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 Assignment

NU501 Unit 8 Assignment Template/NU501M4 Assessment Template Student Name ______________________________________ Date____________ Faculty Name ____________________________________ NU501-4: Differentiate the professional identity of advanced nursing practice, including accountability to the individual, society, and the profession and compliance with relevant laws, policies, and regulations. Accountability APRN Educator Executive Leader Professional Identity (include content on

Care Plan

In this assignment, you will explore your community’s resources for people who have limited access to affordable, accessible, acceptable food and/or food services (e.g., people who live in a food desert). Using the case study presented below, you will develop a meal plan that is appropriate for the identified medical

help with home work

Nu 506 Unit 8 assignment Telehealth The objective of restructuring the American health care system was to increase quality and access to care and to minimize cost from which a telehealth setting was born. The earliest form of telehealth was the transmission of heart sounds through the telephone in 1878.

Chilablws

What are the requirements for reporting abuse in Florida? What are the requirements related to confidentiality of records and universal precautions related to bodily fluids? What are some of the most common signs of each of the forms of abuse? What do you do when you suspect that abuse has

PORTFOLIO

CARE PLAN ASSESSMENT NURSING DIAGNOSIS OBJECTIVE SUBJECTIVE PROBLEM(S) ETIOLOGY SIGNS & SYMPTOMS IMPLEMENTATION OBJECTIVE EVALUATION OUTCOMES EVIDENCED BY NURSING INTERVENTION INTERVENTION RATIONALE DESIRED OUTCOMES FAKE NAME: PATIENT/ROOM NO: DATE: OBJECTIVE: SUBJECTIVE: Text2: Text3: Text4: Text5: Text6: Text7: Text8: Text9: Text1:

nurse help

  Review “An Integrated Ethical-Decision-Making Model for Nurses” from the University Library.  Apply the ethical decision-making model in the article to access the Our Pregnant Daughter Didn’t Want This… case study from the Center for Practical Bioethics. Review the Questions for Discussion following the case.  Follow the steps provided in the model, including the following:  Step 1: Explain the ethical

PPP

Assigment The term “knowledge worker” was first coined by management consultant and author Peter Drucker in his book,  The Landmarks of Tomorrow  (1959). Drucker defined knowledge workers as high-level workers who apply theoretical and analytical knowledge, acquired through formal training, to develop products and services. Does this sound familiar? Nurses are

Can you help by tomorrow?

Required Resources Read/review the following resources for this activity: · Lesson Instructions  Introduction Imagine you are a home healthcare worker employed by Ministering Angels Health Services. You have been assigned a new client, and we’ll call her Mrs. Evans. She is 86 years old and suffered a stroke. She was recently at a

help with home work

Nus 507 Unit 8 assignment: NU507-4: Synthesize the effect healthcare reform has on stakeholders Directions For this assignment, you will examine the stakeholders impacted by the implementation of the No Surprise Act. Your paper must include the following: · Introduction: identify the purpose of the assignment · Define the No Surprise

Clinical Nursing Scenario: Sickle Cell Disease with Pneumonia

ACTIVE LEARNING TEMPLATES TherapeuTic procedure A9 Nursing Skill STUDENT NAME _____________________________________ SKILL NAME ____________________________________________________________________________ REVIEW MODULE CHAPTER ___________ ACTIVE LEARNING TEMPLATE: Description of Skill Indications Outcomes/Evaluation CONSIDERATIONS Nursing Interventions (pre, intra, post) Potential Complications Client Education Nursing Interventions STUDENT NAME: SKILL NAME: REVIEW MODULE CHAPTER: Indications: Outcomes/Evaluation: Client Education: Potential

response- ALTERATIONS IN CELLULAR PROCESSES

respond to the 2 persons in the attach Respond to at least two of your colleagues on 2 different days and respectfully agree or disagree with your colleague’s assessment and explain your reasoning. In your explanation, include why their explanations make physiological sense or why they do not.

MR soaps

Mr soap 1 SOAP Note Assignment Instructions Consider constructing a Word document ‘SOAP note template’ and use it to assemble your note. By doing this you can use the template for efficiently constructing your SOAP notes such that you will be able to copy-and-paste for your weekly assignments. NOTE: If

Rw 2 soaps

Rw 2 soaps 1 SOAP Note Assignment Instructions Consider constructing a Word document ‘SOAP note template’ and use it to assemble your note. By doing this you can use the template for efficiently constructing your SOAP notes such that you will be able to copy-and-paste for your weekly assignments. NOTE:

Home work

Competencies · Explain foundations of global health. · Analyze the incidence, distribution, and control of emerging healthcare concerns in global populations. · Evaluate the impact of global disease surveillance processes among global populations. · Integrate social determinants, ethical concerns, and human rights for high-risk and vulnerable global populations. · Critique

quickly complete

please complete a discussion post following the instructions and rubric Instructions: To prepare: Read and view the Learning Resources, focusing especially on Chapter 4 of Bissett et al. (2025). Choose one of the topics (from the “Falls” topic list) in the resources and read the three articles presented.  View the

Nursing homework

My Topic is Rapids respone vs. Code Blue: Knowing when to act Part 2: STAFF EDUCATION PRESENTATION (35 points) ***The use of Artificial Intelligence to complete this project is strictly prohibited.** II. PART 2: THE PRESENTATION – you do NOT write a separate paper The Staff Education plan will be

NUR507W7

DISCUSSION: A 6-year-old has a yellow vaginal discharge. The examination is otherwise normal. · What are key points in the history and physical examination? · How would you approach differ if the patient were a sexually active 16-year-old? · What are similarities and differences in the approach? INSTRUCTIONS: · Your