.

Discuss differences or similarities in the media coverage of your selected studies.

Expand on a colleague’s posting with additional insight and resources.

Make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the discussion.

Remember to include information from the Learning Resources as appropriate.

NURS_8310_Week7_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)
30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

18 to >0 pts

Poor

30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 8 DISCUSSION: SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES

Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.

Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.

For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Driscoll, A., Grant, M. J., Carroll, D., Dalton, S., Deaton, C., Jones, I., Lehwaldt, D., McKee, G., Munyombwe, T., & Astin, F. (2018). The effect of nurse-to-patient ratios on nurse-sensitive patient outcomes in acute specialist units: A systematic review and meta-analysisLinks to an external site.. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 17(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474515117721561

Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Berlin, J. A., Ghersi, D., & Askie, L. M. (2020). Prospective meta-analyses and Cochrane’s role in embracing next-generation methodologiesLinks to an external site.. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 10, ED000145. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.ED000145

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., … Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsLinks to an external site.. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 134, 178–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site.. Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

Melnyk, B. M., Kelly, S. A., Stephens, J., Dhakal, K., McGovern, C., Tucker, S., Hoying, J., McRae, K., Ault, S., Spurlock, E., & Bird, S. B. (2020). Interventions to improve mental health, well-being, physical health, and lifestyle behaviors in physicians and nurses: A systematic reviewLinks to an external site.. American Journal of Health Promotion, 34(8), 929–941. https://doi.org/10.1177/0890117120920451

Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-synthesesLinks to an external site.. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

TO PREPARE:

Review the studies and articles provided in the Learning Resources. Consider the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Make sure you are clear on the difference between the two approaches.

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 8

Post a brief summary of your informed opinion regarding the validity of the use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research. Include at least two strengths or limitations of each technique. Provide evidence from at least one of the articles in the Learning Resources to support and justify your position.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 8

Post substantive responses to at least two colleagues on two different days who expressed a differing view to your own in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on your peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about meta-analyses, ask a question to further the Discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique, supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the Discussion.

NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

18 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

6 to >0 pts

Poor

10 pts

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 8 ASSIGNMENT: META-ANALYSES

In epidemiology, meta-analyses are becoming a common research design. They are also “the most frequently cited form of clinical research,” and as such are an important type of study for the advanced practice nurse to be familiar with (Haidich, 2010).

For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion.

Reference:

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical research. Hippokratia, 14(Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Haidich, A. B. (2010). Meta-analysis in medical researchLinks to an external site.. Hippokratia, 14 (Suppl. 1), 29–37. https://www.hippokratia.gr/images/PDF/14Sup1/699.pdf

TO PREPARE:

Using the Walden Library, locate a peer-reviewed article that utilizes a meta-analysis design and examines a population health topic that interests you. Your article must be a meta-analysis specifically, not just a systematic review.

THE ASSIGNMENT:

In 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:

Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.

Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.

Do you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.

Explain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 8

Submit your Assignment.

SUBMISSION INFORMATION

Before submitting your final assignment, you can check your draft for authenticity. To check your draft, access the Turnitin Drafts from the Start Here area.

To submit your completed assignment, save your Assignment as WK8Assgn_LastName_Firstinitial

Then, click on Start Assignment near the top of the page.

Next, click on Upload File and select Submit Assignment for review.

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

The article is clearly identified. The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

The article is clearly identified. The response accurately explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

The article is identified. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the article and explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis, or it is missing.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.
20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

The response provides an accurate, clear, and concise explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with strong rationale is included.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

The response provides an accurate explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with rationale is included.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

The response provides a somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. Critique of the researcher’s approach is somewhat vague, or rationale is inadequate.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

The response provides an inaccurate and vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected or is missing. Critique of the researcher’s approach is vague, inaccurate, unsupported, or missing.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDo you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.

20 to >17.0 pts

Excellent

A clear and concise critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates strong critical thinking is provided.

17 to >15.0 pts

Good

A clear critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates some critical thinking is provided.

15 to >13.0 pts

Fair

A somewhat inaccurate or vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided.

13 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided, or it is missing.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.
25 to >22.0 pts

Excellent

An accurate and detailed explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.

22 to >19.0 pts

Good

An accurate explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.

19 to >17.0 pts

Fai

A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.

17 to >0 pts

Poor

An inaccurate and vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided, or it is missing.

25 pts

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.

5 pts

5 to >4.0 pts

Excellent

Uses correct APA format with no errors.

4 to >3.5 pts

Good

Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.

3.5 to >3.0 pts

Fair

Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.

3 to >0 pts

Poor

Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
5 pts

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 WEEK 9 DISCUSSION: ERADICATION OF SMALLPOX, POLIO, AND COVID-19

Some of the most notable epidemics include the bubonic plague in the 14th century, smallpox in the 18th century, influenza in the 20th century, and SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) in the 21st century. It is estimated that the bubonic plague caused 25 million deaths in Europe in the 14th century alone, and up to 200 million total deaths across centuries (Glatter & Finkelman, 2021). The COVID-19 pandemic spread at an unprecedented pace due to globalization and the mobility of society, killing millions worldwide. These are dramatic examples of the kinds of acute outbreaks that make epidemiology such an important field of study.

At the beginning of the 21st century, many epidemiologists and healthcare professionals were concerned about the next potential pandemic or epidemic—and then it arrived in early 2020. Globalization means that when these infectious outbreaks occur, they can spread quickly, but we also have more knowledge and better tools (e.g., vaccine technology) to fight them. For this Discussion, you will compare lessons learned from two successful eradication efforts, that of smallpox and polio, and consider how they may be applied to COVID-19.

Reference

Glatter, K. A., & Finkelman, P. (2021). History of the plague: An ancient pandemic for the age of COVID-19. American Journal of Medicine, 134(2), 176–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.08.019

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 12, “Epidemiology of Infectious Diseases

Center for Global Development. (n.d.). Case 1: Eradicating smallpox Download Case 1: Eradicating smallpox. http://www.cgdev.org/doc/millions/MS_case_1.pdf

Note: This article provides an overview of the eradication of smallpox.

Wilson, N., Mansoor, O. D., Boyd, M. J., Kvalsvig, A., & Baker, M. G. (2021). We should not dismiss the possibility of eradicating COVID-19: Comparisons with smallpox and polioLinks to an external site.. BMJ Global Health, (8), e006810. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006810

World Health Organization. (n.d.).PoliomyelitisLinks to an external site. (polio). https://www.who.int/health-topics/poliomyelitis#tab=tab_1

Note: This page provides an overview of the eradication of polio, as well as symptoms and treatment.

Required Media

The Impact of COVID-19 on Epidemiology Time Estimate: 3 minutes

Walden University, LLC. (2021).Infectious disease basicsLinks to an external site. [Interactive media]. Walden University Blackboard. https://waldenu.instructure.com

Optional Resources

Polio Global Eradication Initiative. (n.d.). GPEI strategy 2022–2026.Links to an external site. https://polioeradication.org/gpei-strategy-2022-2026/

TO PREPARE:

Review the Learning Resources, focusing on the smallpox and polio epidemics and how health organizations applied principles of epidemiology to eradicate (or in the case of polio, nearly eradicate) these diseases.

In light of these examples, consider the benefits of addressing smallpox and polio at the population level. What were the population health strategies that were used in the efforts to eradicate smallpox and polio?

Consider similarities and differences from an epidemiologic perspective among the smallpox and polio epidemics and that of COVID-19.

Think about how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.

What lessons from the use of infectious disease epidemiology in the past might be applicable to controlling COVID 19?

What are the benefits of addressing this issue at the population level as opposed to the individual level?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 9

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Briefly summarize the epidemiologic differences among the three diseases and how principles of epidemiology are being applied—or could be applied—to address COVID-19.

Are there any lessons learned from the use of epidemiology in the eradication of smallpox and polio that could be applied to COVID-19?

Evaluate the benefits of addressing this health problem at the population level versus the individual level. Support your Discussion with information from this week’s Learning Resources and articles you have located in the Walden Library.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 9

Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days and respond to at least two colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Assignment Rubric DetailsClose

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week9_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

18 to >0 pts

Poor

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)
20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Total Points: 100

NURS 8310 Week 10 Discussion: Addressing Chronic Disease

According to the Population Health course text, â€œRoughly 40 million Americans are still uninsured and 112 million Americans (almost half of the U.S. population, 45%) suffer from at least one chronic condition in the United States, an estimated 125 million persons have at least one chronic condition, and half of these persons have multiple chronic conditionsâ€ (Nash, Skoufalos, Fabius, and Oglesby, 2021, p. 5 ).

This weekâ€™s Learning Resources examine numerous health problems that result in a need for ongoing care. As you have explored this week, many costs are associated with chronic diseaseâ€”both in terms of lives lost and socioeconomic burden. What can be done to help reduce chronic disease at the population level?

For this Discussion, you will take an in-depth look at chronic disease, and you will evaluate ways to address this issue through the application of chronic disease models and frameworks. In addition, you will consider the impact of the challenges of managing chronic disease on quality of care delivery.

To prepare:

Review the application of chronic disease models as a method for managing chronic diseases at the population level.
Consider characteristics of chronic disease models and how to apply them as presented in the Learning Resources.
Consult The Chronic Care Model (Figure 1â€“1 (p. 9) in Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness, and consider examples of determinants and outcomes of population health with chronic diseases in a specific subpopulation. Then, select one chronic disease on which to focus for this Discussion.
Ask yourself, â€œWhat are the challenges of managing this chronic disease? How do these challenges limit the ability to deliver effective quality care?â€ Conduct additional research using the Walden Library and credible websites as necessary.
By Day 3
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Identify your selected chronic disease.
Describe the application of a chronic disease model to address this disease at the population level. Include your rationale for selecting this particular model.
Discuss one or more current challenges related to the management of the chronic disease, and explain how these challenges limit the ability to deliver effective quality care.
Read a selection of your colleaguesâ€™ responses.

By Day 6
Respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleaguesâ€™ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleaguesâ€™ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleaguesâ€™ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Week 10: Chronic Disease Management: Mortality and Morbidity
The management of chronic disease poses a significant health care challenge in the United States and elsewhere. By the year 2030, chronic disease will cost the world over 47 trillion dollars annually (Bloom, et al, 2011; Jaslow, 2011). As noted in Week 6, many of the factors that contribute to chronic illnessâ€”such as poor diet, lack of activity, drug and alcohol use, and smokingâ€”are lifestyle choices. Consider, for instance, diabetes: the significant increase in prevalence from 1980 to 2007 is explainable almost entirely by lifestyle choices. Most adults report having the condition long term, and the direct and indirect costs associated with it are substantial (Nash, Reifsnyder, Fabius, and Pracilio, 2011).

As a nurse leader, what opportunities do you see for reducing morbidity and mortalityâ€”and, ultimately, for diminishing the tremendous personal and societal costsâ€”related to chronic disease?

You have explored many of the facets of epidemiology throughout this course; this week, you will examine the study of chronic disease. You will investigate models and frameworks for managing chronic disease, as well as how the challenges of managing chronic disease inhibit the delivery of quality health care.

Learning Objectives
Students will:
Analyze a chronic disease model and its relationship to a chronic disease
Evaluate current challenges in delivering effective quality health care as it relates to chronic disease management
Learning Resources
Required Readings
Nash, D. B., Skoufalos, A., Fabius, R. J. & Oglesby, W. H. (2021). Structure, systems, and stakeholders. In Population health: Creating a culture of wellness (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

In Chapter 4 the current structure of the United States health system and the influence on population health is discussed. Stakeholders are identified, and the relationships between the structure, system and stakeholders is explored.

Nash, D. B., Skoufalos, A., Fabius, R. J. & Oglesby, W. H. (2021). Coordinated care delivery models. In Population health: Creating a culture of wellness (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 12 examines the influence of accountable care organizations and ambulatory care organizations on the current health care delivery system. Examples of successful organizations are explored.

Nash, D. B., Skoufalos, A., Fabius, R. J. & Oglesby, W. H. (2021). Developing the workforce to enhance population health. In Population health: Creating a culture of wellness (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

In Chapter 7 the authors address the social determinants driving population health. The strategies needed to develop a workforce that will be able to support current population health strategies is discussed.

Dossey, B. M., Rosa, W. E., & Beck, D.-M. (2019). Nursing and the sustainable development goals: From Nightingale to now. AJN American Journal of Nursing, 119(5), 44â€“49. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1097/01.NAJ.0000557912.35398.8f

Easley, C., Petersen, R., & Holmes, M. (2010). The health and economic burden of chronic diseases in North Carolina. North Carolina Medical Journal, 71(1), 92-95.

This short reading presents an analysis of the economic effects of selected chronic diseases resulting in increased hospitalization, with a focus on behaviors that may be changed to prevent these diseases.

Kim, T. W., Saitz, R., Cheng, D. M., Winter, M. R., Witas, J., & Samet, J. H. (2011). Initiation and engagement in chronic disease management care for substance dependence. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 115(1-2), 80-86.

This article presents a study on treating substance abuse as a chronic disease. The authors discuss challenges to treatment options and propose methods for more appropriately managing treatment for substance dependence as a chronic illness.

Tenforde, M., Jain, A., & Hickner, J. (2011). The value of personal health records for chronic disease management: What do we know? Family Medicine, 43(5), 351â€“354.

This reading examines evidence related to the value of electronic personal health records (PHRs), noting that additional research is needed to evaluate this for chronic disease management.

United Nations. (2011, September 19). Non-communicable diseases deemed development challenge of â€˜epidemic proportionsâ€™ in political declaration adopted during landmark general assembly summit. Retrieved from http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/ga11138.doc.htm

The United Nations met in September 2011 to collaborate on global plans to address the control and prevention of chronic diseases. This report from the general assembly notes the high cost of not managing chronic disease worldwide.

Yale School of Public Health. (2012). Chronic disease epidemiology. Retrieved from http://publichealth.yale.edu/cde/index.aspx

Yale School of Public Health sponsors this site. Explore the information presented on addressing chronic disease through epidemiology.

Florida Department of Health. (n.d.). Bureause of epidemiology: Surveillance and investigation guidance. Retrieved March 5, 2012, from http://www.floridahealth.gov/diseases-and-conditions/disease-reporting-and-management/disease-reporting-and-surveillance/surveillance-and-investigation-guidance/index.html

This Florida-based agency monitors chronic disease conditions in Floridaâ€™s population using a variety of population-based surveillance systems.

World Health Organization. (2012). Chronic diseases and health promotion: Integrated chronic disease prevention and control. Retrieved from http://www.who.int/chp/about/integrated_cd/en/

The World Health Organization monitors chronic diseases worldwide. This website provides an overview of their programs, monitoring efforts, and activities they engage in to reduce the incidence of chronic disease globally.
Name: NURS_8310_ Week10_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent Good Fair Poor
RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION

Discussion post minimum requirements:

*The original posting must be completed by Wednesday, Day 3, at 11:59pm MST. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Saturday, Day 6, at 11:59pm MST. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the minimum number of posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in standard edited English and follow APA style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s Learning Resources as well as resources available through the Walden University online databases. Refer to the Essential Guide to APA Style for Walden Students to ensure your in-text citations and reference list are correct.
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; – Go beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated); -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. – Demonstrate significant ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources as well as additional resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings; -Exceed the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: -Respond to the question being asked or the prompt provided; -Are substantive, reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence.re -Demonstrate ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and has read, viewed, or considered a sampling of colleagues’ postings -Meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or -May (lack) lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence; and/or -Do not adequately demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning -Resources and/or a sampling of colleagues’ postings; and/or has posted by the due date at least in part. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. They: – do not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question or prompt; and/or – Lack in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. – Lack ability to generalize and extend thinking and evaluate theories or concepts within the topic or context of the discussion. -Do not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered the Learning Resources and/or a sampling of colleaguesâ€™ postings; and/or does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts*.
CONTENT KNOWLEDGE
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate in-depth understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; – are well supported by pertinent research/evidence from a variety of and multiple peer- reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; -Demonstrate significant mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses: -demonstrate understanding and application of the concepts and issues presented in the course, presented with some understanding and application of concepts and issues presented in the course (e.g., insightful interpretations including analysis, synthesis and/or evaluation of topic; -are supported by research/evidence from peer-reviewed books and journals, where appropriate; and Â· demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course.
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses: – demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors; â€“lack support by research/evidence and/or the research/evidence is inappropriate or marginal in quality; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic – demonstrate minimal content, skills or strategies presented in the course. ——-Contain numerous errors when using the skills or strategies presented in the course
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses demonstrate: -A lack of understanding of the concepts and issues presented in the course; and/or are inaccurate, contain many omissions and/or errors; and/or are not supported by research/evidence; and/or lack of analysis, synthesis or evaluation of topic -Many critical errors when discussing content, applicable skills or strategies presented in the course.
CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION
8 (26.67%) – 8 (26.67%)
Discussion postings and responses significantly contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: -providing Rich and relevant examples; discerning and thought-provoking ideas; and stimulating thoughts and probes; – -demonstrating original thinking, new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature.
7 (23.33%) – 7 (23.33%)
Discussion postings and responses contribute to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by -providing relevant examples; thought-provoking ideas – Demonstrating synthesis of ideas supported by the literature
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses minimally contribute to the quality of discussion/interaction and thinking and learning by: – providing few and/or irrelevant examples; and/or – providing few if any thought- provoking ideas; and/or -. Information that is restated from the literature with no/little demonstration of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas.
0 (0%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses do not contribute to the quality of interaction/discussion and thinking and learning as they do not: -Provide examples (or examples are irrelevant); and/or -Include interesting thoughts or ideas; and/or – Demonstrate of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas
QUALITY OF WRITING
6 (20%) – 6 (20%)
Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral -level writing expectations. They: Â· Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; Â· Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; Â· Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA Â· Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
5 (16.67%) – 5 (16.67%)
Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral -level writing expectations. They: Â·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; Â· Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; Â· paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format Â· Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints;.
4 (13.33%) – 4 (13.33%)
Discussion postings and responses are minimally below doctoral-level writing expectations. They: Â· Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; Â· Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or Â· Are less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
0 (0%) – 3 (10%)
Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral -level writing expectations. They: Â· Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear Â· Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format Â· Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
Total Points: 30
Name: NURS_8310_ Week10_Discussion_Rubric

NURS 8310 Week 11 Assignment: Practical Application of Epidemiological Interventions in Settings and Populations

Most people can recall where they were and what they were doing on the morning of September 11, 2001, when terrorists flew two airplanes into the Twin Towers. One week after that attack, anthrax was sent through the U.S. Postal Service to news media offices and politicians. In addition to these human-made emergencies, notable natural disasters have also occurred: the tsunami in Japan, a large earthquake in Haiti, tornadoes throughout the central United States, wildfires in California and Texas, flooding in the Northeast, etc. Out of all these disasters, many heroic stories unfolded as cities quickly responded to the needs of the citizens. For example, the New York Visiting Nurses Association had over 1,400 patients in the lower Manhattan area affected by the September 11th terrorist attacks. Within 3 days, they had tracked down each of their patients either in shelters or in the homes of family members.

In this final week of the course, you will consider emergency preparedness and disaster management strategies, and you will evaluate how these strategies are used to cope with disasters. In doing so, you will look through the lens of the epidemiologist and consider interventions for settings and populations. Additionally, you will be asked to synthesize your learning as you explore a case study on ethics and population health. You will also consider the effect of health care reform on a selected population health issue.
Learning Objectives
Students will:

Analyze epidemiological considerations resulting from natural or human-made disasters
Apply an epidemiological methods in a community-based or clinical setting to effectively address a populationâ€™s needs
Analyze the impact of culture, ethics, regulatory, and legal issues on population health
Evaluate the effects of health care reform as it relates to a selected population health initiative

Learning Resources

Required Readings

Nash, D. B., Skoufalos, A., Fabius, R. J. & Oglesby, W. H. (2021). On the path to health equity. In Population health: Creating a culture of wellness (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 3 addresses non-biomedical influences on health that impact health equity. This chapter is explored in four sections: (a) meaning of health equity, (b) issues of racism and discrimination, (c) cultural competency, and (d) achieving health equity. The authors ask the reader to consider how current efforts to the address social determinants of health may be applied to your workplace.

Nash, D. B., Skoufalos, A., Fabius, R. J. & Oglesby, W. H. (2021). Policy and advocacy. In Population health: Creating a culture of wellness (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Chapter 13 discusses the role that public policy and advocacy play in promoting and adapting public health initiatives and policies. Key players at the national level are identified. A common form of advocacy, lobbying is introduced. A vignette describing a successful coalition was described.

Levin, A. B., Bernier, M. L., Riggs, B. J., Zero, S. D., Johnson, E. D., Brant, K. N., Dwyer, J. G., Potter, C. J., Pustavoitau, A., Lentz, T. A., Jr, Warren, E. H., Milstone, A. M., & Schwartz, J. M. (2020). Transforming a PICU into an adult ICU during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: Meeting multiple needs. Critical Care Explorations, 2(9), e0201. https://doi-org/10.1097/CCE.0000000000000201

Sprung, C. L., Cohen, R., & Adini, B. (2010). Chapter 1. Introduction. Recommendations and standard operating procedures for intensive care unit and hospital preparations for an influenza epidemic or mass disaster. Intensive Care Medicine, 36(Supplement 1). S4-10

This reading describes the efforts put forth as a result of a task force established by the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine in December 2007. The chapter examines the purpose and development of standard operating procedures (SOPs) to better address population needs during an infectious disease breakout or disaster.

Richards, G. A., & Sprung, C. L. (2010). Chapter 9. Educational process. Recommendations and standard operating procedures for intensive care unit and hospital preparations for an influenza epidemic or mass disaster. Intensive Care Medicine, 36(Supplement 1), S70â€“S79.

As noted in this chapter, planning and education are imperative to adequately prepare intensive care units (ICUs) and hospitals for an influenza pandemic or mass disaster. The authors provide standard operating procedures (SOPs) and recommendations.

Veenema, T. G., Deruggiero, K., Losinski, S., & Barnett, D. (2017). Hospital administration and nursing leadership in disasters. Nursing Administration Quarterly, 41(2), 151-163. doi: 10.1097/NAQ.0000000000000224.

Wu, X., Zheng, S., Huang, J., Zheng, Z., Xu, M., & Zhou, Y. (2020). Contingency nursing management in designated hospitals during COVID-19 outbreak. Annals of Global Health, 86(1), 70. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.5334/aogh.2918

Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/

Explore the Federal Emergency Management Agency website, whose mission is to â€œsupport our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards.â€

Required Media

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Epidemiology and population health: Population health issues, part 1 [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 6 minutes.

In part 1 of this weekâ€™s media, the presenters discuss how epidemiology can be utilized to improve population health.

Laureate Education (Producer). (2012). Epidemiology and population health: Population health issues, part 2 [Video file]. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 3 minutes.

In part 2, Dr. Hull discusses lessons learned from global efforts to eradicate polio.

The following document provides credit for Laureate-produced media within this course: Credits (PDF)

Discussion 1: Applied Epidemiology

On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks created a grave disaster that included the destruction of the World Trade Center in New York. The day after 9/11, epidemiologists were asked to assess the environment around Ground Zero for potential hazards that might put those engaged in rescue and recovery at risk of harm. Beside the dust, what toxins might be in the air? Was the air quality safe or should rescue workers wear canister respirators or particle masks? What other protections might be necessary in the days following the disaster?

In this Discussion, you will look at the impact of a disaster through the lens of an epidemiologist, addressing such questions as, â€œWhat epidemiological considerations arise in the wake of a disaster? And, what makes disaster planning or emergency preparedness effective in terms of mitigating or preventing negative aftereffects?â€

To prepare:

Identify a disaster that led to a population health issue. Consider this disaster through the lens of an epidemiologist, using the information presented in the Learning Resources to examine the epidemiological considerations resulting from the disaster. Conduct additional research as necessary using the Walden Library and credible websites.
Ask yourself, â€œWhat factors made the communityâ€™s and/or nationâ€™s response effective or ineffective? What aspects of disaster planning or emergency preparedness did the community have in place that helped it cope with the disaster and resulting population health issue?â€

By Day 3

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Identify the disaster and resulting population health issue.
Describe the epidemiological considerations resulting from this disaster. Support your response with specific examples and evidence from the literature.
Discuss the factors that made the communityâ€™s and/or nationâ€™s response effective or ineffective.

Read a selection of your colleaguesâ€™ responses.
By Day 5

Respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleaguesâ€™ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleaguesâ€™ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Note: For this Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleaguesâ€™ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!

Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Discussion 1 Rubric

Post by Day 3 and Respond by Day 5

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion 1

Discussion 2: Factors That Impact Population Health

In this Discussion, you bring together the concepts that have been presented throughout this course by analyzing a current population health topic from an epidemiological approach. Consider the cultural, ethical, regulatory, and legal factors that may influence your selected topic.

To prepare:

Review the case study, presented on page 288 of your course text, Population Health: Creating a Culture of Wellness. Consider the cultural, ethical, and legal factors presented in the case study and how they influence the Michigan Primary Care Transformation Project.
With these thoughts in mind, select a current public health initiative that has been discussed in the popular press or available at the CDC website or your stateâ€™s health department website.
Consider this initiative through the lens of an epidemiologist, and identify what you think are the three most important issues related to culture, ethics, regulatory, or legal aspects of the public health initiative.
Consider how current health care legislation might impact your selected public health initiative. Conduct additional research as necessary.

By Day 4

Post a cohesive response that addresses the following:

Provide a summary of your selected public health initiative, and include a reference to the article (and URL to the article, if possible).
Analyze the cultural, ethical, regulatory, and legal factors that influence your specified population health topic.
Evaluate how current health care legislation may positively or negatively impact your selected public health initiative.

Read a selection of your colleaguesâ€™ responses.
By Day 6

Respond to at least two of your colleagues in one or more of the following ways:

Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Discussion 2 Rubric

Post by Day 4 and Respond by Day 6

To participate in this Discussion:

Week 11 Discussion 2

Assignment: Final Paper: Major Assessment 7: Using an Epidemiological Approach to Critically Analyze a Population Health Problem

Throughout this course, you have been applying an epidemiological approach to analyze a population health problem. In previous weeks, you have developed distinct sections of your paper; it is now time to finalize and submit a cohesive, polished version of work. This paper serves as your Major Assessment for this course and must be uploaded by Day 3of this week.

To prepare:

Finish incorporating any feedback from the submitted sections of your paper.

To complete:

Write a 12- to 15-page paper that includes the following:

Section 1: The Problem

A brief outline of the environment you selected (i.e., home, workplace, school)
A summary of your selected population health problem in terms of person, place, and time, and the magnitude of the problem based on data from appropriate data resources (Reference the data resources you used.)
Research question/hypothesis

Section 2: Research Methods

The epidemiologic study design you would use to assess and address your population health problem
Assessment strategies (i.e., if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls? Regarding the methods and tools you would use to make these selections, how is it convenient for you as the researcher or as the investigator to use this tool?)
Summary of the data collection activities (i.e., how you would collect dataâ€”online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.)

Section 3: The Intervention

An outline of an intervention you would implement to address the population health problem with your selected population based on the results of the study in Section 2 (Note: If you selected a descriptive study design, you are still required to outline an intervention that might be developed based on future research.)
A review of the literature that supports this intervention

Section 4: The Impact

An explanation of the health outcome you would be seeking and the social impact of solving this issue

Section 5: Evaluation

An evaluation plan based upon the health outcome that you have chosen and your anticipated results

Your written assignments must follow APA guidelines. Be sure to support your work with specific citations from appropriate Learning Resources and additional scholarly sources as appropriate. Refer to the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association to ensure that your in- text citations and reference list are correct.
By Day 3

Submit your Major Assessment paper.
Submission and Grading Information

To submit your completed Assignment for review and grading, do the following:

Please save your Assignment using the naming convention â€œWK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)â€ as the name.
Click the Week 11 Assignment Rubric to review the Grading Criteria for the Assignment.
Click the Week 11 Assignment link. You will also be able to â€œView Rubricâ€ for grading criteria from this area.
Next, from the Attach File area, click on the Browse My Computer button. Find the document you saved as â€œWK11Assgn+last name+first initial.(extension)â€ and click Open.
If applicable: From the Plagiarism Tools area, click the checkbox for I agree to submit my paper(s) to the Global Reference Database.
Click on the Submit button to complete your submission.

Grading Criteria

To access your rubric:

Week 11 Assignment Rubric

Check Your Assignment Draft for Authenticity

To check your Assignment draft for authenticity:

Submit your Week 11 Assignment draft and review the originality report.

Submit Your Assignment by Day 3

To submit your Assignment:

Week 11 Assignment

Week in Review

In this final week, you analyzed epidemiological considerations that resulted from natural or human-made disasters and the impact of culture, ethics, regulatory, and legal issues on population health. In addition, you applied epidemiological methods to effectively address a populationâ€™s need and evaluated the effects of health care reform as it relates to a selected population health initiative.

Congratulations! After you have finished all of the assignments for this week, you have completed the course. Please submit your Course Evaluation by Day 7.

Struggling to meet your deadline ?

Get assistance on

NURS 8310 Epidemiology and Population Health Weekly Discussions & Assignments

done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!

NURS 8310 Epidemiology and Population Health Weekly Discussions & Assignments