Healthcare Policy and Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Medicine is a social science, and politics nothing but medicine at a larger scale.
—Rudolf Virchow, 1848
What is standing in the way of a healthy society? What role does policy play in influencing positive social change, as it relates to health? Considering policy influence and the political determinants of health may make all the difference in enacting beneficial change to healthcare as we know it.
In this module, you will explore how the political determinants of health shape healthcare systems, policy, and society. This introduction will serve as your foundation to delve into policy, advocacy, and change as we progress through the course.
When healthcare works, it is often the result of effective policies. When it falls short, it can also be the case that policies have created a challenging environment that prevents equitable access to quality care. During this first week of the course, you will be introduced to the importance of healthcare policy, and you will consider how your role as a nurse can influence healthcare policy.
In your role, you see daily the impact of the political determinants of health, as well as whether or not healthcare policies are influencing public health in the way intended. As a result, your voice is an important and meaningful voice in advocating for effective policies.
During Week 1, you will consider the impact of inequality on healthcare. You will differentiate inequity from inequality and examine their impact on healthcare. You will explore the role of advocacy, as well as how you might serve as an advocate in the policy area.
LEARNING OBJECTIVES
· Discuss the political determinants of health as a framework for nurse engagement in policy advocacy
DISCUSSION
Allegory of the Orchard
The Allegory of the Orchard presents barriers and challenges of underserved, vulnerable, or marginalized populations and communities. These barriers and challenges highlight the importance of understanding the impact of political determinants of health on such groups. This allegory encourages an identification, understanding, analysis, and response to these factors as members of the healthcare community.
For this Discussion, consider the role of the political determinants of health on underserved, vulnerable, or marginalized populations and communities. How might advocates address the health disparities to promote equity and access to high quality healthcare?
· View and read the Learning Resources regarding The Allegory of the Orchard.
· Consider the role of political determinants of health on disparities in health for some groups.
· Consider if advocates should be more concerned with policies that promote equality or equity.
· Explore your role, as a nurse, in addressing these determinants in our policy advocacy efforts.
Post a response detailing the following:
· Use
The Allegory of the Orchard to discuss how the political determinants of health negatively impact the health outcomes of a group of patients for whom you care. Why are you, as a nurse, the right person to become politically involved in addressing these determinants?
Learning Resources
Required Resources
Readings
· Dawes, D. E. (2020).
The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
· “Foreword (pp. ix–xi)
· Chapter 1, “The Allegory of the Orchard: The Political Determinants of Health Inequalities” (pp. 1–17)
· Porche, D. J. (2023).
Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
· Chapter 1, “Policy Overview” (pp.1–20)
· Chapter 6, “Healthcare Systems” (pp. 81–92)
Media
· Satcher Health Leadership Institute. (2021, April 19).
The allegory of the orchard: The political determinants of health by Daniel E. DawesLinks to an external site.
[Video].
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 6 minutes.
· Satcher Health Leadership Institute. (2021, April 19).
The allegory of the orchard—part II: The political determinants of health by Daniel E. Dawes, part 2Links to an external site.
[Video].
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 7 minutes.
· Satcher Health Leadership Institute. (2021, February 2).
The political determinants of health: Jessica’s storyLinks to an external site.
[Video].
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 5 minutes.
Assignment Rubric Details
Rubric
NURS_8100_Week1_Discussion_Rubric
|
NURS_8100_Week1_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
|
