NR503 Evaluation of Epidemiological
Problem
Click Link Below To Buy:
http://hwcampus.com/shop/nr503-evaluation-epidemiological-problem/
Contact Us:
Hwcoursehelp@gmail.com
NR503 Evaluation of Epidemiological Problem
Evaluation of Epidemiological Problem
Guidelines & Grading Rubric
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to
§ Provide learners with
the opportunity to integrate knowledge and skills learned throughout this
course
§ Directly apply
principles and knowledge learned in the course to problem solving of population
health problems in their own geographic areas.
Course Outcomes
This assignment enables the student to meet the following course
outcomes:
2. 2. Compare study designs used for
obtaining population health information from surveillance, observation,
community, and control trial based research.
3. 3. Identify appropriate outcome measures
and study designs applicable to epidemiological subfields such as infectious
disease, chronic disease, environmental exposures, reproductive health, and
genetics.
Due Date
Total Points Possible: 200
Requirements
This paper should clearly and comprehensively identify the disease
or population health problem chosen. The
problem must be an issue in your geographic area and a concern for the
population you will serve upon graduation with your degree. The paper should be organized into the
following sections:
1. 1. Introduction with a clear presentation
of the problem as well as significance and a scholarly overview of the paper.
2. 2. Background of the disease including
definition, description, signs and symptoms, and current incidence and/or
prevalence statistics current state, local, and national statistics pertaining
to the disease. (Include a
table of incidence or prevalence rates by your geographic county, state, and
national statistics.)
3. 3. A review of current surveillance
methods and any mandated reporting or methods for reporting the disease for
providers.
4. 4. Conduct descriptive epidemiology
analysis of the disease including who is more frequently affected and
characteristics of the population that might help in creating a prevention plan. Include costs (both financial and
social) associated with the disease or problem.
5. 5. Review how the disease is diagnosed,
current national standards for screening or prevention, and pick one screening
test and review its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, cost
and any current national guidelines for conducting which patients to conduct
this test on.
6. 6. Provide a brief plan of how you will
address this epidemiological disease in your practice once you are finished
with school. Provide three actions you will take
along with how you will measure outcomes of your actions.
7. 7. Conclude in a clear manner with a
brief overview of key points of the entire disease,
Preparing the Paper
§ Page length: 7-10 pages,
excluding title/cover page
§ APA format 6th edition
§ Include references when
necessary.
§ Include at least one
table to present information somewhere in the paper.
Directions and Grading Criteria
|
Category
|
Points
Possible
|
Points Earned
|
Comments
|
|
Scholarly Introduction (clear presentation of problem)
|
20
|
||
|
Background and significance of the disease (includes incidence
or prevalence statistics)
|
30
|
||
|
Current surveillance methods
|
30
|
||
|
Descriptive epidemiological analysis (includes characteristics
of the at-risk population and/or those affected by the disease and costs of
the disease)
|
30
|
||
|
Screening and diagnosis (includes review of current guidelines
for screening and diagnosis of the disease. In-depth review of statistics one
screening or diagnostic test provided)
|
30
|
||
|
Plan of action (includes at least three evidenced based actions,
supported by literature, that the student will take in their own practice and
how outcomes will be measured)
|
30
|
||
|
Conclusion
|
20
|
||
|
Mechanics of writing, APA
|
10
|
||
|
Total
|
200
|
Total Points earned =
|
A quality paper will meet or exceed all of the criteria
requirements.
|
Grading Rubric
|
Assignment Criteria
|
Exceptional
Outstanding or highest level of performance
|
Exceeds
Very good or high level of performance
|
Meets
Competent or satisfactory level of performance
|
Needs Improvement
Poor or failing level of performance
|
Developing
Unsatisfactory level of performance
|
|
Identification of the problem/concern
|
20 Points
|
18 Points
|
16 Points
|
8 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Comprehensively identifies the problem/concern
|
Adequately identifies the problem/concern
|
Identification of problem/concern is limited
|
Identification of problem/concern is unclear.
|
Identification of problem/concern is absent
|
|
|
Background and significance of the disease (includes incidence
or prevalence statistics)
|
30 Points
|
26 Points
|
24 Points
|
11 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Background is complete, presents risk, disease impact and at
least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented and
supported by evidence.
|
Background and significance of the disease is not provided.
|
||||
|
Current surveillance methods
|
30 Points
|
26 Points
|
24 Points
|
11 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Current local, state, and national disease surveillance methods
are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on
whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence
|
More than one local, state, and national disease surveillance
methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information
on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence
|
One of either local, state, and national disease surveillance
methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information
on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence
|
Local, state, and national disease surveillance methods were not
discussed.
|
||
|
Descriptive epidemiological analysis (includes characteristics
of the at-risk population and/or those affected by the disease and costs of
the disease)
|
30 Points
|
26 Points
|
24 Points
|
11 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological
points of the identified disease and population most at risk, supported by
scholarly evidence.
|
Adequate review with some analysis of descriptive
epidemiological points of the identified disease and population most at risk
supported by scholarly evidence.
|
Limited review and analysis of key descriptive epidemiological
points of the identified disease and at-risk population.
|
Minimal analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of
the identified disease and at-risk population.
|
No analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the
identified disease and at-risk population is provided.
|
|
|
Screening and diagnosis (includes review of current guidelines
for screening and diagnosis of the disease. In-depth review of statistics one
screening or diagnostic test provided)
|
30 Points
|
26 Points
|
24 Points
|
11 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
Comprehensive review of current guidelines for screening,
diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and
reliability of screening tests is presented.
|
Adequate review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and
statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of
screening tests is presented.
|
Limited review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and
statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of
screening tests.
|
Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis,
and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of
screening tests.
|
Review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics
related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests not
provided.
|
|
|
Plan of action (includes at least three evidenced based actions,
supported by literature, that the student will take in their own practice and
how outcomes will be measured)
|
30 Points
|
26 Points
|
24 Points
|
11 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
A comprehensive plan of action specific to the student’s
interests, the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced
based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or
prevalence of the disease.
|
An adequate, but not fully comprehensive, plan of action
specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is
presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the
impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease.
|
Actions are minimal or unclear, or lack specificity to
geographic area, are not supported directly by evidence or are not direct
actions the student can take in practice.
|
Plan of action not provided.
|
||
|
Conclusion
|
20 Points
|
18 Points
|
16 Points
|
8 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically
presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action.
|
The conclusion adequately and logically presents major points of
the paper with clear direction for action, but lacks one major point or is
not succinct.
|
The conclusion is a limited review of key points of the paper,
is not succinct, or lacks one or more major points of the paper or clear
direction for action.
|
Conclusion is unclear or significantly limited in overview of
the paper.
|
Conclusion not provided.
|
|
|
Grammar, Spelling, APA
|
10 Points
|
9 Points
|
8 Points
|
4 Points
|
0 Points
|
|
APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate,
or with zero to one errors.
|
Two to four errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax
noted.
|
Five to seven errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and
syntax noted.
|
Eight to nine errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and
syntax noted.
|
Post contains greater than ten errors in APA format, grammar,
spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after
faculty feedback.
|
|
|
Total Points Possible = 200 points
|
No comments:
Post a Comment