Write My Paper Button

WhatsApp Widget
Skip to content
Home » 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:

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:

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 Outcome
Background/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 Outcome
Surveillance 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 Outcome
Descriptive 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 Outcome
Screening, 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 Outcome
Plan

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 Outcome
Summary/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 Outcome
Assignment 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 Outcome
Grammar, 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 Outcome
Late 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