How to best evaluate your experiences?
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →How to best evaluate your experiences?
**files (1)** – ## DLV.docx **## DLV.docx** **Competency** Evaluate methods for effective instruction. **Scenario** Before observing Dr. Lydia's first classroom, you want to ensure she understands the university’s expectations. You plan to meet with her to explain how she will be evaluated. During y…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →**files (1)**
– ## DLV.docx
**## DLV.docx**
**Competency**
Evaluate methods for effective instruction.
**Scenario**
Before observing Dr. Lydia's first classroom, you want to ensure she understands the university’s expectations. You plan to meet with her to explain how she will be evaluated. During your observation, you will be utilizing a rubric to assess Dr. Lydia’s instruction methods. Prior to the meeting, you need to prepare a rubric and a brief explanation explaining the aims of the criteria.
**Instructions**
· Create a rubric for Dr. Lydia’s classroom observation. The rubric must include four columns of effectiveness (1-4 score) and four rows, each measuring a component of effective instruction to adult learners.
· Write a brief paragraph explaining how the rubric criteria evaluate methods of effective instruction for adult learners.
**## DLV.docx**
**Competency**
Evaluate methods for effective instruction.
**Scenario**
Before observing Dr. Lydia's first classroom, you want to ensure she understands the university’s expectations. You plan to meet with her to explain how she will be evaluated. During your observation, you will be utilizing a rubric to assess Dr. Lydia’s instruction methods. Prior to the meeting, you need to prepare a rubric and a brief explanation explaining the aims of the criteria.
**Instructions**
· Create a rubric for Dr. Lydia’s classroom observation. The rubric must include four columns of effectiveness (1-4 score) and four rows, each measuring a component of effective instruction to adult learners.
· Write a brief paragraph explaining how the rubric criteria evaluate methods of effective instruction for adult learners.
**files (1)** – ## DLV12.docx **## DLV12.docx** Integrate knowledge of expected growth and development, health promotion and prevention strategies to achieve optimal health. **Activity Statements** · Integrate knowledge from the arts, sciences, and humanities into nursing practice. · Apply behaviora…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →**files (1)**
– ## DLV12.docx
**## DLV12.docx**
Integrate knowledge of expected growth and development, health promotion and prevention strategies to achieve optimal health.
**Activity Statements**
· Integrate knowledge from the arts, sciences, and humanities into nursing practice.
· Apply behavioral change strategies to promote health and manage illness.
**Reflection Questions**
· How is the foundational knowledge of the arts, sciences, and humanities used to examine the impact of behavioral changes and promote health and wellness?
· How did you use information and communication technologies with preventive care during your practicum experience and what would you do to impact your practice?
**Instructions**
Please review the grading rubric before beginning your reflection on the above core clinical objective. Make sure to answer the reflective questions thoroughly with substantial reference to your practicum experience.
**## DLV12.docx**
Integrate knowledge of expected growth and development, health promotion and prevention strategies to achieve optimal health.
**Activity Statements**
· Integrate knowledge from the arts, sciences, and humanities into nursing practice.
· Apply behavioral change strategies to promote health and manage illness.
**Reflection Questions**
· How is the foundational knowledge of the arts, sciences, and humanities used to examine the impact of behavioral changes and promote health and wellness?
· How did you use information and communication technologies with preventive care during your practicum experience and what would you do to impact your practice?
**Instructions**
Please review the grading rubric before beginning your reflection on the above core clinical objective. Make sure to answer the reflective questions thoroughly with substantial reference to your practicum experience.
Please provide a speak-over PowerPoint presentation on the utilization of Psychotherapeutic Approaches for Addictions. **Presentation Guidelines** Your PowerPoint should include the following slides: 1. **Title Slide** – Include your name, course, date, and title of your presentation. 2. **Introduct…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →Please provide a speak-over PowerPoint presentation on the utilization of Psychotherapeutic Approaches for Addictions.
**Presentation Guidelines**
Your PowerPoint should include the following slides:
1. **Title Slide**
– Include your name, course, date, and title of your presentation.
2. **Introduction Slide**
– Provide a brief overview of what your presentation will cover.
3. **Current Trends and Practices**
– Highlight contemporary approaches and innovations in addiction treatment.
4. **Principles of Effective Treatment**
– Discuss the key principles that make treatment approaches successful.
5. **Models of Treatment**
– Present at least two models of addiction treatment and their applications.
6. **Conclusion Slide**
– Summarize the key points discussed in your presentation.
7. **References Slide**
– Include all sources used in APA format.
find attached and please use the rubric, APA format , ensure work is engaging with life scenario **files (6)** – ## wk8epidiscSystematicreviewsareanumbrellatermforanumberofdifferentreviewdesigns.docx – ## wk8epidiscrubrics.docx – AACN-NEWS_2020_Journal-of-Professional-Nursing.pdf – A-closer-look-a…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →find attached and please use the rubric, APA format , ensure work is engaging with life scenario
**files (6)**
– ## wk8epidiscSystematicreviewsareanumbrellatermforanumberofdifferentreviewdesigns.docx
– ## wk8epidiscrubrics.docx
– AACN-NEWS_2020_Journal-of-Professional-Nursing.pdf
– A-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima_2020_Journal-of-Professi.pdf
– Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf
– Best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr_2020_Journal-of-Profess.pdf
**## wk8epidiscSystematicreviewsareanumbrellatermforanumberofdifferentreviewdesigns.docx**
Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.
Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.
For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.
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/9000226)
TO PREPARE:
· Review the studies and articles provided in the Learning Resources. Consider the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Make sure you are clear on the difference between the two approaches.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 8
**Post** a brief summary of your informed opinion regarding the validity of the use of systematic reviews
**and** meta-analyses in epidemiological research. Include
**at least two** strengths or limitations of each technique. Provide evidence from
**at least one** of the articles in the Learning Resources to support and justify your position.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 8
**Post** substantive responses to
**at least two** classmates
**on two different days** who expressed a differing view to your own in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on your peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about meta-analyses, ask a question to further the Discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique, supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the Discussion.
**Note:** Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students.
**\* Additionally, you must respond to your professor if they ask a question or comment on your post.**
**Return** to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights that you have gained because of your classmates’ comments.
**## wk8epidiscrubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week8_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
**AACN-NEWS_2020_Journal-of-Professional-Nursing.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/aacn-news-2020-journal-of-professional-nursing-pdf)
**A-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima_2020_Journal-of-Professi.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/a-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima-2020-journal-of-professi-pdf)
**Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/development-of-a-dnp-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo-2020-journal-of-p-pdf)
**Best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr_2020_Journal-of-Profess.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr-2020-journal-of-profess-pdf)
**Best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr_2020_Journal-of-Profess.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr-2020-journal-of-profess-pdf)
**## wk8epidiscSystematicreviewsareanumbrellatermforanumberofdifferentreviewdesigns.docx**
Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.
Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.
For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.
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/9000226)
TO PREPARE:
· Review the studies and articles provided in the Learning Resources. Consider the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Make sure you are clear on the difference between the two approaches.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 8
**Post** a brief summary of your informed opinion regarding the validity of the use of systematic reviews
**and** meta-analyses in epidemiological research. Include
**at least two** strengths or limitations of each technique. Provide evidence from
**at least one** of the articles in the Learning Resources to support and justify your position.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 8
**Post** substantive responses to
**at least two** classmates
**on two different days** who expressed a differing view to your own in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on your peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about meta-analyses, ask a question to further the Discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique, supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the Discussion.
**Note:** Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students.
**\* Additionally, you must respond to your professor if they ask a question or comment on your post.**
**Return** to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights that you have gained because of your classmates’ comments.
**## wk8epidiscrubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week8_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
**AACN-NEWS_2020_Journal-of-Professional-Nursing.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/aacn-news-2020-journal-of-professional-nursing-pdf)
**A-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima_2020_Journal-of-Professi.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/a-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima-2020-journal-of-professi-pdf)
**Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/development-of-a-dnp-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo-2020-journal-of-p-pdf)
**Best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr_2020_Journal-of-Profess.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr-2020-journal-of-profess-pdf)
**## wk8epidiscSystematicreviewsareanumbrellatermforanumberofdifferentreviewdesigns.docx**
Systematic reviews are an umbrella term for a number of different review designs, all with specific goals (e.g., identify scope of available research or gaps, reduce bias, statistically combine and analyze results from multiple studies). They differ from basic literature review articles that qualitatively summarize the literature on a topic and do not necessarily have inclusion or exclusion criteria.
Epidemiological meta-analyses are quantitative types of systematic reviews, in which summary measures of exposure–outcome associations are calculated based on the results of a selection of existing studies. In other words, a meta-analysis statistically combines the results from multiple studies, with the goal of calculating more precise measures, increasing sample size, or reducing bias in the combined results. The goal of meta-analysis is to obtain a more robust understanding of the relationship between an exposure and a health outcome than could be obtained from a single study. While meta-analyses are considered to be strong research designs because of their formal, statistical characteristics, they are not without weakness or critics. For instance, existing studies included in a meta-analysis may have strengths and limitations of their own.
For this Discussion, you examine the validity and strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in epidemiological research.
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/9000226)
TO PREPARE:
· Review the studies and articles provided in the Learning Resources. Consider the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Make sure you are clear on the difference between the two approaches.
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 8
**Post** a brief summary of your informed opinion regarding the validity of the use of systematic reviews
**and** meta-analyses in epidemiological research. Include
**at least two** strengths or limitations of each technique. Provide evidence from
**at least one** of the articles in the Learning Resources to support and justify your position.
BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 8
**Post** substantive responses to
**at least two** classmates
**on two different days** who expressed a differing view to your own in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on your peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about meta-analyses, ask a question to further the Discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique, supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the Discussion.
**Note:** Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students.
**\* Additionally, you must respond to your professor if they ask a question or comment on your post.**
**Return** to this Discussion in a few days to read the responses to your initial posting. Note what you have learned and/or any insights that you have gained because of your classmates’ comments.
**## wk8epidiscrubrics.docx**
**NURS_8310_Week8_Discussion_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week8_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
**AACN-NEWS_2020_Journal-of-Professional-Nursing.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/aacn-news-2020-journal-of-professional-nursing-pdf)
**A-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima_2020_Journal-of-Professi.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/a-closer-look-at-first-time-pass-rates-as-the-prima-2020-journal-of-professi-pdf)
**Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/development-of-a-dnp-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo-2020-journal-of-p-pdf)
**Best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr_2020_Journal-of-Profess.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/best-practices-and-lessons-learned-in-academic-progr-2020-journal-of-profess-pdf)
I need an assessment completed by Friday 4/17 .
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →I need an assessment completed by Friday 4/17 .
This assessment has 2 parts: – Part 1: Evaluate your global health knowledge by assessing an emerging global health issue (GHI). Address factors that exacerbate the issue and develop a plan for improvement. – Part 2: Present information about an identified GHI that is of importance to your patient p…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →This assessment has 2 parts:
– Part 1: Evaluate your global health knowledge by assessing an emerging global health issue (GHI). Address factors that exacerbate the issue and develop a plan for improvement.
– Part 2: Present information about an identified GHI that is of importance to your patient population.
#### **Part 1: G** lobal Health Issue (GHI) **Presentation**
**Imagine** you are a nurse working with Doctors Without Borders to address an emerging GHI in a specific country or region of the world. You are preparing to travel to the country or region to improve an issue or illness. Your director has requested that you prepare a presentation about the issue or illness for your fellow staff.
**Choose** an emerging health issue within a specific country or region.
**Create** a 13-slide Microsoft PowerPoint presentation, with detailed speaker notes, in which you analyze an emerging GHI related to the country or region of the world of your choice.
**Include** the following in your presentation:
– Clearly summarize your chosen GHI and explain how and why this issue impacts populations within your chosen country or region.
– **Analyze** the cause of the GHI. Consider:
– Individual issues (e.g., personal hygiene)
– Community (e.g., resources, demographics)
– Family roles and structures (e.g., single-parent households)
– Culture (e.g., values, beliefs)
– Environmental issues (e.g., access to technology and healthcare, geographic concerns)
– **Examine** the factors that continue to exacerbate the GHI. Consider:
– Individual
– Family
– Community
– Culture
– Environmental
– **Create** an action plan to improve the GHI. Consider:
– Education
– Communication
– Relief workers (interprofessional team)
– Technology
**Include** the following in your presentation:
– Speaker notes: The slides should only contain essential information and as little text as possible (e.g., slides with long bullet points). Your speaker notes should convey the details you would give if you were presenting. Refer to the [Create Speaker Notes](https://support.office.com/en-us/article/video-create-speaker-notes-fc59586b-888f-4ebf-ab07-8a3cc8297867) page on the Microsoft website for assistance creating speaker notes.
– References slide
**Cite** at least **5 peer-reviewed sources** in your presentation.
**Format** citations and references according to APA guidelines.
#### **Part 2: Clinical Activities – Disease Prevention Education**
At your community agency, **discuss** an emerging GHI with your patient population. Choose a GHI that is likely to affect the patient population at your community agency (e.g., COVID 19, Alzheimer’s disease, food insecurity). Emerging GHIs may include, but are not limited to, infectious disease, human-trafficking, maternal and newborn health, health inequities, and maldistribution of health care workers.
**Use** the nursing process, communication techniques, and modalities that you have become familiar with to **deliver** health counseling. As part of your counseling about GHIs, include resources available in the community to mitigate or prevent the issue (e.g., free vaccines, social services, food banks, housing, transportation, law enforcement).
_Note_: Schedule as many educational sessions as necessary to complete the required 12 direct-care clinical hours for this assessment.
**Evaluate** the effectiveness of your health counseling by providing examples of how the individual, family, or group might prevent the emerging health issue.
**Write** a 350-word summary of your Week 5 patient-education activities that includes:
– Description of the interactions with the patient population
– Description of the outcome(s) of the teaching/health counseling sessions
– Discussion of how you met the objective(s) in Week 5
**Format** your summary according to APA guidelines.
What do you see as similarities and differences between the research process, the Evidence-Based Practice process, and nursing process? Include rationale to support your response. **Submission Instructions:** – The post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in the current APA style with …
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →What do you see as similarities and differences between the research process, the Evidence-Based Practice process, and nursing process? Include rationale to support your response.
**Submission Instructions:**
– The post should be at least 500 words, formatted and cited in the current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources.
– AI detection less than 20% on turnitin.com
An understanding of the musculoskeletal systems is a critically important component of disease and disorder diagnosis and treatment. This importance is magnified by the impact that that this system may have on another. A variety of factors and circumstances affecting the emergence and severity of is…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →An understanding of the musculoskeletal systems is a critically important component of disease and disorder diagnosis and treatment. This importance is magnified by the impact that that this system may have on another. A variety of factors and circumstances affecting the emergence and severity of issues in one system can also have a role in the performance of the other.
Effective analysis often requires an understanding that goes beyond these systems and their mutual impact. For example, patient characteristics such as, racial and ethnic variables can play a role.
An understanding of the symptoms of alterations in musculoskeletal systems is a critical step in diagnosis and treatment. For APRNs this understanding can also help educate patients and guide them through their treatment plans.
In this Assignment, you examine a case study and analyze the symptoms presented. You identify the elements that may be factors in the diagnosis, and you explain the implications to patient health.
### **RESOURCES**
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.
Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
[**WEEKLY RESOURCES**](https://waldenu.instructure.com/courses/216583/modules/items/9298837)
**To prepare:**
By Day 1 of this week, you will be assigned to a specific case study scenario for this Case Study Assignment. Please see the “Announcements” section of the classroom for your assignment from your Instructor.
**The Assignment (1- to 2-page case study analysis)**
Develop a 1- to 2-page case study analysis by answering the questions provided following the case scenario.
– [\
\
week8PATHOcasestudy.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/week8pathocasestudy-docx "week8PATHOcasestudy.docx")
– [\
\
wk8epidemiologyassign.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk8epidemiologyassign-docx-10533553 "wk8epidemiologyassign.docx")
3 PAGES APA FORMATE PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTION AND RUBRICS IN THE ATTACHED **files (6)** – ## wk8epidemiologyassign.docx – Community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an_2020_Journal-of-Professional.pdf – Academic-Practice-Partnerships–Building-a-sustainable-_2020_Journal-of-Prof.pdf – Developm…
Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.
Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.
Order on TutorsGallery →3 PAGES
APA FORMATE
PLEASE FOLLOW INSTRUCTION AND RUBRICS IN THE ATTACHED
**files (6)**
– ## wk8epidemiologyassign.docx
– Community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an_2020_Journal-of-Professional.pdf
– Academic-Practice-Partnerships–Building-a-sustainable-_2020_Journal-of-Prof.pdf
– Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf
– Empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu_2020_Journal-of-Profe.pdf
– Doctor-of-nursing-practice-students–perceptions-of-p_2020_Journal-of-Profes.pdf
**## wk8epidemiologyassign.docx**
In epidemiology, meta-analyses are becoming a common research design. They are also “the most frequently cited form of clinical research,” and as such are an important type of study for the advanced practice nurse to be familiar with (Haidich, 2010).
For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion.
Reference:
TO PREPARE:
· Using the Walden Library, locate a peer-reviewed article that utilizes a meta-analysis design and examines a population health topic that interests you. Your article must be a meta-analysis specifically, not just a systematic review.
THE ASSIGNMENT:
In 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:
· Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.
· Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.
· Do you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.
· Explain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.
RUBRICS
**NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** The article is clearly identified. The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** The article is clearly identified. The response accurately explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** The article is identified. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the article and explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** The response provides an accurate, clear, and concise explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with strong rationale is included.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** The response provides an accurate explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with rationale is included.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** The response provides a somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. Critique of the researcher’s approach is somewhat vague, or rationale is inadequate.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** The response provides an inaccurate and vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected or is missing. Critique of the researcher’s approach is vague, inaccurate, unsupported, or missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDo you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** A clear and concise critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates strong critical thinking is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** A clear critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates some critical thinking is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100
**Community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an_2020_Journal-of-Professional.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an-2020-journal-of-professional-pdf)
**Academic-Practice-Partnerships–Building-a-sustainable-_2020_Journal-of-Prof.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/academic-practice-partnerships-building-a-sustainable-2020-journal-of-prof-pdf)
**Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/development-of-a-dnp-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo-2020-journal-of-p-pdf-10533545)
**Empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu_2020_Journal-of-Profe.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu-2020-journal-of-profe-pdf)
**Doctor-of-nursing-practice-students–perceptions-of-p_2020_Journal-of-Profes.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/doctor-of-nursing-practice-students-perceptions-of-p-2020-journal-of-profes-pdf)
**Doctor-of-nursing-practice-students–perceptions-of-p_2020_Journal-of-Profes.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/doctor-of-nursing-practice-students-perceptions-of-p-2020-journal-of-profes-pdf)
**## wk8epidemiologyassign.docx**
In epidemiology, meta-analyses are becoming a common research design. They are also “the most frequently cited form of clinical research,” and as such are an important type of study for the advanced practice nurse to be familiar with (Haidich, 2010).
For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion.
Reference:
TO PREPARE:
· Using the Walden Library, locate a peer-reviewed article that utilizes a meta-analysis design and examines a population health topic that interests you. Your article must be a meta-analysis specifically, not just a systematic review.
THE ASSIGNMENT:
In 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:
· Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.
· Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.
· Do you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.
· Explain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.
RUBRICS
**NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** The article is clearly identified. The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** The article is clearly identified. The response accurately explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** The article is identified. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the article and explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** The response provides an accurate, clear, and concise explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with strong rationale is included.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** The response provides an accurate explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with rationale is included.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** The response provides a somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. Critique of the researcher’s approach is somewhat vague, or rationale is inadequate.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** The response provides an inaccurate and vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected or is missing. Critique of the researcher’s approach is vague, inaccurate, unsupported, or missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDo you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** A clear and concise critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates strong critical thinking is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** A clear critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates some critical thinking is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100
**Community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an_2020_Journal-of-Professional.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an-2020-journal-of-professional-pdf)
**Academic-Practice-Partnerships–Building-a-sustainable-_2020_Journal-of-Prof.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/academic-practice-partnerships-building-a-sustainable-2020-journal-of-prof-pdf)
**Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/development-of-a-dnp-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo-2020-journal-of-p-pdf-10533545)
**Empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu_2020_Journal-of-Profe.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu-2020-journal-of-profe-pdf)
**Doctor-of-nursing-practice-students–perceptions-of-p_2020_Journal-of-Profes.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/doctor-of-nursing-practice-students-perceptions-of-p-2020-journal-of-profes-pdf)
**## wk8epidemiologyassign.docx**
In epidemiology, meta-analyses are becoming a common research design. They are also “the most frequently cited form of clinical research,” and as such are an important type of study for the advanced practice nurse to be familiar with (Haidich, 2010).
For this Assignment, you will analyze a meta-analysis article and consider the implications of this research design for nursing practice, building on this week’s Discussion.
Reference:
TO PREPARE:
· Using the Walden Library, locate a peer-reviewed article that utilizes a meta-analysis design and examines a population health topic that interests you. Your article must be a meta-analysis specifically, not just a systematic review.
THE ASSIGNMENT:
In 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:
· Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis.
· Were the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not.
· Do you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not.
· Explain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice.
RUBRICS
**NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric**
| | | |
| — | — | — |
| NURS_8310_Week8_Assignment_Rubric |
| **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIn 2–3 pages, not including title page and references, address the following:Identify your selected article. Explain what characteristics make this a meta-analysis. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** The article is clearly identified. The response accurately, clearly, and concisely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** The article is clearly identified. The response accurately explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** The article is identified. The response somewhat inaccurately or vaguely explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** The response inaccurately or vaguely identifies the article and explains the characteristics that make it a meta-analysis, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWere the inclusion and exclusion criteria clearly stated? How were the articles that were included selected? Do you agree with the researchers’ approach? Explain why or why not. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** The response provides an accurate, clear, and concise explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with strong rationale is included.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** The response provides an accurate explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. A critique of the researcher’s approach with rationale is included.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** The response provides a somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected. Critique of the researcher’s approach is somewhat vague, or rationale is inadequate.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** The response provides an inaccurate and vague explanation of whether the inclusion and exclusion criteria were clearly stated and how included articles were selected or is missing. Critique of the researcher’s approach is vague, inaccurate, unsupported, or missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDo you agree with the conclusions? Explain why or why not. | **20 to >17.0 ptsExcellent** A clear and concise critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates strong critical thinking is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >15.0 ptsGood** A clear critique of the study’s conclusions that demonstrates some critical thinking is provided.<br> <br>**15 to >13.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided.<br> <br>**13 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague critique of the study’s conclusions is provided, or it is missing. | 20 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExplain how you could apply implications from the study to your nursing practice. | **25 to >22.0 ptsExcellent** An accurate and detailed explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**22 to >19.0 ptsGood** An accurate explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**19 to >17.0 ptsFair** A somewhat inaccurate or vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided.<br> <br>**17 to >0 ptsPoor** An inaccurate and vague explanation of how the study could be applied to nursing practice is provided, or it is missing. | 25 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity…. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time…. Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time…. No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. | 5 pts |
| This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list. | **5 to >4.0 ptsExcellent** Uses correct APA format with no errors.<br> <br>**4 to >3.5 ptsGood** Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3.5 to >3.0 ptsFair** Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors.<br> <br>**3 to >0 ptsPoor** Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors. | 5 pts |
Total Points: 100
**Community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an_2020_Journal-of-Professional.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/community-engaged-service-in-pathophysiology-an-2020-journal-of-professional-pdf)
**Academic-Practice-Partnerships–Building-a-sustainable-_2020_Journal-of-Prof.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/academic-practice-partnerships-building-a-sustainable-2020-journal-of-prof-pdf)
**Development-of-a-DNP-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo_2020_Journal-of-P.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/development-of-a-dnp-measurement-grid-to-increase-the-rigo-2020-journal-of-p-pdf-10533545)
**Empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu_2020_Journal-of-Profe.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/empathic-and-listening-styles-of-first-year-undergradu-2020-journal-of-profe-pdf)
**Doctor-of-nursing-practice-students–perceptions-of-p_2020_Journal-of-Profes.pdf**
This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/doctor-of-nursing-practice-students-perceptions-of-p-2020-journal-of-profes-pdf)