DNP 825 Epidemiology Paper Part 1: Descriptive Method

DNP 825 Epidemiology Paper Part 1: Descriptive Method
DNP 825 Epidemiology Paper Part 1: Descriptive Method
Details:
The Epidemiology Paper is a practice immersion assignment designed to be completed in three sections, this is part one of the assignment. Learners are required discuss the role of descriptive epidemiology in nursing science and apply descriptive epidemiology in nursing science.
General Guidelines:
Use the following information to ensure successful completion of the assignment:
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
Doctoral learners are required to use APA style for their writing assignments. The APA Style Guide is located in the Student
DNP 825 Epidemiology Paper Part 1 Descriptive Method
Success Center.
This assignment requires that support your position by referencing at least six to eight scholarly resources. At least three of your supporting references must be from scholarly sources other than the assigned readings.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
Directions:
Write a 1,250–1,500 word paper discussing the role of descriptive epidemiology in nursing science. Include the following:
Define descriptive epidemiology and describe its relationship and role in nursing science today.
Provide a contemporary example of how descriptive epidemiology is applied in public health nursing.
Identify the epidemiology components used to analyze at-risk populations.
Portfolio Practice Hours:
Practice immersion assignments are based on your current course objectives, and are intended to be application-based learning using your real-world practice setting. These assignments earn practice immersion hours, and are indicated in the assignment by a Portfolio Practice Hours statement that reminds you, the learner, to enter a corresponding case log in Typhon. Actual clock hours are entered, but the average hours associated with each practice immersion assignment is 10.
You are required to complete your assignment using real-world application. Real-world application requires the use of evidence-based data, contemporary theories, and concepts presented in the course. The culmination of your assignment must present a viable application in a current practice setting. For more information on parameters for practice immersion hours, please refer to DNP resources in the DC Network.
To earn portfolio practice hours, enter the following after the references section of your paper:
Practice Hours Completion Statement DNP-825
I, (INSERT NAME), verify that I have completed (NUMBER OF) clock hours in association with the goals and objectives for this assignment. I have also tracked said practice hours in the Typhon Student Tracking System for verification purposes and will be sure that all approvals are in place from my faculty and practice mentor.
Epidemiology Paper Part One: Descriptive Method
1
Unsatisfactory
0.00% 2
Less Than Satisfactory
74.00% 3
Satisfactory
79.00% 4
Good
87.00% 5
Excellent
100.00%
70.0 %Content
20.0 %Demonstrates an Understanding of Descriptive Epidemiology and Its Relationship to Nursing Science and Public Health Nursing Paper does not demonstrate an understanding of descriptive epidemiology or its relationship to nursing science and public health nursing. Paper shows a vague understanding of descriptive epidemiology, but does not demonstrate an understanding of the relationship to nursing science and public health nursing. Paper illustrates a general understanding of descriptive epidemiology, and shows a general relationship to nursing science and public health nursing, but lacks a clear understanding of data collection, conditions, or distribution and determinants in relationship to disease in populations. Paper illustrates a theoretical understanding of descriptive epidemiology through an accurate discussion of distribution and disease determinants in populations. Paper demonstrates the functional relationship between descriptive epidemiology and nursing science and public health nursing. Paper illustrates a theoretical and conceptual understanding of descriptive epidemiology and offers insight into using specific conditions (outcomes of exposure, person, place, etc.) to identify specific patterns. Paper shows the significant relationship between descriptive epidemiology and contemporary nursing science and public health nursing.
20.0 %Uses Contemporary Theories, Concepts, and Examples That Demonstrate an Ability to Identify, Analyze, and Apply Descriptive Epidemiology Paper does not use contemporary theories, concepts, or examples as support or in the analysis of the paper. Paper uses some aspects of contemporary theories and concepts throughout the paper, but no relevant examples are used. Overall, the concepts and theories used are incomplete or inaccurate and do not support the analysis or application of descriptive epidemiology. Paper uses contemporary theories and concepts throughout the paper, and general examples are used for support. Overall, the concepts and theories used are very general and offer only minor support of the analysis or application of descriptive epidemiology presented in the paper. Paper uses contemporary theories and concepts throughout the paper. Accurate and strong examples are used for support. Overall, the concepts and theories provide support of the analysis and application of descriptive epidemiology presented in the paper. Paper uses contemporary theories and concepts throughout the paper. Accurate and strong examples are used for support. Overall, the concepts and theories provide support of the analysis and application of descriptive epidemiology presented in the paper.
20.0 %Demonstrates Knowledge of Health Disparities and the Variables Contributing to Health Disparity or At-Risk Populations Paper does not demonstrate knowledge of health disparities, or of the variables contributing to health disparity or at-risk populations. Paper demonstrates a rudimentary knowledge of the concept of health disparities, but does not demonstrate knowledge of the dimensions of disparity in a realistic setting, or of the variables contributing to the disparity or at-risk populations. Paper demonstrates general knowledge of the dimensions of health disparities that occur in a realistic setting and identifies some general variables contributing to the disparity and the at-risk populations. Paper demonstrates knowledge of the dimensions of health disparities that occur in a realistic setting and identifies specific variables contributing to health disparities and at-risk populations. Paper demonstrates keen knowledge and unbiased insight pertaining to the dimensions of health disparities that occur in a realistic setting. Paper identifies significant variables from a broad spectrum that contribute to health disparities and at-risk populations.
10.0 %Six to Eight Additional Scholarly Research Sources With In-Text Citations None of the required elements (minimum of six topic-related scholarly research sources and six in-text citations) are present. Not all required elements are present. One or more elements are missing and/or included sources are not scholarly research or topic-related. All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, but the source and quality of one or more references is questionable. All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related and obtained from reputable, professional sources. All required elements are present. Scholarly research sources are topic-related, and obtained from highly respected, professional, original sources.
20.0 %Organization and Effectiveness
7.0 %Thesis Development and Purpose Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. Thesis and/or main claim are insufficiently developed and/or vague; purpose is not clear. Thesis and/or main claim are apparent and appropriate to purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are clear and forecast the development of the paper. It is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. Thesis and/or main claim are comprehensive. The essence of the paper is contained within the thesis. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear.
8.0 %Argument Logic and Construction Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative.
5.0 %Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice and/or sentence construction are used. Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) and/or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied. Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed. Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech. Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.
10.0 %Format
5.0 %Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. Appropriate template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken. A lack of control with formatting is apparent. Appropriate template is used. Formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. Appropriate template is fully used. There are virtually no errors in formatting style. All format elements are correct.
5.0 %Research Citations (in-text citations for paraphrasing and direct quotes, and reference page listing and formatting, as appropriate to assignment and style) No reference page is included. No citations are used. Reference page is present. Citations are inconsistently used. Reference page is included and lists sources used in the paper. Sources are appropriately documented, although some errors may be present. Reference page is present and fully inclusive of all cited sources. Documentation is appropriate and citation style is usually correct. In-text citations and a reference page are complete and correct. The documentation of cited sources is free of error.
100 %Total Weightage
Epidemiology Paper – Rubric
Collapse All Epidemiology Paper – RubricCollapse All
Comprehensive Description of a Communicable Disease and the Demographic of Interest
12.5 points
Criteria Description
Comprehensive Description of a Communicable Disease and the Demographic of Interest
5. Excellent
12.5 points
Overview describing the demographic of interest and clinical description of the communicable disease is presented with a thorough, accurate, and clear overview of all of the clinical descriptors.
4. Good
11.5 points
Clinical description of the communicable disease and demographic of interest is provided. Summary is brief but accurate.
3. Satisfactory
11 points
Overview of the demographic of interest and clinical description of the communicable disease is presented with some inaccuracies of the clinical descriptors.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
10 points
Limited and/or vague summary of demographic of interest and communicable disease is provided. Overview does not offer a clear representation of information necessary for epidemiological study.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Demographic of interest and clinical description are omitted or presented with many inaccuracies.
Determinants of Health and Explanation of How Determinants Contribute to Disease Development
12.5 points
Criteria Description
Determinants of Health and Explanation of How Determinants Contribute to Disease Development
5. Excellent
12.5 points
Paper comprehensively discusses the determinants of health in relation to the communicable disease, explains their contribution to disease development, and provides evidence to support main points.
4. Good
11.5 points
Paper describes each determinant of health with a comprehensive discussion of their contribution to disease development and progression.
3. Satisfactory
11 points
Paper identifies the determinants of health in relation to the communicable disease selected but does not include an explanation of their role in the development of disease.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
10 points
Paper partially describes the determinants of health in relation to disease development.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of the determinants of health and their role in disease development is omitted or presented with many inaccuracies.
Epidemiologic Triangle (Host Factors, Agent Factors, and Environmental Factors
25 points
Criteria Description
Epidemiologic Triangle (Host Factors, Agent Factors, and Environmental Factors
5. Excellent
25 points
The communicable disease is described thoroughly, accurately, and clearly within an epidemiological triangle. A visual description of the triangle and how the components of the model interact is included.
4. Good
23 points
The communicable disease is described accurately within the context of the epidemiologic triangle. A brief description of factors and interaction is presented.
3. Satisfactory
22 points
The communicable disease is described accurately and clearly within the context of the epidemiologic triangle.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
20 points
The communicable disease is described with some inaccuracies within the epidemiologic triangle. A visual description of the factors and interaction is not present.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Description of the epidemiologic triangle is omitted or presented with many inaccuracies.
Role of the Community Health Nurse and Importance of Demographic Data
25 points
Criteria Description
Role of the Community Health Nurse and Importance of Demographic Data
5. Excellent
25 points
Discussion of the role of the community health nurse is clear, comprehensive, and inclusive of the community nurse’s responsibilities to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention through tasks such as case finding, reporting, data collection and analysis, and follow-up. A clear explanation of the importance of demographic data to community health is presented.
4. Good
23 points
Discussion of the role of community health nurse is clear, with a comprehensive description of skills associated with community assessment and planning. An explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is presented.
3. Satisfactory
22 points
Discussion of the role of the community health nurses is limited, with a brief overview of skills associated with community assessment and planning. An explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is summarized.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
20 points
Discussion of the role of the community health nurse is vague, with no integration of case finding, reporting, data collecting, data analysis, or follow-up skills. An incomplete explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is provided.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Discussion of the role of the community health nurse is omitted or unclear. An explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is omitted or unclear.
National Agency or Organization That Works to Addresses Communicable Disease
12.5 points
Criteria Description
National Agency or Organization That Works to Addresses Communicable Disease
5. Excellent
12.5 points
An agency or organization is identified. A clear and accurate description of efforts to address communicable disease is offered.
4. Good
11.5 points
An agency or organization is identified, but discussion regarding efforts to address communicable disease is brief.
3. Satisfactory
11 points
An agency or organization is identified, but discussion regarding efforts to address communicable disease is lacking.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
10 points
An agency or organization is identified, but discussion is vague or inaccurate in relation to the communicable disease chosen.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Agency and description of contribution are omitted.
Global Implication
12.5 points
Criteria Description
Global Implication
5. Excellent
12.5 points
A discussion of the global implication of the disease is clear, comprehensive, and inclusive with a comprehensive description of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is provided.
4. Good
11.5 points
A discussion of the global implication of the disease is clear, with a comprehensive description of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is provided.
3. Satisfactory
11 points
A discussion of the global implication of the disease is limited, with some integration of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is provided.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
10 points
A discussion of the global implication of the disease is vague, with no integration of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is not provided.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Global implication of the disease is omitted or unclear.
Thesis, Position, or Purpose
6.25 points
Criteria Description
Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.
5. Excellent
6.25 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.
4. Good
5.75 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.
3. Satisfactory
5.5 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.
Development, Structure, and Conclusion
6.25 points
Criteria Description
Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.
5. Excellent
6.25 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
4. Good
5.75 points
The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.
3. Satisfactory
5.5 points
Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5 points
Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.
Evidence
6.25 points
Criteria Description
Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.
5. Excellent
6.25 points
Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.
4. Good
5.75 points
Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.
3. Satisfactory
5.5 points
Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
5 points
Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.
Mechanics of Writing
2.5 points
Criteria Description
Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.
5. Excellent
2.5 points
No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.
4. Good
2.3 points
Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.
3. Satisfactory
2.2 points
Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
2 points
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.
Format/Documentation
3.75 points
Criteria Description
Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.
5. Excellent
3.75 points
No errors in formatting or documentation are present.
4. Good
3.45 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.
3. Satisfactory
3.3 points
Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.
2. Less Than Satisfactory
3 points
Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.
1. Unsatisfactory
0 points
Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.
Total 125 points