respond to these discussion posts following the instructions and rubric: Rubric: CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) 20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) 20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) 10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 9 to >8.0 ptsGoodDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 8 to >6.0 ptsFairDiscussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 6 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 10 pts Instructions: Respond to at least two classmates on two different days in one or more of the following ways: Compare your selected articles with respect to differences in study design. Discuss differences or similarities in the media coverage of your selected studies. Expand on a colleague’s posting with additional insight and resources. Make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the discussion. Note: Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students. Disussion post 1: I selected a mass media article based on mental health epidemiology in the media. The article I chose was published by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. This article highlighted findings from a national epidemiological study examining the prevalence of mental health crises among U.S. adults. The article pinpointed that one in ten adults experience a mental health crisis within the past year, indicating that the younger adults have a higher prevalence. The survey found that young adults ages 18 to 29 reported the highest crisis prevalence at 15.1%, compared to 2.6% of those over 60 (John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health., 2025). The thought process of one when they have a mental health crisis is defined as a time of emotional and psychological distress that becomes overwhelming required supportive care. I selected this article because it emphasized on disparities in the mental health burden and patterns of help- seeking, identifying that most individuals would seek aide from a health profession or a trusted contact versus a hotline crisis. The peer reviewed research articles that correlate with this report comes from data with Life Stressors Impact on Mental Health and Well Being (CLIMB) study, it was a national representative survey of U.S adults. Research on this article were conducted with an epidemiological analysis with a cross sectional that reveals the prevalence of past- year mental health crises and identifies clinical and demographic data that correlates. The measures that associated were based on comparisons of age, race, and ethnicity, types of mental health diagnoses and social risk factors. I liked how the authors correlated the importance of bias. The article with correlation as well is called over policing people with serious mental health conditions. This contributes and relates to the mental health crisis increasing. We call for the psychiatric rehabilitation field to assess over policing as racialized trauma via a targeted universal trauma screening to provide trauma- informed rehabilitation services (Buchbinder et al.,2023). I believe the mass media article represented the research findings reasonably well in terms of accuracy and public health relevance, but it did lack methodological detail. The reflection should be based on reflective associations rather than casual relationships, also mental health crisis being appropriately diagnosed on a clinical standpoint rather than self-reported. Some readers may overinterpret the results or think there is direct causation. I believe these articles bring valuable information on the topic of common mental health crisis and identifying the groups, population that are of higher risk. In my opinion I believe its valuable. Proper explanation of the study and the findings is necessary to elaborate on how not everyone is going to experience a crisis, or that each will identify a single cause. The highlight of this study to identify the importance of recognizing mental health distress early and ensuring access to appropriate support. My reassurance the patients at that population level that these studies are utilized to guide prevention and form policies. All this while benefiting a patient’s individual care decisions bases on their individual symptoms, history and clinical necessity. References Anderson, A., Eisenberg, M. D., Kennedy-Hendricks, A., Castrucci, B. C., Galea, S., & Ettman, C. K. (2025). Mental health crises and help-seeking among U.S. adults in 2024–2025. Health Affairs Scholar, 3(9). https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxaf166Links to an external site. Buchbinder, S.K., Giacobbe, G., & Minor, T.D. (2023). Over policing people with serious mental health conditions: Considering racialized trauma for trauma-informed psychiatric rehabilitation services. Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal, 46 (1), 21-25. https://doi.org/10.1037/prj0000529Links to an external site. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. (2025, August 19). Mental health crisis hits nearly 1 in 10 U.S. adults. https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2025/mental-health-crisis-hits-nearly-1-in-10-us-adultsLinks to an external site. Discussion post 2: Summary of the Epidemiological Study The mass media article chosen for this discussion is a Live Science report that summarizes results from a 17-year epidemiological study showing the significant impact of HPV vaccination on infection rates. The article highlights how HPV infection prevalence dropped dramatically among vaccinated adolescent girls and young women and also declined among unvaccinated individuals, an effect attributed to herd immunity (Pester, 2025). The report emphasizes the public health importance of vaccination in reducing HPV infections that are linked to cervical cancer. The peer-reviewed study at the center of this media report was published in JAMA Pediatrics. DeSieghardt et al. (2025) analyzed HPV infection data from 2,335 sexually experienced adolescent girls and young women aged 13–26 years collected across six surveillance periods between 2006 and 2023. The research used epidemiological cross-sectional methods to compare the prevalence of HPV vaccine-type infections among vaccinated and unvaccinated participants over time. The study found extremely large reductions in vaccine-type HPV prevalence, up to 98.4%, among vaccinated participants and meaningful reductions in unvaccinated participants, indicating strong population-level effectiveness and herd protection (DeSieghardt et al., 2025). Epidemiological Concepts in the Mass Media Article Versus the Peer-Reviewed Journal Article The Live Science article includes several key epidemiological concepts in a simplified manner. The report discusses declines in HPV infection rates over time and describes herd immunity, where even unvaccinated individuals benefit from widespread vaccination (Pester, 2025). While this conveys important public health information, it does not describe the study design, cross-sectional comparisons over time, in technical terms, nor does it present measures of association such as adjusted odds ratios or confidence intervals. In contrast, the JAMA Pediatrics article provides a full epidemiological framework. DeSieghardt et al. (2025) detail the cross-sectional study design and use adjusted logistic regression to estimate reductions in HPV prevalence by vaccine type among vaccinated and unvaccinated participants. They report specific measures of association, including adjusted odds ratios (aORs) with 95% confidence intervals showing statistically significant declines in vaccine-type HPV positivity across groups. They also control for potential confounding variables, such as age and sexual risk factors, through use of propensity score weighting. Additionally, the journal article considers bias and limitations by explaining how surveillance sampling and changes in vaccination coverage over time could affect prevalence estimates. Assessment of Media Representation of the Research The Live Science article accurately communicates the primary finding: that HPV vaccination has led to dramatic declines in HPV infections among both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations, illustrating direct protection and herd immunity effects. This makes a complex epidemiological finding accessible to the general public and effectively emphasizes the benefits of vaccination. However, the media report omits several scientific details that are central to interpreting the study’s strength and limitations. It does not describe the study design, provide quantitative measures of association, such as aORs and confidence intervals, or explain how confounders were controlled. These omissions are typical for media coverage but can lead readers to oversimplify the results without understanding the statistical rigor behind them. Epidemiologists evaluating the research would need this context to assess internal validity and the robustness of the conclusions. Responding to a Patient Who Brings the Media Article If a patient brought this news article to me, I would first validate their interest in understanding the science behind HPV vaccination. I would explain that the media report is based on a peer-reviewed study published in a respected medical journal, meaning it underwent rigorous scientific review. I would clarify that the large reductions in HPV infection observed in the study reflect both direct protection for vaccinated individuals and indirect protection through herd immunity for the broader community. I would reinforce the public health implication: that widespread vaccination not only protects individuals who receive the HPV vaccine but also contributes to community-wide reductions in infection risk, thereby reducing the future burden of cervical and other HPV-related cancers. Finally, I would encourage the patient to follow recommended vaccination schedules and cervical cancer screening guidelines, providing reassurance and practical guidance grounded in evidence. References DeSieghardt, A., Ding, L., Ermel, A., Franco, E. L., Dagnall, C., Brown, D. R., Yao, S., & Kahn, J. A. (2025). Population-level effectiveness and herd protection 17 years after HPV vaccine introduction. JAMA Pediatrics, 179(12), 1326. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2025.3568Links to an external site. Pester, P. (2025, October 2). HPV vaccination drives cervical cancer rates down in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Live Science. https://www.livescience.com/health/cancer/hpv-vaccination-drives-cervical-cancer-rates-down-in-both-vaccinated-and-unvaccinated-peopleLinks to an external site. World Health Organization. (2023). HPV and cervical cancer. https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/human-papillomavirus-(hpv)-and-cervical-cancer
READ MORE >>
