E-Mail Address: support@nursingpaperacers.com

Whatsapp Chats: +1 (601) 227-3647

Discussion: Research in Health Care

Discussion: Research in Health Care

Discussion: Research in Health Care

NOW FOR AN ORIGINAL PAPER ASSIGNMENT: Discussion: Research in Health Care

The interpretation of research in health care is essential to decision making. By understanding research, health care providers can identify risk factors, trends, outcomes for treatment, health care costs and best practices. To be effective in evaluating and interpreting research, the reader must first understand how to interpret the findings. You will practice article analysis in Topics 2, 3, and 5.

For this assignment:

Search the GCU Library and find three different health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles that appear in the Topic Materials or textbook. Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis 1” template.

Refer to the “Patient Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital-at-Home and Usual Hospital Care for COPD Exacerbations: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” in conjunction with the “Article Analysis Example 1,” for an example of an article analysis.

While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.

This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.

You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Refer to the LopesWrite Technical Support articles for assistance.

AttachmentsHLT-362V-RS2-ArticleAnalysisExample-1.docx
HLT-362V-RS2-ArticleAnalysis-1-Template.docx

Article Analysis 1

No of Criteria: 10 Achievement Levels: 5CriteriaAchievement LevelsDescriptionPercentage1: Unsatisfactory0.00 %2: Less Than Satisfactory65.00 %3: Satisfactory75.00 %4: Good85.00 %5: Excellent100.00 %Content100.0     Three Quantitative Articles10.0Fewer than three articles are presented. None of the articles presented use quantitative research.N/AThree articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only two articles are based on quantitative research.N/AThree articles are presented. All three articles are based on quantitative research.Article Citation and Permalinka 210.0Article citation and permalink are omitted.Article citation and permalink are presented. There are significant errors. Page numbers are not indicated to cite information, or the page numbers are incorrect.Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format, but there are errors. Page numbers to cite information are missing, or incorrect, in some areas.Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format. Page numbers are used to cite information. There are minor errors.Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is accurately presented in APA format. Page numbers are accurate and used in all areas when citing information.Broad Topic Area/Title10.0Broad topic area and title are omitted.Broad topic area and title are referenced but are incomplete.Broad topic area and title are summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies.Broad topic area and title are presented. There are some minor errors, but the content overall is accurate.Broad topic area and title are fully presented and accurate.Independent and Dependent Variables and Type of Data for Variables10.0Variable types and data for variables are omitted.Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are inaccuracies.Variable types and data for variables are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.Variable types and data for variables are presented and accurate.Population of Interest for the Study10.0Population of interest for the study is omitted.Population of interest for the study is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.Population of interest for the study is presented. There are inaccuracies.Population of interest for the study is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.Population of interest for the study is presented and accurate.Sample10.0Sample is omitted.Sample is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.Sample is presented. There are inaccuracies.Sample is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.Sample is presented and accurate.Sampling Method10.0Sampling method is omitted.Sampling is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.Sampling is presented. There are inaccuracies.Sampling is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.Sampling method is presented and accurate.Descriptive Statistics (mean, median, mode; standard deviation) (Identify examples of descriptive statistics in the article.)10.0Descriptive statistic examples from the article are omitted. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.N/ADescriptive statistic examples from the article are presented. There are some very minor inaccuracies or omissions.N/ADescriptive statistic examples from the article are presented and accurate.Inferential Statistics (Identify examples of inferential statistics in the article.)10.0Inferential statistic examples from the article are omitted. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.N/AInferential statistic examples from the article are presented. There are some very minor inaccuracies or omissions.N/AInferential statistic examples from the article are presented and accurate.Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)10.0Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.Total Percentage  100

 


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 colleagues’ 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 · 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; –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: · Use grammar and syntax that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing; · Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Use original language and refrain from directly quoting original source materials; -provide correct APA · 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: ·Use grammar and syntax that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing; ; · Make a few errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · paraphrase but refrain from directly quoting original source materials; Provide correct APA format · 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: · Make more than occasional errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; · Directly quote from original source materials and/or paraphrase rather than use original language; lack correct APA format; and/or · 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: · Use grammar and syntax that is that is unclear · Make many errors in spelling, grammar, and syntax; and –use incorrect APA format · Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

Total Points: 30