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

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 developed and evaluated in the Clinical III course. The plan may be

patient safety

  Discussion: Apply Knowledge Step 1: Watch the Patient Safety Movement videoLinks. Step 2: Answer the discussion prompts below with explanation and detail. Paragraph one: Discuss one quality and safety issue you observed while watching the video and explain the impact of this issue. Paragraph two: Discuss how the role

holistic nursing

how is holistic care tied to pathophysiology, pharmacology and physical assessment 

Question

“This is My letter to the World.” 1. What is the significance of the title “This is my Letter to the World” in the context of the poem? 2. How does the speaker’s tone change throughout the poem? 3. What themes or emotions does the speaker convey through the imagery

Hospital case

 Read the attached case and answer the following questions: Should a hospital have the right to use whatever means necessary to collect for the services it provides? Why or why not?  What other means could the hospital have used to determine if patients were SSI eligible?  What do you think

home work

Competency 1. Identify the major concepts of selected nursing theories. 2. Differentiate the components of the research process. 3. Compare research methodologies. 4. Explain the relationship between research, theory, and evidence-based practice. 5. Propose an evidence-based solution aligned with an evidence-based practice question. Scenario As a BSN prepared Registered Nurse

Can you help by tomorrow?

Week 7 Assignment This week, all the hard work you have done in researching your topic and issue will come to fruition in your argumentative paper. Address the requirements below to complete your paper: 1. Follow the directions in the assigned textbook reading on how to write an argumentative essay

NUR 640

NUR 640 Weekly Discussion FYI Remember… I am a Black Haitian American Female live in USA, FL Submission Instructions: • Your initial post should be at least 500 words, formatted, and cited in current APA style with support from at least 2 academic sources.  Your initial post is worth 8 points. Week

Staff Education

My Topic is : Clinical Skills & Best Practices Pain management: pharmacologic & non-pharmacologic as a new nurse 

Nursing Bj edit assignment

bj edit assignment  Herzing University, 2025 Problem Statement Worksheet NU801 Project Development and Management Herzing University Beverly Jordan 02/08/2026 Professor Dr. Natasha Colvin Constructing a Problem Statement Questions Responses What is the problem? Many of the veterans who have been referred out of outpatient mental health clinics do not follow

2 soap notes rw

2 soap notes rw SOAP Note _______ NU___:_________ Herzing University Name:_________________________ Typhon Encounter #: _____________________ Comprehensive:____Focused:____ S: SUBJECTIVE DATA CC: What are they being seen for? This is the reason that the patient sought care, stated in their own words/words of their caregiver, or paraphrased. HPI: Use the “OLDCART” approach

565 week 8 discussion

Follow these guidelines when completing each component of the Collaboration Café. Contact your course faculty if you have questions.  Include the following sections:  Application of Course Knowledge: Answer all questions/criteria with explanations and detail. Look back at your initial post and respond to peers and faculty that have commented.  Reflect on your learning

Nursing week 7 assignment instructions

Critical Research Appraisal Assignment Goal: You will critically appraise a research design Selected Qualitative Research Article (2023) Kivunja, S., Pryor, J., River, J., & Gullick, J. (2024). Conceptualizing personhood in nursing care for people with altered consciousness, cognition, and behaviors: A qualitative discussion paper. Nursing Philosophy, 25(3), e12490. Selected Quantitative

Week 7 assigm

Complete this assignment assuming the perspective of a member of a QI team in charge of reviewing facility policies and procedures related to Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers (HAPUs). Section 1: Identify Describe your assigned topic and why it is a concern in healthcare. Summarize a current policy or procedure at your

reflection

Required headings include: Relevant and Meaningful Service Enhanced Academic Learning Purposeful Civic Learning Purposeful Reflections Critical Thinking/Conclusion

Nursing week 3 assignment

Middle Range Theory Utilization and Application: Kolcaba’s Theory of Comfort Yairys Pereda St. Thomas University NUR 501: Philosophical & Theoretical Evidence-Based Research Professor: Dr. Eleni S. Miralles January 26, 2026 Abstract Middle range nursing theories provide practical frameworks that bridge abstract concepts and clinical application. Kolcaba’s Theory of Comfort is