Tag: Homework Solution

[Solved] Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ) Gap Analysis Toolkit

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Gap Analysis Toolkit **Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Gap Analysis Toolkit** NOT RATED Purchase the answer to view it ![blurred-text](https://www.sweetstudy.com/assets/images/blurred-text.c4cde9f021be0abed13…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Gap Analysis Toolkit

**Using the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) Gap Analysis Toolkit**

NOT RATED

Purchase the answer to view it

![blurred-text](https://www.sweetstudy.com/assets/images/blurred-text.c4cde9f021be0abed13ca77c3d6d43d3.png)

![homework question](https://www.sweetstudy.com/assets/images/loader.e99f1ef323fecd089c1cdcaaadcd1f9b.gif)

plagiarism checkPurchase $20

November 6, 2026
[Solved] Focused Soap Note

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

**files (2)** – ## NRNPPRAC66656675FocusedSOAPNoteTemplate13.doc – ## Week4Focuslate.docx **## NRNPPRAC66656675FocusedSOAPNoteTemplate13.doc** [removed] **## Week4Focuslate.docx** In Weeks 4, 7, and 9 of the course, you will participate in clinical discussions called grand rounds. In one of these …

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

**files (2)**

– ## NRNPPRAC66656675FocusedSOAPNoteTemplate13.doc

– ## Week4Focuslate.docx

**## NRNPPRAC66656675FocusedSOAPNoteTemplate13.doc**

[removed]

**## Week4Focuslate.docx**

In Weeks 4, 7, and 9 of the course, you will participate in clinical discussions called grand rounds. In one of these three weeks, you will be a presenter as well as help facilitate the online discussion; in the others you will be an active discussion participant. When it is your week to present, you will create a Focused SOAP note and a short didactic (teaching) video presenting a real (but de-identified) complex patient case from your practicum experience.

You should have received an assignment from your Instructor letting you know which week of the course you are assigned to present.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/213753/modules/items/8948768)

To prepare:

· Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Also review the Kaltura Media Uploader resource in the left-hand navigation of the classroom for help creating your self-recorded Kaltura video.

· Select a child/adolescent or adult patient from your clinical experience that presents with a significant concern. Create a focused SOAP note for this patient using the template in the Resources. All SOAP notes must be signed by your Preceptor. When you submit your SOAP note, you should include the complete SOAP note as a Word document and PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. You must submit your SOAP Note using Turnitin.

**Please Note:** Electronic signatures are not accepted. If both files are not received by the due date, Faculty will deduct points per the Walden Late Policies.

· Then, based on your SOAP note of this patient, develop a video case study presentation. Take time to practice what you will say beforehand, and ensure that you have the appropriate lighting and equipment to record the presentation.

· Your presentation should include objectives for your audience, at least 3 possible discussion questions/prompts for your classmates to respond to, and at least 5 scholarly resources to support your diagnostic reasoning and treatment plan.

**Video assignment for this week’s presenters:**

**Record** yourself presenting the complex case study for your clinical patient. In your presentation:

· Dress professionally and present yourself in a professional manner.

· Display your photo ID at the start of the video when you introduce yourself.

· Ensure that you do not include any information that violates the principles of HIPAA (i.e., don’t use the patient’s name or any other identifying information).

· State 3–4 objectives for the presentation that are targeted, clear, use appropriate verbs from Bloom’s taxonomy, and address what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing.

· Present the full complex case study. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out; and plan for treatment and management.

· Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.

· Pose three questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.

· Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Specifically address the following for the patient, using your SOAP note as a guide.

·
**Subjective:** What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life?

·
**Objective:** What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment?

·
**Assessment:** Discuss their mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses and why you chose them. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with
_DSM-_ 5
_-TR_ diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.

·
**Plan:** What was your plan for psychotherapy (include one health promotion activity and patient education)? What was your plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies? Include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters, as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan. Discuss an identified social determinate of health impacting this patient’s mental health status and provide your recommendation for a referral to assist this patient in meeting this identified need (students will need to conduct research on this topic both in the literature and for community resources).

·
**Reflection notes:** What would you do differently with this patient if you could conduct the session again? If you are able to follow up with your patient, explain whether these interventions were successful and why or why not. If you were not able to conduct a follow-up, discuss what your next intervention would be.

**A note on grading:**

·
**Presenters:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Presenter Rubric** attached to this discussion to ensure you meet the scoring criteria.

·
**Participants:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Participant Rubric** located on the following
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page to ensure you meet the scoring criteria. Note the
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page is for viewing the participant rubric only. Your response should be posted in the forum of this page.

Week 4 Presenters:

By Day 3

**Post** your video and your focused SOAP note to the Grand Rounds Discussion forum. You must submit two files for the SOAP note, including a Word document and scanned PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. Then, actively respond to and guide the conversation as your colleagues post responses to your video.

Week 4 Participants:

By multiple days between Days 4 and 7

**Respond** at least
**2 times** each to
**all** colleagues who presented this week (should be 2-3 presenters each week). The goal is for the discussion forum to function as robust clinical conferences on the patients. Provide a response to 1 of the 3 discussion prompts that your colleagues provided in their video presentations. You may also provide additional information, alternative points of view, research to support treatment, or patient education strategies you might use with the relevant patient.

**## Week4Focuslate.docx**

In Weeks 4, 7, and 9 of the course, you will participate in clinical discussions called grand rounds. In one of these three weeks, you will be a presenter as well as help facilitate the online discussion; in the others you will be an active discussion participant. When it is your week to present, you will create a Focused SOAP note and a short didactic (teaching) video presenting a real (but de-identified) complex patient case from your practicum experience.

You should have received an assignment from your Instructor letting you know which week of the course you are assigned to present.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/213753/modules/items/8948768)

To prepare:

· Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Also review the Kaltura Media Uploader resource in the left-hand navigation of the classroom for help creating your self-recorded Kaltura video.

· Select a child/adolescent or adult patient from your clinical experience that presents with a significant concern. Create a focused SOAP note for this patient using the template in the Resources. All SOAP notes must be signed by your Preceptor. When you submit your SOAP note, you should include the complete SOAP note as a Word document and PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. You must submit your SOAP Note using Turnitin.

**Please Note:** Electronic signatures are not accepted. If both files are not received by the due date, Faculty will deduct points per the Walden Late Policies.

· Then, based on your SOAP note of this patient, develop a video case study presentation. Take time to practice what you will say beforehand, and ensure that you have the appropriate lighting and equipment to record the presentation.

· Your presentation should include objectives for your audience, at least 3 possible discussion questions/prompts for your classmates to respond to, and at least 5 scholarly resources to support your diagnostic reasoning and treatment plan.

**Video assignment for this week’s presenters:**

**Record** yourself presenting the complex case study for your clinical patient. In your presentation:

· Dress professionally and present yourself in a professional manner.

· Display your photo ID at the start of the video when you introduce yourself.

· Ensure that you do not include any information that violates the principles of HIPAA (i.e., don’t use the patient’s name or any other identifying information).

· State 3–4 objectives for the presentation that are targeted, clear, use appropriate verbs from Bloom’s taxonomy, and address what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing.

· Present the full complex case study. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out; and plan for treatment and management.

· Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.

· Pose three questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.

· Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Specifically address the following for the patient, using your SOAP note as a guide.

·
**Subjective:** What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life?

·
**Objective:** What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment?

·
**Assessment:** Discuss their mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses and why you chose them. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with
_DSM-_ 5
_-TR_ diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.

·
**Plan:** What was your plan for psychotherapy (include one health promotion activity and patient education)? What was your plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies? Include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters, as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan. Discuss an identified social determinate of health impacting this patient’s mental health status and provide your recommendation for a referral to assist this patient in meeting this identified need (students will need to conduct research on this topic both in the literature and for community resources).

·
**Reflection notes:** What would you do differently with this patient if you could conduct the session again? If you are able to follow up with your patient, explain whether these interventions were successful and why or why not. If you were not able to conduct a follow-up, discuss what your next intervention would be.

**A note on grading:**

·
**Presenters:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Presenter Rubric** attached to this discussion to ensure you meet the scoring criteria.

·
**Participants:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Participant Rubric** located on the following
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page to ensure you meet the scoring criteria. Note the
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page is for viewing the participant rubric only. Your response should be posted in the forum of this page.

Week 4 Presenters:

By Day 3

**Post** your video and your focused SOAP note to the Grand Rounds Discussion forum. You must submit two files for the SOAP note, including a Word document and scanned PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. Then, actively respond to and guide the conversation as your colleagues post responses to your video.

Week 4 Participants:

By multiple days between Days 4 and 7

**Respond** at least
**2 times** each to
**all** colleagues who presented this week (should be 2-3 presenters each week). The goal is for the discussion forum to function as robust clinical conferences on the patients. Provide a response to 1 of the 3 discussion prompts that your colleagues provided in their video presentations. You may also provide additional information, alternative points of view, research to support treatment, or patient education strategies you might use with the relevant patient.

**## NRNPPRAC66656675FocusedSOAPNoteTemplate13.doc**

[removed]

**## Week4Focuslate.docx**

In Weeks 4, 7, and 9 of the course, you will participate in clinical discussions called grand rounds. In one of these three weeks, you will be a presenter as well as help facilitate the online discussion; in the others you will be an active discussion participant. When it is your week to present, you will create a Focused SOAP note and a short didactic (teaching) video presenting a real (but de-identified) complex patient case from your practicum experience.

You should have received an assignment from your Instructor letting you know which week of the course you are assigned to present.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/213753/modules/items/8948768)

To prepare:

· Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Also review the Kaltura Media Uploader resource in the left-hand navigation of the classroom for help creating your self-recorded Kaltura video.

· Select a child/adolescent or adult patient from your clinical experience that presents with a significant concern. Create a focused SOAP note for this patient using the template in the Resources. All SOAP notes must be signed by your Preceptor. When you submit your SOAP note, you should include the complete SOAP note as a Word document and PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. You must submit your SOAP Note using Turnitin.

**Please Note:** Electronic signatures are not accepted. If both files are not received by the due date, Faculty will deduct points per the Walden Late Policies.

· Then, based on your SOAP note of this patient, develop a video case study presentation. Take time to practice what you will say beforehand, and ensure that you have the appropriate lighting and equipment to record the presentation.

· Your presentation should include objectives for your audience, at least 3 possible discussion questions/prompts for your classmates to respond to, and at least 5 scholarly resources to support your diagnostic reasoning and treatment plan.

**Video assignment for this week’s presenters:**

**Record** yourself presenting the complex case study for your clinical patient. In your presentation:

· Dress professionally and present yourself in a professional manner.

· Display your photo ID at the start of the video when you introduce yourself.

· Ensure that you do not include any information that violates the principles of HIPAA (i.e., don’t use the patient’s name or any other identifying information).

· State 3–4 objectives for the presentation that are targeted, clear, use appropriate verbs from Bloom’s taxonomy, and address what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing.

· Present the full complex case study. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out; and plan for treatment and management.

· Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.

· Pose three questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.

· Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Specifically address the following for the patient, using your SOAP note as a guide.

·
**Subjective:** What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life?

·
**Objective:** What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment?

·
**Assessment:** Discuss their mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses and why you chose them. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with
_DSM-_ 5
_-TR_ diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.

·
**Plan:** What was your plan for psychotherapy (include one health promotion activity and patient education)? What was your plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies? Include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters, as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan. Discuss an identified social determinate of health impacting this patient’s mental health status and provide your recommendation for a referral to assist this patient in meeting this identified need (students will need to conduct research on this topic both in the literature and for community resources).

·
**Reflection notes:** What would you do differently with this patient if you could conduct the session again? If you are able to follow up with your patient, explain whether these interventions were successful and why or why not. If you were not able to conduct a follow-up, discuss what your next intervention would be.

**A note on grading:**

·
**Presenters:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Presenter Rubric** attached to this discussion to ensure you meet the scoring criteria.

·
**Participants:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Participant Rubric** located on the following
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page to ensure you meet the scoring criteria. Note the
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page is for viewing the participant rubric only. Your response should be posted in the forum of this page.

Week 4 Presenters:

By Day 3

**Post** your video and your focused SOAP note to the Grand Rounds Discussion forum. You must submit two files for the SOAP note, including a Word document and scanned PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. Then, actively respond to and guide the conversation as your colleagues post responses to your video.

Week 4 Participants:

By multiple days between Days 4 and 7

**Respond** at least
**2 times** each to
**all** colleagues who presented this week (should be 2-3 presenters each week). The goal is for the discussion forum to function as robust clinical conferences on the patients. Provide a response to 1 of the 3 discussion prompts that your colleagues provided in their video presentations. You may also provide additional information, alternative points of view, research to support treatment, or patient education strategies you might use with the relevant patient.

**## NRNPPRAC66656675FocusedSOAPNoteTemplate13.doc**

[removed]

**## Week4Focuslate.docx**

In Weeks 4, 7, and 9 of the course, you will participate in clinical discussions called grand rounds. In one of these three weeks, you will be a presenter as well as help facilitate the online discussion; in the others you will be an active discussion participant. When it is your week to present, you will create a Focused SOAP note and a short didactic (teaching) video presenting a real (but de-identified) complex patient case from your practicum experience.

You should have received an assignment from your Instructor letting you know which week of the course you are assigned to present.

Resources

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/213753/modules/items/8948768)

To prepare:

· Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide. Also review the Kaltura Media Uploader resource in the left-hand navigation of the classroom for help creating your self-recorded Kaltura video.

· Select a child/adolescent or adult patient from your clinical experience that presents with a significant concern. Create a focused SOAP note for this patient using the template in the Resources. All SOAP notes must be signed by your Preceptor. When you submit your SOAP note, you should include the complete SOAP note as a Word document and PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. You must submit your SOAP Note using Turnitin.

**Please Note:** Electronic signatures are not accepted. If both files are not received by the due date, Faculty will deduct points per the Walden Late Policies.

· Then, based on your SOAP note of this patient, develop a video case study presentation. Take time to practice what you will say beforehand, and ensure that you have the appropriate lighting and equipment to record the presentation.

· Your presentation should include objectives for your audience, at least 3 possible discussion questions/prompts for your classmates to respond to, and at least 5 scholarly resources to support your diagnostic reasoning and treatment plan.

**Video assignment for this week’s presenters:**

**Record** yourself presenting the complex case study for your clinical patient. In your presentation:

· Dress professionally and present yourself in a professional manner.

· Display your photo ID at the start of the video when you introduce yourself.

· Ensure that you do not include any information that violates the principles of HIPAA (i.e., don’t use the patient’s name or any other identifying information).

· State 3–4 objectives for the presentation that are targeted, clear, use appropriate verbs from Bloom’s taxonomy, and address what the audience will know or be able to do after viewing.

· Present the full complex case study. Include chief complaint; history of present illness; any pertinent past psychiatric, substance use, medical, social, family history; most recent mental status exam; current psychiatric diagnosis including differentials that were ruled out; and plan for treatment and management.

· Report normal diagnostic results as the name of the test and “normal” (rather than specific value). Abnormal results should be reported as a specific value.

· Pose three questions or discussion prompts, based on your presentation, that your colleagues can respond to after viewing your video.

· Be succinct in your presentation, and do not exceed 8 minutes. Specifically address the following for the patient, using your SOAP note as a guide.

·
**Subjective:** What details did the patient provide regarding their chief complaint and symptomology to derive your differential diagnosis? What is the duration and severity of their symptoms? How are their symptoms impacting their functioning in life?

·
**Objective:** What observations did you make during the psychiatric assessment?

·
**Assessment:** Discuss their mental status examination results. What were your differential diagnoses? Provide a minimum of three possible diagnoses and why you chose them. List them from highest priority to lowest priority. What was your primary diagnosis, and why? Describe how your primary diagnosis aligns with
_DSM-_ 5
_-TR_ diagnostic criteria and is supported by the patient’s symptoms.

·
**Plan:** What was your plan for psychotherapy (include one health promotion activity and patient education)? What was your plan for treatment and management, including alternative therapies? Include pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatments, alternative therapies, and follow-up parameters, as well as a rationale for this treatment and management plan. Discuss an identified social determinate of health impacting this patient’s mental health status and provide your recommendation for a referral to assist this patient in meeting this identified need (students will need to conduct research on this topic both in the literature and for community resources).

·
**Reflection notes:** What would you do differently with this patient if you could conduct the session again? If you are able to follow up with your patient, explain whether these interventions were successful and why or why not. If you were not able to conduct a follow-up, discuss what your next intervention would be.

**A note on grading:**

·
**Presenters:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Presenter Rubric** attached to this discussion to ensure you meet the scoring criteria.

·
**Participants:** Review the
**Grand Rounds Participant Rubric** located on the following
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page to ensure you meet the scoring criteria. Note the
**Week 4 Assignment 1** page is for viewing the participant rubric only. Your response should be posted in the forum of this page.

Week 4 Presenters:

By Day 3

**Post** your video and your focused SOAP note to the Grand Rounds Discussion forum. You must submit two files for the SOAP note, including a Word document and scanned PDF/images of completed assignment signed by your Preceptor. Then, actively respond to and guide the conversation as your colleagues post responses to your video.

Week 4 Participants:

By multiple days between Days 4 and 7

**Respond** at least
**2 times** each to
**all** colleagues who presented this week (should be 2-3 presenters each week). The goal is for the discussion forum to function as robust clinical conferences on the patients. Provide a response to 1 of the 3 discussion prompts that your colleagues provided in their video presentations. You may also provide additional information, alternative points of view, research to support treatment, or patient education strategies you might use with the relevant patient.

November 6, 2026
[Solved] The Past, Present, and Future of Counseling

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

[>Physiology homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/biology-physiology) **Assignment: (2–4 pages**, excluding Title Page and Reference Page) Include the following sections: – Part 1 – Present – What is counseling? – How does it differ from other helping professions? – Summarize the philoso…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

[>Physiology homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/biology-physiology)

**Assignment: (2–4 pages**, excluding Title Page and Reference Page)

Include the following sections:

– Part 1 – Present
– What is counseling?
– How does it differ from other helping professions?
– Summarize the philosophical underpinnings of the counseling profession.
– Part 2 – Past
– Looking historically, if you showed Part I of your paper to the historical figure you chose, how would this figure handle it? Would the figure be shocked, mildly surprised, or in complete agreement? How would the figure respond?
– Part 3 – Future
– Discuss the future direction you selected that most excites you, and explain how it will enhance your professional practice as a counselor.

Be sure to use proper APA format and citations. These details are demonstrated in the template provided for this Assignment.

– Erford, B. T. (Ed.). (2024). _Orientation to the counseling profession: Advocacy, ethics, and essential professional foundations_ (4th ed.). Pearson Education.

– Chapter 1, “Becoming a Professional Counselor: Philosophical, Historical, and Future Directions” (pp. 2–34)
– Chapter 2, “Professional Counseling Organizations, Licensure, Certification, and Accreditation” (pp. 35–68)
– Chapter 17, "Implications for the Future of Professional Counseling" (pp. 529–533)
– Walden University. (n.d.). [_Keyword searching: Finding articles on your topic: Searching basics_Links to an external site.](http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics). Retrieved March 13, 2018, from http://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/keyword/searching-basics
– **Document:** [Research Paper Template: Past, Present, and Future of Counseling](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/214618/files/18093207?wrap=1) [Download Research Paper Template: Past, Present, and Future of Counseling](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/214618/files/18093207/download?download_frd=1)(Word Document)
– [American Counseling AssociationLinks to an external site.](http://www.counseling.org/). (2012). Home page. Retrieved from http://www.counseling.org
– [American Mental Health Counselors AssociationLinks to an external site.](http://www.amhca.org/). (n.d.). Home page. Retrieved March 13, 2018, from http://www.amhca.org
– [National Board for Certified CounselorsLinks to an external site.](http://www.nbcc.org/). (2012). Home page. Retrieved from [http://www.nbcc.orgLinks to an external site.](http://www.nbcc.org/)
– OASIS. (n.d.). [_Locate, cite, and reference journal articles: An interactive guide_Links to an external site.](https://academics.waldenu.edu/library/locate-cite-reference-articles). Walden University. https://academics.waldenu.edu/library/locate-cite-reference-articles

_**Note:**_ _In this program, you will be required to write using the American Psychological Association (APA) Publication Manual format and style. Please be sure to cite your Learning Resources or other resources you utilize for this Assignment and provide a Reference page for your citations. The Walden Writing Center has APA writing tips to assist you. We recognize that this formatting may be new to you, so your Instructor will be providing detailed feedback to you on your writing. As a result, please be sure to review the feedback you receive so you can develop strong writing skills._

November 6, 2026
[Solved] radiology

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

– [\ \ discussion.jpeg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussion-jpeg-10517027 "discussion.jpeg")

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

– [\
\
discussion.jpeg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/discussion-jpeg-10517027 "discussion.jpeg")

November 6, 2026
[Solved] Research problem-solving models and consider how you could use these models to evaluate criminal justice issues or programs.

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal) Research problem-solving models and consider how you could use these models to evaluate criminal justice issues or programs. Select a local, state, or federal criminal justice policy and research it. This could be the policy y…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

[>Criminal homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/law-criminal)

Research problem-solving models and consider how you could use these models to evaluate criminal justice issues or programs.

Select a local, state, or federal criminal justice policy and research it. This could be the policy you researched and analyzed in Weeks 1–3 or select a different policy of your choice. Potential topics include:

– Stand your ground policy/castle doctrine
– Registries for individuals who have committed sexual offenses
– No bail policy/bail reform
– Plea bargaining
– Three-strikes policies
– Counterterrorism policies

_Note:_ Speak with your faculty member if you need assistance selecting a policy for this assessment.

#### **Assessment Deliverable**

**Create a 12- to 15-slide presentation in which you explain how your selected problem-solving model can be applied to evaluating a criminal justice policy.** This presentation will be included in a workshop for new hires who will be evaluating criminal justice policies and programs.

Address the following in your presentation:

– Explain the value of evaluating criminal justice policies.
– Summarize the criminal justice policy selected.
– Specify whether the policy is applicable in local, state, or federal contexts.
– Include relevant details about the criminal justice policy’s purpose and its relevance to contemporary criminal justice issues.
– Analyze the ethical considerations regarding the policy. Include relevant details about:
– The advantages and challenges of the policy
– The public perception toward the policy
– The success of the policy in curbing criminal offenses
– Any unintended outcomes or consequences of the policy
– A problem or issue with the policy that needs a resolution
– Summarize the problem-solving model you selected for evaluation. Consider reviewing the problem-solving resources in the Assessment Support section.
– Explain how the problem-solving model can be used to evaluate and/or address ethical concerns related to the policy.
– Describe the process and intended outcomes of applying the problem-solving model to resolve the identified policy issue.

**SARA Model (Scanning, Analysis, Response, Assessment)**

NOT RATED

Purchase the answer to view it

![blurred-text](https://www.sweetstudy.com/assets/images/blurred-text.c4cde9f021be0abed13ca77c3d6d43d3.png)

![homework question](https://www.sweetstudy.com/assets/images/loader.e99f1ef323fecd089c1cdcaaadcd1f9b.gif)

plagiarism checkPurchase $20

– ### [Criminal Justice week 4](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/criminal-justice-week-4-20965465)

NOT RATED

7 months ago

November 6, 2026
[Solved] Business Finance – Management Homework

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

[>Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-management)

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

[>Management homework help](https://www.sweetstudy.com/fields/business-finance-management)

November 6, 2026
[Solved] EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDY DESIGNS

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

find attached the instructions **files (4)** – ## wk4epiassigninformation.docx – ## wk2epiassignment.docx – ## wk4epiassignrubrics.docx – wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf **## wk4epiassigninformation.docx** As introduced in the first few weeks of this course, investigators use various e…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

find attached the instructions

**files (4)**

– ## wk4epiassigninformation.docx

– ## wk2epiassignment.docx

– ## wk4epiassignrubrics.docx

– wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf

**## wk4epiassigninformation.docx**

As introduced in the first few weeks of this course, investigators use various epidemiological study designs to study health problems and the effects of health interventions. You have examined several study designs, including descriptive designs (in Week 2) and analytic study designs that are observational (in Week 3) or experimental (this week). As an MSN or DNP student, you should be able to determine which study design would be most suitable for addressing a health problem of interest to you, as this is a foundation for evidence-based practice.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999992)

TO PREPARE

· Consider an association between a risk factor and a particular health outcome that is of interest to you. Table 2.2, in Curley, has some excellent options. You may use this to guide your selection of topics or select your own population health topic.

· Then, select an observational OR experimental study design you think would be the most appropriate for exploring this association. You may select from any of the designs covered in this module.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following:

· Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. (Consult the Walden “Developing Research” resource for guidance on crafting a research question.)

· Explain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem.

· Summarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.).

· Explain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls?

· Consider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach?

· Explain ethical considerations pertaining to your study.

**## wk2epiassignment.docx**

![A close-up of a graph AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/epidemiologic-study-designs-20965699)

In this information age, where data are readily accessible and there is both a great demand for accelerated research projects and strict limitations on research funding, using existing data makes sense. Data used in this way are called secondary data; they come in many forms and contain information on just about anything—depending on who collected the information in the first place, and why.

As a health professional, you have access to a wide range of secondary data sources, including government agencies (such as, the Census Bureau or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private sources, including local health service providers. Global and international data are available from familiar sources, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. In addition, nearly every nation maintains statistics on social, economic, and environmental indicators, which contain a wealth of health information.
As a member of the Walden community, you have access to the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the world’s largest archival database of secondary data. You also have access to the Social Change Impact Report (SCIR) data sets—a Walden-owned database. There are also a number of sources and tutorials available to you through Walden’s Office of Research and Doctoral Quality.
No matter the topic—be it vaccination rates, women’s access to mammography, or chronic lung disease—you can probably find an existing secondary data source related to the specific population health problem you are investigating. The next steps are to identify the variables in the data source that you would need to analyze to examine the association of interest and to assess the validity of the data source. For this Assignment, you delve into these issues in greater detail.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999887)

TO PREPARE:

· Consider a variety of population health problems and then select one of professional interest on which to focus for this Assignment.

· Explore three data sources (data sets) presented in the Learning Resources that could aid you in describing the population and magnitude of the problem you selected. Consider the strengths and limitations of each data source.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In 3–4 pages (not including title page and references), analyze the data sources you selected by addressing the following:

· Briefly identify the population health problem you selected.

· Identify each data set you selected.

· Identify the variables in each data set you would need to examine the association of interest.

· Assess the validity of each data set. Has it been used for prior studies/publications?

· Explain challenges you might face as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4epiassignrubrics.docx**

**k4_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week4_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following: Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies the selected population health problem…. A clear and focused research question appropriate for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response accurately identifies the selected population health problem…. An appropriate research question for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the selected population health problem…. A somewhat vague research question for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the selected population health problem, or it is missing…. The research question for the population health problem is vague, misaligned, or missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response accurately explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design for the population health problem or is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.). | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** A clear and concise summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** A clear summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls? | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of methodologic strategies is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach? | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain ethical considerations pertaining to your study. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 150

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf-10517155)

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf-10517155)

**## wk4epiassigninformation.docx**

As introduced in the first few weeks of this course, investigators use various epidemiological study designs to study health problems and the effects of health interventions. You have examined several study designs, including descriptive designs (in Week 2) and analytic study designs that are observational (in Week 3) or experimental (this week). As an MSN or DNP student, you should be able to determine which study design would be most suitable for addressing a health problem of interest to you, as this is a foundation for evidence-based practice.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999992)

TO PREPARE

· Consider an association between a risk factor and a particular health outcome that is of interest to you. Table 2.2, in Curley, has some excellent options. You may use this to guide your selection of topics or select your own population health topic.

· Then, select an observational OR experimental study design you think would be the most appropriate for exploring this association. You may select from any of the designs covered in this module.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following:

· Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. (Consult the Walden “Developing Research” resource for guidance on crafting a research question.)

· Explain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem.

· Summarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.).

· Explain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls?

· Consider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach?

· Explain ethical considerations pertaining to your study.

**## wk2epiassignment.docx**

![A close-up of a graph AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/epidemiologic-study-designs-20965699)

In this information age, where data are readily accessible and there is both a great demand for accelerated research projects and strict limitations on research funding, using existing data makes sense. Data used in this way are called secondary data; they come in many forms and contain information on just about anything—depending on who collected the information in the first place, and why.

As a health professional, you have access to a wide range of secondary data sources, including government agencies (such as, the Census Bureau or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private sources, including local health service providers. Global and international data are available from familiar sources, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. In addition, nearly every nation maintains statistics on social, economic, and environmental indicators, which contain a wealth of health information.
As a member of the Walden community, you have access to the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the world’s largest archival database of secondary data. You also have access to the Social Change Impact Report (SCIR) data sets—a Walden-owned database. There are also a number of sources and tutorials available to you through Walden’s Office of Research and Doctoral Quality.
No matter the topic—be it vaccination rates, women’s access to mammography, or chronic lung disease—you can probably find an existing secondary data source related to the specific population health problem you are investigating. The next steps are to identify the variables in the data source that you would need to analyze to examine the association of interest and to assess the validity of the data source. For this Assignment, you delve into these issues in greater detail.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999887)

TO PREPARE:

· Consider a variety of population health problems and then select one of professional interest on which to focus for this Assignment.

· Explore three data sources (data sets) presented in the Learning Resources that could aid you in describing the population and magnitude of the problem you selected. Consider the strengths and limitations of each data source.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In 3–4 pages (not including title page and references), analyze the data sources you selected by addressing the following:

· Briefly identify the population health problem you selected.

· Identify each data set you selected.

· Identify the variables in each data set you would need to examine the association of interest.

· Assess the validity of each data set. Has it been used for prior studies/publications?

· Explain challenges you might face as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4epiassignrubrics.docx**

**k4_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week4_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following: Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies the selected population health problem…. A clear and focused research question appropriate for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response accurately identifies the selected population health problem…. An appropriate research question for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the selected population health problem…. A somewhat vague research question for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the selected population health problem, or it is missing…. The research question for the population health problem is vague, misaligned, or missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response accurately explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design for the population health problem or is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.). | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** A clear and concise summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** A clear summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls? | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of methodologic strategies is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach? | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain ethical considerations pertaining to your study. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 150

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf-10517155)

**## wk4epiassigninformation.docx**

As introduced in the first few weeks of this course, investigators use various epidemiological study designs to study health problems and the effects of health interventions. You have examined several study designs, including descriptive designs (in Week 2) and analytic study designs that are observational (in Week 3) or experimental (this week). As an MSN or DNP student, you should be able to determine which study design would be most suitable for addressing a health problem of interest to you, as this is a foundation for evidence-based practice.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

For this Assignment, you will identify an epidemiologic association of interest (e.g., smoking and lung cancer, obesity and heart disease, hormone replacement/modification therapy and breast cancer) and determine an appropriate study design for exploring that association.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999992)

TO PREPARE

· Consider an association between a risk factor and a particular health outcome that is of interest to you. Table 2.2, in Curley, has some excellent options. You may use this to guide your selection of topics or select your own population health topic.

· Then, select an observational OR experimental study design you think would be the most appropriate for exploring this association. You may select from any of the designs covered in this module.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following:

· Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. (Consult the Walden “Developing Research” resource for guidance on crafting a research question.)

· Explain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem.

· Summarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.).

· Explain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls?

· Consider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach?

· Explain ethical considerations pertaining to your study.

**## wk2epiassignment.docx**

![A close-up of a graph AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/epidemiologic-study-designs-20965699)

In this information age, where data are readily accessible and there is both a great demand for accelerated research projects and strict limitations on research funding, using existing data makes sense. Data used in this way are called secondary data; they come in many forms and contain information on just about anything—depending on who collected the information in the first place, and why.

As a health professional, you have access to a wide range of secondary data sources, including government agencies (such as, the Census Bureau or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and private sources, including local health service providers. Global and international data are available from familiar sources, such as the World Health Organization and the United Nations. In addition, nearly every nation maintains statistics on social, economic, and environmental indicators, which contain a wealth of health information.
As a member of the Walden community, you have access to the Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR), the world’s largest archival database of secondary data. You also have access to the Social Change Impact Report (SCIR) data sets—a Walden-owned database. There are also a number of sources and tutorials available to you through Walden’s Office of Research and Doctoral Quality.
No matter the topic—be it vaccination rates, women’s access to mammography, or chronic lung disease—you can probably find an existing secondary data source related to the specific population health problem you are investigating. The next steps are to identify the variables in the data source that you would need to analyze to examine the association of interest and to assess the validity of the data source. For this Assignment, you delve into these issues in greater detail.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999887)

TO PREPARE:

· Consider a variety of population health problems and then select one of professional interest on which to focus for this Assignment.

· Explore three data sources (data sets) presented in the Learning Resources that could aid you in describing the population and magnitude of the problem you selected. Consider the strengths and limitations of each data source.

THE ASSIGNMENT

In 3–4 pages (not including title page and references), analyze the data sources you selected by addressing the following:

· Briefly identify the population health problem you selected.

· Identify each data set you selected.

· Identify the variables in each data set you would need to examine the association of interest.

· Assess the validity of each data set. Has it been used for prior studies/publications?

· Explain challenges you might face as a researcher in identifying a proper data set or securing permission to use it.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4epiassignrubrics.docx**

**k4_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week4_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn a 3- to 4-page paper, not including title page and references, address the following: Briefly identify the population health topic (association between a risk factor and a health outcome) you selected. Present a research question based on this topic that you would like to answer in a proposed study. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately, clearly, and concisely identifies the selected population health problem…. A clear and focused research question appropriate for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response accurately identifies the selected population health problem…. An appropriate research question for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely identifies the selected population health problem…. A somewhat vague research question for the population health problem is presented.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately and vaguely identifies the selected population health problem, or it is missing…. The research question for the population health problem is vague, misaligned, or missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address your population health problem. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response accurately explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design that would be most appropriate to assess and address the population health problem.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately and vaguely explains the epidemiologic study design for the population health problem or is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSummarize the data collection activities you would use (i.e., how you would collect data—online survey, paper/pen, mailing, etc.). | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** A clear and concise summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** A clear summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague summary of selected data collection activities is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any specific methodologic strategies you would use. For example, if you were conducting a case-control study, how would you select your cases and controls? | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of specific methodologic strategies is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of methodologic strategies is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConsider the methods you would use to make these selections. What are the strengths and limitations of your selected approach? | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of strengths and limitations of the selected methodological strategies is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain ethical considerations pertaining to your study. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of ethical considerations pertaining to the proposed study is provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 150

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf-10517155)

November 6, 2026
[Solved] RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

use the attached info for this work **files (5)** – ## WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx – ## wk4epirubrics.docx – Week4epimatHooshmandTelemedicine.pdf – wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf – wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html **## WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.d…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

use the attached info for this work

**files (5)**

– ## WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx

– ## wk4epirubrics.docx

– Week4epimatHooshmandTelemedicine.pdf
– wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf
– wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html

**## WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx**

RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

![A close-up of a plate AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/randomized-trials-in-epidemiology-20965697)

Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.

Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.

For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999992)

TO PREPARE:

· Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. (
**Tip:** When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)

· Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:

· Purpose

· Study population

· Length of the trial

· Data collection methods

· Outcome measures

· Results and conclusions

· Ethical issues associated with the study

· Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4

**Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

· Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.

· Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.

· Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4epirubrics.docx**

**NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS 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.<br> <br>**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.<br> <br>**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.<br> <br>**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 ptsExcellent** Initial 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.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial 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.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial 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.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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

**Week4epimatHooshmandTelemedicine.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week4epimathooshmandtelemedicine-pdf)

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf)

**wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epiebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-html)

**wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epiebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-html)

**## WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx**

RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

![A close-up of a plate AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/randomized-trials-in-epidemiology-20965697)

Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.

Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.

For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999992)

TO PREPARE:

· Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. (
**Tip:** When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)

· Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:

· Purpose

· Study population

· Length of the trial

· Data collection methods

· Outcome measures

· Results and conclusions

· Ethical issues associated with the study

· Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4

**Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

· Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.

· Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.

· Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4epirubrics.docx**

**NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS 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.<br> <br>**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.<br> <br>**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.<br> <br>**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 ptsExcellent** Initial 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.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial 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.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial 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.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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

**Week4epimatHooshmandTelemedicine.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week4epimathooshmandtelemedicine-pdf)

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf)

**wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epiebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-html)

**## WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx**

RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY

![A close-up of a plate AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/randomized-trials-in-epidemiology-20965697)

Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.

Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.

For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/215573/modules/items/8999992)

TO PREPARE:

· Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. (
**Tip:** When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)

· Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:

· Purpose

· Study population

· Length of the trial

· Data collection methods

· Outcome measures

· Results and conclusions

· Ethical issues associated with the study

· Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4

**Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

· Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.

· Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.

· Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4epirubrics.docx**

**NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS 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.<br> <br>**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.<br> <br>**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.<br> <br>**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 ptsExcellent** Initial 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.<br> <br>**29 to >23.0 ptsGood** Initial 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.<br> <br>**23 to >18.0 ptsFair** Initial 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.<br> <br>**18 to >0 ptsPoor** Initial 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**19 to >15.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**15 to >12.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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 ptsExcellent** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**9 to >8.0 ptsGood** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**8 to >6.0 ptsFair** Discussion 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.<br> <br>**6 to >0 ptsPoor** Discussion 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

**Week4epimatHooshmandTelemedicine.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week4epimathooshmandtelemedicine-pdf)

**wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epimateria-ebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-pdf)

**wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk4epiebsco-fulltext-03-17-2026-html)

November 6, 2026
[Solved] Anatomy & Physiology II

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

## Touchstone: Renal Physiology: Find the mode of action of a diuretic drug **ASSIGNMENT:** In this unit, you will complete the lab titled [Renal Physiology: Find the mode of action of a diuretic drug](https://app.sophia.org/spcc/anatomy-and-physiology-ii-lab-activity-4-4). You will write a lab repo…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

## Touchstone: Renal Physiology: Find the mode of action of a diuretic drug

**ASSIGNMENT:** In this unit, you will complete the lab titled [Renal Physiology: Find the mode of action of a diuretic drug](https://app.sophia.org/spcc/anatomy-and-physiology-ii-lab-activity-4-4). You will write a lab report describing the hypothesis, methods, and conclusions from this lab experience.

By completing the lab report, you will demonstrate your ability to do the following:

– Describe the lab’s overall objective and make a hypothesis.
– Introduce relevant background knowledge on the topic.
– Summarize the steps taken in the lab simulation.
– Explain any obtained results.
– Discuss the conclusions and implications.

download **Download the lab report file. IMPORTANT: You must submit this completed template file as your Touchstone.**

[Lab Report – Renal Physiology: Find the mode of action of a diuretic drug](https://app.sophia.org/download/attachment/63440-Lab%20Report_Renal%20Physiology_%20Find%20the%20mode%20of%20action%20of%20a%20diuretic%20drug.docx)

The document is a Microsoft Word file. You will type your answers directly into the boxes provided and submit it as a Word file. **Any other submission file or format will be returned ungraded.**

**Helpful Links:**

– [The Scientific Method Lesson](https://app.sophia.org/tutorials/the-scientific-method-15)

– [How to Write a Lab Report Lesson](https://app.sophia.org/tutorials/how-to-write-a-lab-report-7)

– [Academic Integrity Guidelines](https://app.sophia.org/tutorials/touchstones-academic-integrity-guidelines)
– [Ethical Standards and Appropriate Use of AI](https://app.sophia.org/tutorials/ethical-standards-and-appropriate-use-of-ai)

[Share your feedback on Touchstones](https://app.sophia.org/spcc/anatomy-and-physiology-ii-lab-touchstone-4-1#)

### A. Directions

**Step 1**: Download and review the lab report file.

**Step 2**: Complete each part of the lab report file as you work through the simulation. Prompts in the lab report will help you develop your responses.

– Follow the process presented to you in the [How to Write a Lab Report lesson](https://app.sophia.org/tutorials/how-to-write-a-lab-report-7) to ensure you write a thorough lab report entry.
– Review the grading rubric (below) to make sure you have an understanding of how your lab report will be graded.

**Step 3**: Once you’ve completed the lab simulation and your lab report, review the submission requirements (below) and update your lab report to ensure it meets the recommended requirements.

**Step 4**: Once your lab report template is complete, submit it for grading.

Refer to the checklist below throughout the Touchstone process. Do not submit your Touchstone until you meet these guidelines.

❒ Did you review the Lab Manual before starting the simulation?❒ Did you complete the lab simulation?❒ Did you refer to the lesson on How to Write a Lab Report?❒ Did you complete all 5 sections of the Lab Report file?❒ Did you review the Touchstone rubric and compare it to your lab report?❒ Did you submit the provided Lab Report file as your Touchstone for grading?

### B. Rubric

Advanced (100%)Proficient (85%)Acceptable (75%)Needs Improvement (50%)Non-Performance (0%)

### Objective and Hypothesis

Describe the overall objective of the simulation and make a hypothesis (if applicable). (18%)Clearly describes the purpose of the simulation and makes a hypothesis. Purpose and hypothesis are well-aligned with the simulation and are paraphrased in the student’s own words.Describes the purpose of the simulation and makes a hypothesis. Both are aligned with the simulation and are paraphrased in the student’s own words, but are less clear and specific.Describes a purpose and a hypothesis that are only loosely aligned with the simulation.Either the description of the simulation’s purpose or the hypothesis is missing, or they are not paraphrased in the student’s own words.Does not describe the purpose of the simulation or a hypothesis. Response may be totally off-topic or absent.

### Background Knowledge

Introduce relevant background knowledge on the topic described in the simulation. (18%)Lists at least 3 examples of relevant background knowledge on the topic from the simulation Lab Manual or other resources.Lists at least 2 examples of relevant background knowledge on the topic from the simulation Lab Manual or other resources.Lists at least 1 example of relevant background knowledge on the topic from the simulation Lab Manual or other resources.Lists at least 1 example but its connection to the simulation is unclear.Response does not offer any background knowledge on simulation. Response may be totally off-topic or absent.

### Summary and Steps

Summarize the steps taken in the simulation. (18%)Summarizes all steps taken in the simulation and all equipment and techniques used. Summary is organized in a way that the reader understands the logical flow of the lab.Summarizes most of the steps taken in the simulation and lists some equipment and techniques used. Summary is organized in a way that the reader mostly understands the logical flow of the lab.Summarizes some of the steps taken in the simulation and lists some of the equipment and techniques used. Summary is organized in a way that the reader somewhat understands the logical flow of the lab.Summary is missing most of the steps in the simulation and most of the equipment and techniques used. Summary may contradict the simulation or be organized illogically.Summary does not include any steps taken in the simulation, or equipment and techniques used. Response may be totally off-topic or absent.

### Results

Explain the obtained results from the simulation. (18%)Accurately explains most of the obtained results of the simulation, if the results were expected or unexpected, and why.Accurately explains some of the obtained results of the simulation, and if the results were expected or unexpected.Explains some of the results of the simulation, but may contain some inaccuracies. Does not explain if the results were expected or unexpected.Explanation of results is entirely inaccurate or contradicts the simulation. Does not explain if the results were expected or unexpected.Does not explain any obtained results or if the results were expected or unexpected. Response may be totally off-topic or absent.

### Conclusions and Implications

Discusses the conclusions and implications of the simulation. (18%)Clearly and specifically summarizes how the results of the simulation relate to the original purpose and hypothesis; correctly identifies systematic sources of error; and reflects on what was learned.Summarizes the results of the simulation but their relationship to the original purpose and hypothesis may be less clear; correctly identifies systematic sources of error; and reflects on what was learned.Completes 2 of 3 tasks: summarizes how the results of the simulation relate to the original purpose and hypothesis; correctly identifies systematic sources of error; and reflects on what was learned.Completes 1 of 3 tasks: summarizes how the results of the simulation relate to the original purpose and hypothesis; correctly identifies systematic sources of error; and reflects on what was learned.Completes none of the tasks. Response may be totally off-topic or absent.

### Conventions and Proofreading

Submission follows conventions for standard written English. (10%)There are almost no errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization.There are minor errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that do not impede readability.There are frequent errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that somewhat impede readability.There are consistent errors in grammar, punctuation, spelling, and capitalization that significantly impede readability.Submission does not meet the minimum threshold for points to be awarded.

### C. Requirements

The following requirements must be met for your submission to be graded:

– Use the provided lab report file completed with a readable 11- or 12-point font.
– Composition must be original and written for this assignment and all writing must be appropriate for an academic context.
– Plagiarism of any kind is strictly prohibited.
– Submission must include your name and the date.
– Only submit the completed lab report file saved in .doc or .dox format as your assignment submission

– [\
\
LabReport_RenalPhysiology_Findthemodeofactionofadiureticdrug.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/labreport-renalphysiology-findthemodeofactionofadiureticdrug-docx "LabReport_RenalPhysiology_Findthemodeofactionofadiureticdrug.docx")

November 6, 2026
[Solved] CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

Executive Solution Overview

please read the attached information carefully to understand **files (4)** – ## week4pathocasestudy.docx – ## wk4pathoCASESTUDYANALYSIS.docx – ## wk4pathoCourse_Paper_Template_APA_7.docx – ## wk4pathorubrics.docx **## week4pathocasestudy.docx** **week 4** Week 4 Case Study Prompt (Student versio…

Instant Solution Download
$6.99

Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

please read the attached information carefully to understand

**files (4)**

– ## week4pathocasestudy.docx

– ## wk4pathoCASESTUDYANALYSIS.docx

– ## wk4pathoCourse_Paper_Template_APA_7.docx

– ## wk4pathorubrics.docx

**## week4pathocasestudy.docx**

**week 4**

Week 4 Case Study Prompt (Student version)
A 67-year-old man presents with progressive shortness of breath over 8 months. He
reports:
• Increasing dyspnea with exertion
• Dry, persistent cough
• Fatigue
• Decreased exercise tolerance
• Unintentional 10-pound weight loss
He denies wheezing, chest pain, fever, or recent respiratory infection.
Past medical history includes hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He is a retired
construction worker with 35 years of occupational dust exposure. He smoked 1 pack per
day for 25 years but quit 10 years ago.
Physical Examination
• BP: 132/78 mmHg
• HR: 88 bpm
• RR: 20/min
• SpO₂: 91% on room air
Lung exam reveals:
• Fine, bilateral “Velcro-like” crackles at the lung bases
• No wheezing
• Digital clubbing present
Cardiac exam normal. No peripheral edema.
Diagnostic Data
Pulmonary Function Tests (PFTs):
• Reduced total lung capacity (TLC)
• Reduced forced vital capacity (FVC)
• Normal or increased FEV1/FVC ratio
• Decreased diffusion capacity (DLCO)
Chest X-ray: Bilateral interstitial markings, worse at lung bases
High-Resolution CT (HRCT):
• Reticular opacities
• Honeycombing pattern
• Subpleural and basilar predominance
Laboratory Findings:
Test Result
CBC Normal
CMP Normal
ANA Negative
Rheumatoid factor Negative
ESR Mildly
elevated
Questions
1. Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examining the patient signs
and symptoms presented in the case study; discussing the primary
cellular pathophysiological processes, and the significance for
symptom development and diagnosis.
2. What role do genetic mutations play in the development of the disease?
3. What are the racial/ethnic factors that would be a risk factor? What are
the lifestyle risk factors?

This topic is closed for comments.

**## wk4pathoCASESTUDYANALYSIS.docx**

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

![A human body with a heart AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/case-study-analysis-20965693)

An understanding of the respiratory system is a critically important component of disease diagnosis and treatment. This importance is magnified by the fact that oftentimes, the respiratory system works closely with the cardiovascular system. A variety of factors and circumstances that impact the emergence and severity of issues in one system can have a role in the performance of the other.

Effective disease analysis often requires an understanding that goes beyond these systems and their capacity to work together. The impact of patient characteristics, as well as racial and ethnic variables, can also have an important impact.

An understanding of the symptoms of alterations in the respiratory system is a critical step in diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. For APRNs, this understanding can also help educate patients and guide them through their treatment plans.

In this Assignment, you examine a case study and analyze the signs and symptoms presented. You identify the elements that may be factors in the diagnosis, and you explain the implications to patient health.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216583/modules/items/9298789)

**To prepare:**

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Case Study Assignment. Please see the “Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.

**The Assignment**

In 1-2 pages, you will answer the questions provided following the case scenario. You must use current evidence-based resources to support your answers. Follow APA guidelines. Follow the grading rubric.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 4

**Submit** your Case Study Analysis Assignment by
**Day 7 of Week 4**

**Reminder:** The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The sample paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at
[https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templatesLinks to an external site.](https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates)). All papers submitted must use this formatting.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4pathoCourse_Paper_Template_APA_7.docx**

1

**Title of the Paper in Full**

Student Name

Program Name or Degree Name (e.g., Master of Science in Nursing), Walden University

COURSE XX: Title of Course

Instructor Name

Month XX, 202X

**Title of the Paper in Full**

Begin writing your introduction here.

**Level 1 Heading**

Begin adding body paragraphs to your document.

Level 2 Heading

Begin adding your text for this section if needed. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

Level 2 Heading

Continue adding body paragraphs to your document. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

**_Level 3 Heading_**

Continue adding body paragraphs to your document.

Level 4 Heading.
Not all course papers will require multiple levels of headings. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

Level 4 Heading. Not all course papers will require multiple levels of headings. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

**Level 1 Heading**

Continue adding body paragraphs and level headings to your document as needed to meet your assignment needs.

**References**

(Note that the following references are intended as examples only.)

American Counseling Association. (n.d.).
_About us._ [https://www.counseling.org/about-us/about-aca](https://www.counseling.org/about-us/about-aca)

Anderson, M. (2018). Getting consistent with consequences.
_Educational Leadership, 76_(1), 26-33.

Bach, D., & Blake, D. J. (2016). Frame or get framed: The critical role of issue framing in nonmarket management.
_California Management Review, 58_(3), 66-87.
[https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66](https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66)

Burgess, R. (2019).
_Rethinking global health: Frameworks of Power._ Routledge.

Johnson, P. (2003).
_Art: A new history._ HarperCollins.
[https://doi.org/10.1037.0000136-000](https://doi.org/10.1037.0000136-000)

Lindley, L. C., & Slayter, E. M. (2018). Prior trauma exposure and serious illness at end of life: A national study of children in the U.S. foster care system from 2005 to 2015.
_Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 56_(3), 309–317.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.06.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.06.001)

Osman, M. A. (2016, December 15).
_5 do’s and don’ts for staying motivated._ Mayo Clinic.
[https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/5-dos-and-donts-for-staying-motivated/art-20270835](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/5-dos-and-donts-for-staying-motivated/art-20270835)

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2016).
_Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice_ (7th ed.). Wiley.

World Health Organization. (2018, March).
_Questions and answers on immunization and vaccine safety._ [https://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/)

**## wk4pathorubrics.docx**

**NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelop a 1-2 page case study analysis, examining the patient signs and symptoms presented in the case study. Discuss the primary pathophysiological processes and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and responses show in depth critical thinking.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and the diagnosis in some detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and the responses show come critical thinking.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague or inaccurate. The response is supported with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence or research.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague and/or inaccurate or the description is missing. The response does not include rationales, has vague explanations or is based on inappropriate or no evidence or research. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the role genetic mutations play in the development of the disease and the risk factors that make the patient more susceptible to the disease. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific analysis of the genes/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate analysis of the genetics and risk factors that may be associated with the development of the disease. Response does not fully address all factors.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease and/or portions are missing. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease process. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explains factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. Content is supported by at least 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages in length. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. Content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources which have been submitted with the assignment. Body of the paper is no more than 2 pages in length.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Some content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity and clarity 60%-79% of the time. Some content is supported by at least 2 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is longer than 2 pages.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time. No content is supported by current evidence-based sources. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 100

**## wk4pathorubrics.docx**

**NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelop a 1-2 page case study analysis, examining the patient signs and symptoms presented in the case study. Discuss the primary pathophysiological processes and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and responses show in depth critical thinking.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and the diagnosis in some detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and the responses show come critical thinking.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague or inaccurate. The response is supported with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence or research.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague and/or inaccurate or the description is missing. The response does not include rationales, has vague explanations or is based on inappropriate or no evidence or research. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the role genetic mutations play in the development of the disease and the risk factors that make the patient more susceptible to the disease. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific analysis of the genes/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate analysis of the genetics and risk factors that may be associated with the development of the disease. Response does not fully address all factors.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease and/or portions are missing. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease process. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explains factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. Content is supported by at least 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages in length. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. Content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources which have been submitted with the assignment. Body of the paper is no more than 2 pages in length.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Some content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity and clarity 60%-79% of the time. Some content is supported by at least 2 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is longer than 2 pages.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time. No content is supported by current evidence-based sources. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 100

**## week4pathocasestudy.docx**

**week 4**

Week 4 Case Study Prompt (Student version)
A 67-year-old man presents with progressive shortness of breath over 8 months. He
reports:
• Increasing dyspnea with exertion
• Dry, persistent cough
• Fatigue
• Decreased exercise tolerance
• Unintentional 10-pound weight loss
He denies wheezing, chest pain, fever, or recent respiratory infection.
Past medical history includes hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He is a retired
construction worker with 35 years of occupational dust exposure. He smoked 1 pack per
day for 25 years but quit 10 years ago.
Physical Examination
• BP: 132/78 mmHg
• HR: 88 bpm
• RR: 20/min
• SpO₂: 91% on room air
Lung exam reveals:
• Fine, bilateral “Velcro-like” crackles at the lung bases
• No wheezing
• Digital clubbing present
Cardiac exam normal. No peripheral edema.
Diagnostic Data
Pulmonary Function Tests (PFTs):
• Reduced total lung capacity (TLC)
• Reduced forced vital capacity (FVC)
• Normal or increased FEV1/FVC ratio
• Decreased diffusion capacity (DLCO)
Chest X-ray: Bilateral interstitial markings, worse at lung bases
High-Resolution CT (HRCT):
• Reticular opacities
• Honeycombing pattern
• Subpleural and basilar predominance
Laboratory Findings:
Test Result
CBC Normal
CMP Normal
ANA Negative
Rheumatoid factor Negative
ESR Mildly
elevated
Questions
1. Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examining the patient signs
and symptoms presented in the case study; discussing the primary
cellular pathophysiological processes, and the significance for
symptom development and diagnosis.
2. What role do genetic mutations play in the development of the disease?
3. What are the racial/ethnic factors that would be a risk factor? What are
the lifestyle risk factors?

This topic is closed for comments.

**## wk4pathoCASESTUDYANALYSIS.docx**

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

![A human body with a heart AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/case-study-analysis-20965693)

An understanding of the respiratory system is a critically important component of disease diagnosis and treatment. This importance is magnified by the fact that oftentimes, the respiratory system works closely with the cardiovascular system. A variety of factors and circumstances that impact the emergence and severity of issues in one system can have a role in the performance of the other.

Effective disease analysis often requires an understanding that goes beyond these systems and their capacity to work together. The impact of patient characteristics, as well as racial and ethnic variables, can also have an important impact.

An understanding of the symptoms of alterations in the respiratory system is a critical step in diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. For APRNs, this understanding can also help educate patients and guide them through their treatment plans.

In this Assignment, you examine a case study and analyze the signs and symptoms presented. You identify the elements that may be factors in the diagnosis, and you explain the implications to patient health.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216583/modules/items/9298789)

**To prepare:**

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Case Study Assignment. Please see the “Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.

**The Assignment**

In 1-2 pages, you will answer the questions provided following the case scenario. You must use current evidence-based resources to support your answers. Follow APA guidelines. Follow the grading rubric.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 4

**Submit** your Case Study Analysis Assignment by
**Day 7 of Week 4**

**Reminder:** The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The sample paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at
[https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templatesLinks to an external site.](https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates)). All papers submitted must use this formatting.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4pathoCourse_Paper_Template_APA_7.docx**

1

**Title of the Paper in Full**

Student Name

Program Name or Degree Name (e.g., Master of Science in Nursing), Walden University

COURSE XX: Title of Course

Instructor Name

Month XX, 202X

**Title of the Paper in Full**

Begin writing your introduction here.

**Level 1 Heading**

Begin adding body paragraphs to your document.

Level 2 Heading

Begin adding your text for this section if needed. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

Level 2 Heading

Continue adding body paragraphs to your document. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

**_Level 3 Heading_**

Continue adding body paragraphs to your document.

Level 4 Heading.
Not all course papers will require multiple levels of headings. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

Level 4 Heading. Not all course papers will require multiple levels of headings. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

**Level 1 Heading**

Continue adding body paragraphs and level headings to your document as needed to meet your assignment needs.

**References**

(Note that the following references are intended as examples only.)

American Counseling Association. (n.d.).
_About us._ [https://www.counseling.org/about-us/about-aca](https://www.counseling.org/about-us/about-aca)

Anderson, M. (2018). Getting consistent with consequences.
_Educational Leadership, 76_(1), 26-33.

Bach, D., & Blake, D. J. (2016). Frame or get framed: The critical role of issue framing in nonmarket management.
_California Management Review, 58_(3), 66-87.
[https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66](https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66)

Burgess, R. (2019).
_Rethinking global health: Frameworks of Power._ Routledge.

Johnson, P. (2003).
_Art: A new history._ HarperCollins.
[https://doi.org/10.1037.0000136-000](https://doi.org/10.1037.0000136-000)

Lindley, L. C., & Slayter, E. M. (2018). Prior trauma exposure and serious illness at end of life: A national study of children in the U.S. foster care system from 2005 to 2015.
_Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 56_(3), 309–317.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.06.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.06.001)

Osman, M. A. (2016, December 15).
_5 do’s and don’ts for staying motivated._ Mayo Clinic.
[https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/5-dos-and-donts-for-staying-motivated/art-20270835](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/5-dos-and-donts-for-staying-motivated/art-20270835)

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2016).
_Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice_ (7th ed.). Wiley.

World Health Organization. (2018, March).
_Questions and answers on immunization and vaccine safety._ [https://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/)

**## wk4pathorubrics.docx**

**NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelop a 1-2 page case study analysis, examining the patient signs and symptoms presented in the case study. Discuss the primary pathophysiological processes and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and responses show in depth critical thinking.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and the diagnosis in some detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and the responses show come critical thinking.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague or inaccurate. The response is supported with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence or research.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague and/or inaccurate or the description is missing. The response does not include rationales, has vague explanations or is based on inappropriate or no evidence or research. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the role genetic mutations play in the development of the disease and the risk factors that make the patient more susceptible to the disease. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific analysis of the genes/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate analysis of the genetics and risk factors that may be associated with the development of the disease. Response does not fully address all factors.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease and/or portions are missing. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease process. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explains factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. Content is supported by at least 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages in length. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. Content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources which have been submitted with the assignment. Body of the paper is no more than 2 pages in length.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Some content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity and clarity 60%-79% of the time. Some content is supported by at least 2 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is longer than 2 pages.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time. No content is supported by current evidence-based sources. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 100

**## week4pathocasestudy.docx**

**week 4**

Week 4 Case Study Prompt (Student version)
A 67-year-old man presents with progressive shortness of breath over 8 months. He
reports:
• Increasing dyspnea with exertion
• Dry, persistent cough
• Fatigue
• Decreased exercise tolerance
• Unintentional 10-pound weight loss
He denies wheezing, chest pain, fever, or recent respiratory infection.
Past medical history includes hypertension and hyperlipidemia. He is a retired
construction worker with 35 years of occupational dust exposure. He smoked 1 pack per
day for 25 years but quit 10 years ago.
Physical Examination
• BP: 132/78 mmHg
• HR: 88 bpm
• RR: 20/min
• SpO₂: 91% on room air
Lung exam reveals:
• Fine, bilateral “Velcro-like” crackles at the lung bases
• No wheezing
• Digital clubbing present
Cardiac exam normal. No peripheral edema.
Diagnostic Data
Pulmonary Function Tests (PFTs):
• Reduced total lung capacity (TLC)
• Reduced forced vital capacity (FVC)
• Normal or increased FEV1/FVC ratio
• Decreased diffusion capacity (DLCO)
Chest X-ray: Bilateral interstitial markings, worse at lung bases
High-Resolution CT (HRCT):
• Reticular opacities
• Honeycombing pattern
• Subpleural and basilar predominance
Laboratory Findings:
Test Result
CBC Normal
CMP Normal
ANA Negative
Rheumatoid factor Negative
ESR Mildly
elevated
Questions
1. Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis, examining the patient signs
and symptoms presented in the case study; discussing the primary
cellular pathophysiological processes, and the significance for
symptom development and diagnosis.
2. What role do genetic mutations play in the development of the disease?
3. What are the racial/ethnic factors that would be a risk factor? What are
the lifestyle risk factors?

This topic is closed for comments.

**## wk4pathoCASESTUDYANALYSIS.docx**

CASE STUDY ANALYSIS

![A human body with a heart AI-generated content may be incorrect.](https://www.sweetstudy.com/questions/case-study-analysis-20965693)

An understanding of the respiratory system is a critically important component of disease diagnosis and treatment. This importance is magnified by the fact that oftentimes, the respiratory system works closely with the cardiovascular system. A variety of factors and circumstances that impact the emergence and severity of issues in one system can have a role in the performance of the other.

Effective disease analysis often requires an understanding that goes beyond these systems and their capacity to work together. The impact of patient characteristics, as well as racial and ethnic variables, can also have an important impact.

An understanding of the symptoms of alterations in the respiratory system is a critical step in diagnosis and treatment of many diseases. For APRNs, this understanding can also help educate patients and guide them through their treatment plans.

In this Assignment, you examine a case study and analyze the signs and symptoms presented. You identify the elements that may be factors in the diagnosis, and you explain the implications to patient health.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216583/modules/items/9298789)

**To prepare:**

By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Case Study Assignment. Please see the “Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.

**The Assignment**

In 1-2 pages, you will answer the questions provided following the case scenario. You must use current evidence-based resources to support your answers. Follow APA guidelines. Follow the grading rubric.

BY DAY 7 OF WEEK 4

**Submit** your Case Study Analysis Assignment by
**Day 7 of Week 4**

**Reminder:** The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The sample paper provided at the Walden Writing Center provides an example of those required elements (available at
[https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templatesLinks to an external site.](https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates)). All papers submitted must use this formatting.

## image1.jpeg

**## wk4pathoCourse_Paper_Template_APA_7.docx**

1

**Title of the Paper in Full**

Student Name

Program Name or Degree Name (e.g., Master of Science in Nursing), Walden University

COURSE XX: Title of Course

Instructor Name

Month XX, 202X

**Title of the Paper in Full**

Begin writing your introduction here.

**Level 1 Heading**

Begin adding body paragraphs to your document.

Level 2 Heading

Begin adding your text for this section if needed. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

Level 2 Heading

Continue adding body paragraphs to your document. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

**_Level 3 Heading_**

Continue adding body paragraphs to your document.

Level 4 Heading.
Not all course papers will require multiple levels of headings. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

Level 4 Heading. Not all course papers will require multiple levels of headings. Adjust or delete level headings as needed to align with your paper needs.

**Level 1 Heading**

Continue adding body paragraphs and level headings to your document as needed to meet your assignment needs.

**References**

(Note that the following references are intended as examples only.)

American Counseling Association. (n.d.).
_About us._ [https://www.counseling.org/about-us/about-aca](https://www.counseling.org/about-us/about-aca)

Anderson, M. (2018). Getting consistent with consequences.
_Educational Leadership, 76_(1), 26-33.

Bach, D., & Blake, D. J. (2016). Frame or get framed: The critical role of issue framing in nonmarket management.
_California Management Review, 58_(3), 66-87.
[https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66](https://doi.org/10.1525/cmr.2016.58.3.66)

Burgess, R. (2019).
_Rethinking global health: Frameworks of Power._ Routledge.

Johnson, P. (2003).
_Art: A new history._ HarperCollins.
[https://doi.org/10.1037.0000136-000](https://doi.org/10.1037.0000136-000)

Lindley, L. C., & Slayter, E. M. (2018). Prior trauma exposure and serious illness at end of life: A national study of children in the U.S. foster care system from 2005 to 2015.
_Journal of Pain and Symptom Management, 56_(3), 309–317.
[https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.06.001](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2018.06.001)

Osman, M. A. (2016, December 15).
_5 do’s and don’ts for staying motivated._ Mayo Clinic.
[https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/5-dos-and-donts-for-staying-motivated/art-20270835](https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/in-depth/5-dos-and-donts-for-staying-motivated/art-20270835)

Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (2016).
_Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice_ (7th ed.). Wiley.

World Health Organization. (2018, March).
_Questions and answers on immunization and vaccine safety._ [https://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/](https://www.who.int/features/qa/84/en/)

**## wk4pathorubrics.docx**

**NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric**

| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_6501_Week 4_Case Study_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDevelop a 1-2 page case study analysis, examining the patient signs and symptoms presented in the case study. Discuss the primary pathophysiological processes and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, and the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and responses show in depth critical thinking.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and the diagnosis in some detail. The pathophysiology is accurate and the responses show come critical thinking.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague or inaccurate. The response is supported with explanations that are vague or based on inappropriate evidence or research.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response discusses the primary pathophysiological processes, the significance for symptom development and diagnosis in a manner that is vague and/or inaccurate or the description is missing. The response does not include rationales, has vague explanations or is based on inappropriate or no evidence or research. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDescribe the role genetic mutations play in the development of the disease and the risk factors that make the patient more susceptible to the disease. | **30 to >27.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific analysis of the genes/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**27 to >24.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate analysis of the genetics and risk factors that may be associated with the development of the disease. Response does not fully address all factors.<br> <br>**24 to >22.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease.<br> <br>**22 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate analysis of the genetics/risk factors that are associated with the development of the disease and/or portions are missing. | 30 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain any racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease process. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** The response includes an accurate, complete, detailed and specific explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explain factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** The response includes an accurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. Explains factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease. Content is supported by evidence and/or research, as appropriate, to support the explanation.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease and/or explanations based on inappropriate evidence/research.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** The response includes a vague or inaccurate explanation of racial/ethnic variables that may impact physiological functioning. A vague or inaccurate explanation of factors in the patient's history and lifestyle that could have contributed to the development of the disease, or the explanations are based on inappropriate or no evidence/research. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. Content is supported by at least 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages in length. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. Content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources which have been submitted with the assignment. Body of the paper is no more than 2 pages in length.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. Some content is supported by 3 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is no more than 2 pages.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity and clarity 60%-79% of the time. Some content is supported by at least 2 current evidence-based sources. Body of paper is longer than 2 pages.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity <60% of the time. No content is supported by current evidence-based sources. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – English Writing Standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting – The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running heads, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.0 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >2.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**2 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |

Total Points: 100

November 6, 2026