NURS8310 WEEK 7 DISCUSSION: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY DESIGNS IN THE MEDIA

Table of Contents

Week 7: Discussion: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY DESIGNS IN THE MEDIA

Epidemiology: FROM KNOWLEDGE TO APPLICATION: APPLYING EVIDENCE AT THE POPULATION LEVEL

DISCUSSION

INTRODUCTION

You likely encounter epidemiological studies in peer-reviewed journal articles, as well as in the popular media. How do you evaluate these different sources and how do they usually compare? How do you help interpret epidemiologic information for patients who may approach you with information from the media?

This week, you examine epidemiological study designs as they are reported in both the popular media and the scholarly literature. They both are important means through which epidemiologic information is disseminated for different audiences, and both have a role in evidence-based nursing practice.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Students will:

Analyze ways epidemiologic information is disseminated to and utilized by different audience
Examine how epidemiologic information can be utilized in evidence-based nursing practice

This is a graded discussion: 100 points possible

Week 7: Discussion: EPIDEMIOLOGICAL STUDY DESIGNS IN THE MEDIA

Nearly every day, population health studies appear in the media. The studies often include epidemiological research. The type of study design used can have a profound impact on how the study results are analyzed, interpreted, and reported. Common study designs include case control, cohort, cross-sectional, and community intervention trials

Based on media descriptions of the research, however, facts about the issue under study may appear less than obvious. Media reports may sensationalize results and overstate outcomes. Someone familiar with epidemiological methodology may note a lack of detail in mass media reports of research findings compared to articles published in peer-reviewed journals.

For this Discussion, you will compare an epidemiological study to a mass media article written about the study to examine ways epidemiologic information is disseminated to and utilized by different audiences.

RESOURCES

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

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice(3rd ed.). Springer.
Chapter 5, “Applying Evidence at the Population Level”
Chapter 6, “Using Information Technology to Improve Population Outcomes”
Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practiceLinks to an external site.(6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.
Appendix A, “Guide to the Critical Appraisal of an Epidemiologic/Public Health Research Article”
American Journal of Health Behavior. (n.d.). Writing a press releaseLinks to an external site.. https://ajhb.org/journal/writing-press-release/
Walden University Doctoral Capstone Form and Style. (n.d.). APA style for capstone writers: Abstracts for the capstone.Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/formandstyle/apa/abstracts#:~:text=The%20abstract%20should%20begin%20on,exceed%20one%20page%20in%20length
Walden University Library. (n.d.). Evaluating resources: Journals.Links to an external site. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/library/evaluating/resource-types/journals

TO PREPARE:

Locate a mass media article published within the last yearthat describes findings of an epidemiological study. Be sure that the article is about an epidemiological study and not another area of population health.
Then, use the Walden Library to locate the peer-reviewed research article on which the mass media report is based.

Post a response to the following:

Briefly summarize the study you found, and then include the citations for both the mass media and the peer-reviewed articles.
Explain what epidemiological concepts are included in the mass media article (e.g., measures of association, study design, confounders, and bias) and how they compare to those in the peer-reviewed article.
Give your assessment of how well the mass media article represented the actual research that was conducted. Describe any obvious omissions from the mass media article that epidemiologists critiquing the study would need to know.
Finally, imagine that a patient brings this mass media article to you and asks you for your informed opinion. Explain how you would respond or interpret the article for the patient.
Assignment Rubric Details

Rubric

NURS_8310_Week7_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria

Ratings

Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT.

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 pts

Excellent

• 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.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• 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.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• 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.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• 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.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

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.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

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.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

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.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

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 pts

Excellent

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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

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. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

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. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

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. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

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. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

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.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

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.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

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.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

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