NURS 6050 WU Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health Discussion

NURS 6050 WU Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health Discussion NURS 6050 WU Policy and Advocacy for Improving Population Health Discussion When politics and medical science intersect, there can be much debate. Sometimes anecdotes or hearsay are misused as evidence to support a particular point. Despite these and other challenges, however, evidence-based approaches are increasingly used to inform health policy decision-making regarding causes of disease, intervention strategies, and issues impacting society. One example is the introduction of childhood vaccinations and the use of evidence-based arguments surrounding their safety. In this Discussion, you will identify a recently proposed health policy and share your analysis of the evidence in support of this policy. To Prepare: Review the Congress website provided in the Resources and identify one recent (within the past 5 years) proposed health policy in California. Review the health policy you identified and reflect on the background and development of this health policy. BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 7 Post a description of the health policy you selected and a brief background for the problem or issue being addressed. Explain whether you believe there is an evidence base to support the proposed policy and explain why. Be specific and provide examples. Rubric provided, APA format, use 3 credible sources (within 5 years). Please red carefully on the bolded instructions. rubric_detail_____blackboard_learn.pdf ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS Rubric Detail Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout. Name: NURS_6050_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric Grid View EXIT List View Main Posting Excellent Good Fair Poor 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with re!ective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Responds to the discussion question(s) and is re!ective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Responds to some of the discussion question(s). Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Is somewhat lacking re!ection and critical analysis and synthesis. Supported by at least three credible sources. Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. One or two criteria are not addressed or are super”cially addressed. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. Main Post: Timeliness 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Posts main post by day 3. First Response Lacks depth or super”cially addresses criteria. Lacks re!ection and critical analysis and synthesis. Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. Contains only one or no credible sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response is on topic and may have some depth. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack e#ective professional communication. Responses posted in the discussion lack e#ective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Responses to faculty questions are missing. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. No credible sources are cited. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Second Response 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Response is on topic and may have some depth. Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack e#ective professional communication. Responses posted in the discussion lack e#ective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Responses to faculty questions are missing. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. No credible sources are cited. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Response is e#ectively written in standard, edited English. Participation 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three di#erent days. 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 di#erent days. Total Points: 100 Name: NURS_6050_Module04_Week07_Discussion_Rubric EXIT … Purchase answer to see full attachment Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool’s honor code & terms of service . Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10