please create a discussion post following the instructions and the rubric: Instructions: Locate ...
please create a discussion post following the instructions and the rubric: Instructions: Locate a mass media article published within the last year that describes findings of an epidemiological study. Be sure that the article is about an epidemiological study and not another area of population health. Then, use the Walden Library to locate the peer-reviewed research article on which the mass media report is based. Post a response to the following: Briefly summarize the study you found, and then include the citations for both the mass media and the peer-reviewed articles. Explain what epidemiological concepts are included in the mass media article (e.g., measures of association, study design, confounders, and bias) and how they compare to those in the peer-reviewed article. Give your assessment of how well the mass media article represented the actual research that was conducted. Describe any obvious omissions from the mass media article that epidemiologists critiquing the study would need to know. Finally, imagine that a patient brings this mass media article to you and asks you for your informed opinion. Explain how you would respond or interpret the article for the patient. Rubric: RESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 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 library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) 20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty. 19 to >15.0 ptsGood• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty. 15 to >12.0 ptsFair• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort. 12 to >0 ptsPoor• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) 30 to >29.0 ptsExcellentInitial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. 29 to >23.0 ptsGoodInitial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. 23 to >18.0 ptsFairInitial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. 18 to >0 ptsPoorInitial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION 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 Total Points: 100 Resources to look into: Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2024). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (4th ed.). Springer. Chapter 6, “Applying Evidence at the Population Level” (pp. 128-157) Chapter 7, “Using Information Technology to Improve Population Outcomes” (pp. 158-182) Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practiceLinks to an external site.(6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett. Appendix A, “Guide to the Critical Appraisal of an Epidemiologic/Public Health Research Article” American Journal of Health Behavior. (n.d.). Writing a press release Links to an external site.. https://ajhb.org/journal/writing-press-release The James Lind Library. (n.d.). https://www.jameslindlibrary.org/Links to an external site. Hammes, L. S., Rossi, A. P., Pedrotti, L. G., Pitrez, P. M., Mutlaq, M. P., & Rosa, R. G. (2021). Is the press properly presenting the epidemiological data on COVID-19? An analysis of newspapers from 25 countriesLinks to an external site.. Journal of Public Health Policy, 42(3), 359–372. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-021-00298-7 Shah, H. M., & Chung, K. C. (2009). Archie Cochrane and his vision for evidence-based medicineLinks to an external site.. Plastic and reconstructive surgery, 124(3), 982–988. https://doi.org/10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181b03928 Walden University Doctoral Capstone Form and Style. (n.d.). APA style for capstone writers: Abstracts for the capstone .Links to an external site.https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/apa/abstracts#:~:text=The%20abstract%20should%20begin%20on,exceed%20one%20page%20in%20length Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals .Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals
