Executive Solution Overview
find attached **files (2)** – ## wk5epidisc.docx – ## wk5epirubrics.docx **## wk5epidisc.docx** One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use _measures of eff…
Instant Solution Download
$6.99Immediate 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
**files (2)**
– ## wk5epidisc.docx
– ## wk5epirubrics.docx
**## wk5epidisc.docx**
One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use
_measures of effect_ to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:
·
**Odds ratio**: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)
·
**Risk ratio (also called relative risk)**: Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.
·
**Mortality**: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.
·
**Morbidity**: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval
·
**Incidence**: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)
·
**Prevalence**: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)
What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.
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/9000066)
TO PREPARE:
· Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.
1. Odds ratio and risk ratio
2. Mortality and morbidity
3. Incidence and prevalence
· Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.
· Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.
· Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5
**Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
· Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.
· Assess limitations of
**not** using measures of effect in nursing practice.
**## wk5epirubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week5_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
**## wk5epirubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week5_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
**## wk5epidisc.docx**
One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use
_measures of effect_ to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:
·
**Odds ratio**: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)
·
**Risk ratio (also called relative risk)**: Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.
·
**Mortality**: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.
·
**Morbidity**: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval
·
**Incidence**: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)
·
**Prevalence**: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)
What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.
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/9000066)
TO PREPARE:
· Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.
1. Odds ratio and risk ratio
2. Mortality and morbidity
3. Incidence and prevalence
· Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.
· Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.
· Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5
**Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
· Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.
· Assess limitations of
**not** using measures of effect in nursing practice.
**## wk5epirubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week5_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
**## wk5epidisc.docx**
One important application of epidemiology is to identify factors that could increase the likelihood of a certain health problem occurring within a specific population. Epidemiologists use
_measures of effect_ to examine the association or linkage in the relationship between risk factors and emergence of disease or ill health. For instance, they may use measures of effect to better understand the relationships between poverty and lead poisoning in children, smoking and heart disease, or low birth weight and future motor skills. The following are some common measures used in epidemiology:
·
**Odds ratio**: The odds ratio quantifies the association between an independent variable (exposure) and a dependent variable (outcome). It is calculated as the odds that an effect will occur given the presence or exposure to a studied variable, compared to the odds when there is no exposure (e.g., lung cancer and smoking)
·
**Risk ratio (also called relative risk)**: Also quantifies the association between an independent variable and a dependent variable. The risk of an effect occurring in one population versus another population (e.g., preeclampsia in women <35 versus >35). Risks greater than one suggest that exposure to a given variable is associated with an increase in the risk of the outcome, and a risk ratio of less than one indicates that the exposure is associated with a decrease in the risk of the outcome.
·
**Mortality**: Measure of deaths in a particular population during a specified time interval. If this is attributed to a specific cause, it is referred to as cause-specific mortality.
·
**Morbidity**: Measure of instances of illness or disability in a population from a given cause (e.g., heart disease) during a specified time interval
·
**Incidence**: The occurrence of new cases of an effect or disease in a population over a defined time period relative to the size of the population at risk (e.g., new cases of COVID-19 in a population over a 7-day period/1000 people)
·
**Prevalence**: The number of all cases of an effect or disease, not just new ones, in a population at a given time relative to the size of the population (e.g., number of people with autism/1000)
What is the significance of these measures of effect for nursing practice? In this Discussion, you will consider this pivotal question.
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/9000066)
TO PREPARE:
· Select item 1, 2, or 3 to use for this Discussion. Consider the definitions, differences, and utility of the two terms listed under your item selection. Your response will need to include both terms in the item selected.
1. Odds ratio and risk ratio
2. Mortality and morbidity
3. Incidence and prevalence
· Consider how these epidemiologic measures strengthen and support nursing practice.
· Assess practice limitations of not using these measures in nursing practice.
· Conduct additional research in the Walden Library and other credible resources, and then locate two examples in the scholarly literature that support your insights.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 5
**Post** a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
· Explain how your selected measures of effect strengthen and support nursing practice. Provide at least two specific examples from the literature to substantiate your insights.
· Assess limitations of
**not** using measures of effect in nursing practice.
**## wk5epirubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week5_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week5_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