Kibata

Sign In

Our Services

Get 15% Discount on your First Order

Order Now
[rank_math_breadcrumb]

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

  

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

Week 4 discussion Due December 16

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

Contextual Factors 

What is the impact of contextual factors on advocacy and policy? Contextual factors can range from internal (the organization, the practice, the environment, the culture, etc.) to external (laws, policies, politics, regulations, etc.). However, whether originating internally or externally, contextual factors have the capability of advancing or hindering an advocacy priority. 

For this Discussion, you will consider how contextual factors impact policy making, focusing specifically on how these factors might impact your advocacy priority. Consider what contextual factors might promote getting your priority on the agenda, as well as those that might work against it.

Resources



Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources. 


WEEKLY RESOURCES

Learning Resources

Required Resources

Readings

  • Dawes, D. E. (2020). 
    The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.

    • Chapter 4, “How the Game is Played: Successful Employment of the Political Determinants of Health” (pp.78–111)

  • Porche, Demetrius J. (2023).
     Health policy: Applications for nurses and other health professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.

    • Chapter 9, “Policy Formulation and Implementation” (pp.101-112)

    • Chapter 10, “Policy Analysis” (pp.113-140)

Media

The following media resources address the contextual factors impacting the answer to the following question, “How did we get here?” regarding the current state of healthcare in the U.S.

Please select at least two from the following to view.

To Prepare:

  • Review resources about contextual factors.

  • Consider how contextual factors will impact your advocacy priority. 

By Day 3 of Week 4

Post a response detailing the following: 

  • Which contextual factors will promote getting your advocacy priority on the agenda? 

  • Which contextual factors might work against it?

  • Assignment Rubric Details

    Close

  • Rubric

  • NURS_8100_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8100_Week4_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

Share This Post

Email
WhatsApp
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Pinterest
Reddit

Order a Similar Paper and get 15% Discount on your First Order

Order Now

Related Questions

nursing

Evaluate Safety Data and Emergency Preparedness (Competencies 5.2g, 5.2h, 5.2j) Complete that teaches how to analyze safety data against national benchmarks and evaluate emergency preparedness plans. Completion Evidence – a case study analysis applying course concepts.

Nursing homework

NSG/486CA: Public Health: Health Promotion And Disease Prevention Global Health and GHI Presentation  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

2nd peer review article

This is the reference for the article: Annett, J., Tillson, M., Walker, M., Webster, J. M., & Staton, M. (2023). Adverse childhood experiences and mental health among incarcerated women: Self-esteem as a mediating mechanism.  Child abuse & neglect,  146, 106486. NB: The database and resource used is PubMed Conduct an

Health policy

Post a description of the health policy you selected and a brief background for the problem or issue being addressed. Which social determinant most affects this policy? Explain whether you believe there is an evidence base to support the proposed policy and explain why. Be specific and provide examples. The health

PW presentation Board of Nursing

To Prepare: · Assume that you are leading a staff development meeting on regulation for nursing practice at your healthcare organization or agency. · Review the NCSBN and ANA websites to prepare for your presentation. The Assignment: (10-slide PowerPoint presentation) Develop a 10-slide PowerPoint Presentation that addresses the following: ·

Psychology D3

The Psychology of Teams Deliverable 3 – Global Team Lesson Top of Form Bottom of Form Assessments Content 1. Top of Form Question <bdi></bdi> Competency Analyze the dynamics of team participation in a global environment. Student Success Criteria View the grading rubric for this deliverable by selecting the “This item is

Psychology D2

The Psychology of Teams Deliverable 2 – Approaches to Negotiation Top of Form Bottom of Form Assessments Content 1. Top of Form Question <bdi></bdi> Competency Interpret key areas of negotiation in team psychology. Student Success Criteria View the grading rubric for this deliverable by selecting the “This item is graded with

ass94

Develop an intervention (your capstone project), as a solution to the patient, family, or population problem you’ve defined. Submit the proposed intervention to the faculty for review and approval. This solution needs to be implemented (shared) with your patient, family, or group. You are not to share your intervention with

help with discussion

Reflect on your learning experience in this course. Which concepts stood out to you and made an impact?  How do you envision using these concepts in your future nursing practice as a master’s prepared nurse practitioner? Describe how course learning activities and assignments will help you achieve Program Outcome 3:

work study

To Prepare: · Review this week’s Learning Resources and consider the insights they provide about assessing and diagnosing anxiety, obsessive-compulsive, and trauma- and stressor-related disorders. · Download the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Template, which you will use to complete this Assignment. Also review the Comprehensive Psychiatric Evaluation Exemplar to see an example

unit 6 discussion

see attached Case Study Patient Intake and History The patient is a 26-year-old college graduate who is currently euthymic but who has a history of major depressive episodes. He has experienced major depressive episodes, mostly untreated, of varying lengths and severities since he was a teenager. His symptoms have included

Nursing UNIT 6 ASSIGNMENT

SEE ATTACHED Severe Mental Illness Severe mental illness can have a detrimental impact on the individual, family, and community. Many patients with severe mental illness require a lot of support from family and community agencies. Find one resource or agency in your community for patients with severe mental illness and

Healthcare Policy and Analysis

   Policy Healthcare Policy and Analysis Policy What are legislators currently doing to address your selected advocacy priorities for a vulnerable population? Are there current policies in place? Are there current policies proposed at either the state or federal level? What are the most obvious strengths and weaknesses of these

Evidence-Based Practice II

   Legal and Ethical Implications Evidence Based Practice II Legal and Ethical Implications Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts.  Respond to  at least two of your colleagues by supporting or expanding on their responses or sharing additional or alternative perspectives. PEER #1 Precious C Abidoye Precious C Abidoye Precious C Abidoye Precious

Advanced Practice Registered Nurse Board

Post a comparison of at least two Advanced Practice Registered Nurse (APRN) board of nursing regulations in your state (Florida) with those of two other states/region ( California and Texas). Describe how they may differ. Be specific and provide examples. Then, explain how the regulations you selected may apply to Advanced

Nurse act

  see upload  Review the American Association for Nurse Practitioners State Practice Environment Map (AANP) and determine your state’s color — green, yellow, or red. Then review the Nurse Practice Act and Advanced Practice Act in your state to assist you in answering the questions listed below: Determine your state’s

WK 5 ASSIGN Health

Personal Legislative Agenda How can you move a policy forward? What strategies need to be implemented, evidence compiled, or resources utilized? What is the plan for the legislative process?  For this Assignment, you will create a Personal Legislative Agenda in which you will detail your strategy for moving your policy