Epidemiological Analysis: Chronic Health Problem
Preparing the Assignment
Requirements
· This paper should clearly and comprehensively discuss a chronic health disease. Select a topic from Asthma, Atopic Dermatitis, and Gastritis
· The paper should be organized into the following sections:
1. Introduction (Identification of the problem) with a clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance and a scholarly overview of the paper’s content. No heading is used for the Introduction per APA current edition.
2. Background and Significance of the disease, to include: Definition, description, signs and symptoms. Incidence and prevalence of statistics by state with a comparison to national statistics pertaining to the disease. If after a search of the library and scholarly data bases, you are unable to find statistics for your home state, or other states, consider this a gap in the data and state as much in the body of the paper. For instance, you may state something like, “After an exhausting search of the scholarly data bases, this writer is unable to locate incidence and/or prevalence data for the state of…” This indicates a gap in surveillance that will be included in the “Plan” section of this paper.
3. Surveillance and Reporting: Current surveillance methods and mandated reporting processes as related to the chronic health condition chosen should be specific.
4. Epidemiological Analysis: Conduct a descriptive epidemiology analysis of the health condition. Be sure to include all of the 5 W’s: What, Who, Where, When, Why. Use details associated with all of the W’s, such as the “Who” which should include an analysis of the determinants of health. Include costs (both financial and social) associated with the disease or problem.
5. Screening and Guidelines: Review how the disease is diagnosed and current national standards (guidelines). Pick one screening test and review its sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and cost.
6. Plan: Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation. Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the interventions have utility, are useful?) Note: Consider primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.
7. Summary/Conclusion: Conclude in a clear manner with a brief overview of the keys points from each section of the paper utilizing integration of resources.
8. The paper should be formatted and organized into the following sections which focus on the chosen chronic health condition.
9. Adhere to all paper preparation guidelines (see below).
Preparing the Paper
1. Page length: 7-10 pages, excluding title page and references.
2. APA format current edition
3. Include scholarly in-text references throughout and a reference list.
4. Include at least one table that the student creates to present information. Please refer to the “Requirements” or rubric for further details. APA formatting required.
5. Length: Papers not adhering to the page length may be subject to either (but not both) of the following at the discretion of the course faculty: 1. Your paper may be returned to you for editing to meet the length guidelines, or, 2. Your faculty may deduct up to five (5) points from the final grade.
|
ASSIGNMENT CONTENT
|
|
Category
|
Points
|
%
|
Description
|
|
Identification of the
Health Problem
|
15
|
7.5%
|
Comprehensively and succinctly states the
problem/concern. Clear presentation of the problem as well as the
significance with a scholarly overview of the paper’s content.
|
|
Background and Significance of the
Health Problem
|
30
|
15%
|
Background and significance is complete, presents
risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of
the disease within the student’s state compared to national data. Evidence
supports background. If the student discovers a gap in data (no state level
data), this is stated within the section. A student created table is included
using APA format. In the case of a gap in data the student will select two
other sets of data to use in the student created table.
|
|
Current Surveillance and Reporting
Methods
|
30
|
15%
|
Current state and national disease surveillance
methods are reviewed along with currently gathered types of statistics and
information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting. Supported by
evidence.
|
|
Descriptive Epidemiological Analysis
of Health Problem
|
35
|
17%
|
Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive
epidemiological points for the chronic health problem. The 5 W’;s of
epidemiological analysis should be fully identified. Supported by scholarly
evidence.
|
|
Screening, Diagnosis, Guidelines
|
30
|
15%
|
Review of current guidelines for screening and
diagnosis. Screening tool statistics related to validity, predictive value,
and reliability of screening tests are presented.
|
|
Plan of Action
|
30
|
15%
|
Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse
practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation.
Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and
include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the
interventions have utility, are useful?) Note: Consider primary, secondary,
and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health policy
advocacy efforts. ;All interventions should be based on evidence – connected
to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.
|
|
Conclusion
|
15
|
7.5%
|
The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and
logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action.
Includes scholarly references
|
|
185
|
92%
|
Total CONTENT Points = 185 pts
|
|
|
ASSIGNMENT FORMAT
|
|
|
|
|
Category
|
Points
|
%
|
Description
|
|
APA current ed.
|
10
|
5%
|
APA is consistently utilized according to the current
edition throughout the paper.
|
|
Grammar, Syntax, Spelling
|
5
|
3%
|
The paper is free from grammar, unscholarly context
or “voice” and spelling is accurate throughout.
|
|
15
|
8%
|
Total FORMAT Points = 15 pts
|
|
|
Rubric
|
Chronic Health_
|
|
Criteria
|
Ratings
|
Pts
|
|
|
15 pts
Excellent
Comprehensively and succinctly states the
problem/concern. Clear presentation of the problem as well as the significance
with a scholarly overview of the paper’s content.
|
14 pts
V. Good
Identifies the problem/concern with adequate but
not in-depth presentation.
|
12 pts
Satisfactory
Identification of problem/concern is limited.
|
8 pts
Needs Improvement
Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is
unclear.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Improvement- Identification of problem/concern is
unclear.
|
|
15 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeBackground/Significance
|
|
30 pts
Excellent
Background and significance is complete, presents
risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of
the disease within the student’s state (or other data sets) compared to
national data. Evidence supports background. A student created table is
included.
|
27 pts
V. Good
Background is complete, presents risk, disease
impact and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics
supported by evidence, for instance state data or national data is
presented, but not both. Or, full data is presented but student table is
not included.
|
26 pts
Satisfactory
Background missing one or more key points and at
least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented. Lack of
evidence or limited presentation of the background. A table is included
which may or may not be student created; may be limited in data.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement
Background missing more than one key point and at
least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented, or
there is no supported evidence. Unclear conclusions or presentation. No
student created table is included; or if included is limited in scope or is
not student created.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Background and significance of the disease is not
provided.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeSurveillance and Reporting
|
|
30 pts
Excellent
Current state and national disease surveillance
methods are reviewed along with currently gathered types of statistics and
information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting. All writing
is supported by evidence.
|
27 pts
V. Good
State and national disease surveillance methods are
reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics is scant, reporting
requirements discussed. All writing is supported by evidence.
|
26 pts
Satisfactory
State or national surveillance statistics are
discussed as an overview, lacking detail / depth. Mandated reporting may be
absent. Writing is supported by evidence but may be inconsistent.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement
One of either state or national disease
surveillance methods reviewed; currently gathered types of statistics may
be missing or information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting
is missing. There is a lack of depth with inconsistent use of evidence.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Content not discussed.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeDescriptive Epidemiology
|
|
35 pts
Excellent
Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive
epidemiological points for the chronic health problem. The 5 W’s of
epidemiological analysis should be fully identified. Supported by scholarly
evidence.
|
32 pts
V. Good
Review and analysis has depth in general but may be
missing one of the 5 W’s OR may be scant in one area of the 5 W’s. All
writing is supported by evidence.
|
29 pts
Satisfactory
Review and analysis superficial in all of the 5 W’s
OR may be scant or missing 2 or more of the W’s. Evidence is present but
may not be throughout all content areas.
|
18 pts
Needs Improvement
Review and analysis is missing depth throughout all
of the content areas. Evidence may or may not support the writing.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
No analysis provided.
|
|
35 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeScreening, Diagnosis, Guidelines
|
|
30 pts
Excellent
Comprehensive review of current guidelines for
screening and diagnosis. Screening tool statistics related to validity,
predictive value, and reliability of screening tests are presented.
|
27 pts
V. Good
Adequate review of guidelines for screening,
diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and
reliability of screening tests is presented.
|
26 pts
Satisfactory
Limited review of guidelines for screening,
diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and
reliability of screening tests.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement
Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for
screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value,
and reliability of screening tests. There is a lack of depth with
inconsistent use of evidence.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and
statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of
screening tests not provided.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomePlan
|
|
30 pts
Excellent
Integrating evidence, provide a plan of how a nurse
practitioner will address this chronic health condition after graduation.
Provide three specific interventions that are based on the evidence and
include how you will measure outcomes (how will you know that the
interventions have utility, are useful?) Note: Consider primary,
secondary, and tertiary interventions as well as the integration of health
policy advocacy efforts. All interventions should be based on evidence –
connected to a resource such as a scholarly piece of research.
|
27 pts
V. Good
An adequate, but not fully comprehensive, plan of
action specific to 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.
|
26 pts
Satisfactory
A limited plan of action specific to the problem,
and the geographic area, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. Three
actions or less may be presented with limited or little evidence.
|
15 pts
Needs Improvement
Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for
screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value,
and reliability of screening tests. Actions are minimal or unclear, or lack
specificity, are not supported directly by evidence or are not direct
actions the student can take in practice. There is a lack of depth with
inconsistent use of evidence.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Plan of action not provided.
|
|
30 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeSummary/Conclusion
|
|
15 pts
Excellent
The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and
logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for
action. Includes scholarly references.
|
14 pts
V. Good
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. Includes scholarly references.
|
12 pts
Satisfactory
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. Scholarly references may or may not be
included.
|
8 pts
Needs Improvement
Conclusion is unclear or significantly limited in
overview of the paper. Scholarly references may or may not be included.
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
No Summary/conclusion is included.
|
|
15 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeAssignment Format Possible Points =15 Points
APA 7th ed.
|
|
10 pts
Excellent
APA is consistently utilized according to the 7th
edition throughout the paper.
|
9 pts
V. Good
One or two errors in APA format
|
8 pts
Satisfactory
Three-Five errors in APA format
|
5 pts
Needs Improvement
Six errors in APA format
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Greater than six errors in APA formatting.
|
|
10 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeGrammar, Syntax, Spelling
|
|
5 pts
Excellent
There are no grammar, unscholarly context or
“voice” errors in the paper and spelling is accurate throughout.
|
4 pts
V. Good
One or two errors
|
3 pts
Satisfactory
Three-five errors
|
2 pts
Needs Improvement
Six errors
|
0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Greater than six errors
|
|
5 pts
|
|
This criterion is linked to a
Learning OutcomeLate penalty deductions
Students are expected to submit
assignments by the time they are due. Assignments submitted after the due
date and time will receive a deduction of 10% of the total points possible
for that assignment for each day the assignment is late. Assignments will be
accepted, with penalty as described, up to a maximum of three days late,
after which point a zero will be recorded for the assignment. Quizzes and
discussions are not considered assignments and are not part of the late
assignment policy.
|
|
0 pts
Minus Points
|
0 pts
Minus Points
|
|
0 pts
|
|
PreviousNext
