Evaluation of Epidemiological Problem
Guidelines & Grading Rubric
Purpose
The purpose of this assignment is to
· Provide learners with the opportunity to integrate knowledge and skills learned throughout this course
· Directly apply principles and knowledge learned in the course to problem solving of population health problems in their own geographic areas.
Course Outcomes
This assignment enables the student to meet the following course outcomes:
1. Define key terms in epidemiology, community health, and population-based research.
2. Compare study designs used for obtaining population health information from surveillance, observation, community, and control trial based research.
3. Identify appropriate outcome measures and study designs applicable to epidemiological subfields such as infectious disease, chronic disease, environmental exposures, reproductive health, and genetics.
4. Apply commonly used measures of health risk.
5. Examine current ethical/legal issues in epidemiology.
6. Identify important sources of epidemiological data.
7. Evaluate a public health problem in terms of magnitude, person, time, and place.
.
Requirements
This paper should clearly and comprehensively identify the disease or population health problem chosen. The problem must be an issue in your geographic area and a concern for the population you will serve upon graduation with your degree. The paper should be organized into the following sections:
1. Introduction with a clear presentation of the problem as well as significance and a scholarly overview of the paper.
2. Background of the disease including definition, description, signs and symptoms, and current incidence and/or prevalence statistics current state, local, and national statistics pertaining to the disease. (Include a table of incidence or prevalence rates by your geographic county, state, and national statistics.)
3. A review of current surveillance methods and any mandated reporting or methods for reporting the disease for providers.
4. Conduct descriptive epidemiology analysis of the disease including who is more frequently affected and characteristics of the population that might help in creating a prevention plan. Include costs (both financial and social) associated with the disease or problem.
5. Review how the disease is diagnosed, current national standards for screening or prevention, and pick one screening test and review its sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, cost and any current national guidelines for conducting which patients to conduct this test on.
6. Provide a brief plan of how you will address this epidemiological disease in your practice once you are finished with school. Provide three actions you will take along with how you will measure outcomes of your actions.
7. Conclude in a clear manner with a brief overview of key points of the entire disease,
Preparing the Paper
· Page length: 7-10 pages, excluding title/cover page
· APA format 6th edition
· Include references when necessary.
· Include at least one table to present information somewhere in the paper.
Directions and Grading Criteria
| Category | Points
Possible |
Points Earned | Comments |
| Scholarly Introduction (clear presentation of problem) | 10 | ||
| Background and significance of the disease (includes incidence or prevalence statistics) | 25 | ||
| Current surveillance methods | 25 | ||
| Descriptive epidemiological analysis (includes characteristics of the at-risk population and/or those affected by the disease and costs of the disease) | 25 | ||
| Screening and diagnosis (includes review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis of the disease. In-depth review of statistics one screening or diagnostic test provided) | 25 | ||
| Plan of action (includes at least three evidenced based actions, supported by literature, that the student will take in their own practice and how outcomes will be measured) | 25 | ||
| Conclusion | 10 | ||
| Mechanics of writing, APA | 5 | ||
| Total | 150 | Total Points earned =
|
A quality paper will meet or exceed all of the criteria requirements. |
Chamberlain College of Nursing NR503 Population Health, Epidemiology, & Statistical Principles
January 2018
Grading Rubric
| Assignment Criteria | Exceptional
Outstanding or highest level of performance |
Exceeds
Very good or high level of performance |
Meets
Competent or satisfactory level of performance |
Needs Improvement
Poor or failing level of performance |
Developing
Unsatisfactory level of performance |
| Identification of the problem/concern | 10 Points | 9 Points | 8 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points |
| Comprehensively identifies the problem/concern | Adequately identifies the problem/concern | Identification of problem/concern is limited | Identification of problem/concern is unclear. | Identification of problem/concern is absent | |
| Background and significance of the disease (includes incidence or prevalence statistics) | 25 Points | 22 Points | 20 Points | 10 Points | 0 Points |
| Background is complete, presents risks, disease impact and includes a review of incidence and prevalence of the disease within the student’s local area, state, and nationally. Evidence supports background. | Background is complete, presents risk, disease impact and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented and supported by evidence. | Background missing one or more key points and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented. Lack of evidence or limited presentation of the background. | Background missing more than one key point and at least one set of incidence and prevalence statistics are presented, or there is no supported evidence. Unclear conclusions or presentation. | Background and significance of the disease is not provided. | |
| Current surveillance methods | 25 Points | 22 Points | 20 Points | 10 Points | 0 Points |
| Current local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence | More than one local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence | One of either local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, and information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, supported by evidence | One of either local, state, and national disease surveillance methods are reviewed, currently gathered types of statistics, or only information on whether the disease is mandated for reporting, or evidence is lacking to support this area. Unclear conclusions or presentation. | Local, state, and national disease surveillance methods were not discussed. | |
| Descriptive epidemiological analysis (includes characteristics of the at-risk population and/or those affected by the disease and costs of the disease) | 25 Points | 22 Points | 20 Points | 10 Points | 0 Points |
| Comprehensive review and analysis of descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and population most at risk, supported by scholarly evidence. | Adequate review with some analysis of descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and population most at risk supported by scholarly evidence. | Limited review and analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and at-risk population. | Minimal analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and at-risk population. | No analysis of key descriptive epidemiological points of the identified disease and at-risk population is provided. | |
| Screening and diagnosis (includes review of current guidelines for screening and diagnosis of the disease. In-depth review of statistics one screening or diagnostic test provided) | 25 Points | 22 Points | 20 Points | 10 Points | 0 Points |
| Comprehensive review of current guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests is presented. | Adequate review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests is presented. | Limited review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. | Minimal or unclear review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests. | Review of guidelines for screening, diagnosis, and statistics related to validity, predictive value, and reliability of screening tests not provided. | |
|
Plan of action (includes at least three evidenced based actions, supported by literature, that the student will take in their own practice and how outcomes will be measured) |
25 Points | 22 Points | 20 Points | 10 Points | 0 Points |
| A comprehensive plan of action specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. | An adequate, but not fully comprehensive, plan of action specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is presented with 3 evidenced based actions that will be taken to address the impact, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. | A limited plan of action specific to the student’s interests, the problem, and the geographic area is, outcomes, or prevalence of the disease. Three actions are presented with limited or little evidence. | Actions are minimal or unclear, or lack specificity to geographic area, are not supported directly by evidence or are not direct actions the student can take in practice. | Plan of action not provided. | |
| Conclusion | 10 Points | 9 Points | 8 Points | 4 Points | 0 Points |
| The conclusion thoroughly, clearly, succinctly, and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action. | The conclusion adequately and logically presents major points of the paper with clear direction for action, but lacks one major point or is not succinct. | The conclusion is a limited review of key points of the paper, is not succinct, or lacks one or more major points of the paper or clear direction for action. | Conclusion is unclear or significantly limited in overview of the paper. | Conclusion not provided. | |
| Grammar, Spelling, APA | 5 Points | 4 Points | 3 Points | 2 Points | 0 Points |
| APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate, or with zero to one errors. | Two to four errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. | Five to seven errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. | Eight to nine errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and syntax noted. | Post contains greater than ten errors in APA format, grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation or repeatedly makes the same errors after faculty feedback. | |
| Total Points Possible = 150 points |
The post Evaluation of Epidemiological Problem appeared first on Infinite Essays.
“Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!”
The post Evaluation of Epidemiological Problem first appeared on nursing writers.
