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

Change Implementation – Nursing

see attachments In 750-1,000-words, include the following in your plan: 1. In 1-2 sentences, summarize the problem or issue being addressed by your proposed change project. 2. Based on the assessment of your practicum site and the literature evaluation you completed in Topic 4, propose how you will address the

home work

Competency Evaluate the impact of global disease surveillance processes among global populations. Scenario During a global health volunteer trip, you identified the need for a disease surveillance program targeting a preventable disease within a global population. You would like to create awareness about this need and propose a solution. Instructions

Can you help by tomorrow

 Introduction “Observation is key to diagnosis, and art can teach students to slow down and really look,” said Craig Klugman, a bioethicist and medical anthropologist at DePaul University who is a co-author of a study on using art to enhance the observational skills of nursing students. “A clinician might notice

Executive Summary Correction

Executive Summary: Staff Education Project Staff Education to ] Comment by Melanie Braswell: Must complete by [your official name] MS, [university], 20XX BS, [university], 20XX Executive Summary Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Nursing Practice Walden University [last month of term you graduate]

respond quickly

please respond to these 3 discussion posts following the instructions and the rubric attached below. 2 Post 1: Epidemiologic Differences Among COVID-19, Smallpox, and Polio The epidemiologic characteristics of COVID-19, smallpox, and polio differ significantly, including transmission patterns, clinical presentation, and eradication potential. Effective surveillance and containment strategies were made

wk9

Nurse Practitioner Professional Career Planner As you approach the end of your Master of Science in Nursing program and prepare for a career as a nurse practitioner, you will want to create a cover letter, resume, and portfolio that best represent your knowledge, skills, and abilities as a professional in

Realistic Treatment Plan

Realistic Treatment Plan For this assignment, you will develop a realistic clinical case presentation. Use PowerPoint to create the slides for your presentation. ADD SPEAKER NOTES Content Requirements You will create a PowerPoint presentation with a realistic case study (Psychiatry case) and include appropriate and pertinent clinical information based on

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

NUR507W2

DISCUSSION: List strategies that might be used by a pediatric primary care provider to incorporate developmental anticipatory guidance into the following sick visits: 1. An 18-month-old with an acute upper respiratory infection 2. A 4-year-old with stool withholding and constipation 3. A 9-year-old with chronic headaches 4. A 15-year-old with

Week # 3

   Analyze the main global health institutions and their specific roles and the context within which they function. Use the rubric and template

RESPONSE- BLOG: PEER FEEDBACK: PRACTICE QUESTIONS AND SEARCH STRATEGIES

Respond to the 2 person in the attached Respond to at least two of your colleagues, on different days, by offering suggestions to improve the proposed practice question and/or search strategies they shared. Note: Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or adding a fresh viewpoint and be

Agency Synopsis

 I need help identifying regulatory agencies that regulate health and the health care system within the US, and help creating a table listing your 5 regulatory agencies 

wearable technology

Dexcom G6 continuous glucose monitor. Use the template  Week 3 Assignment Part 1: Examining Wearable Technologies Template Name: Date: Directions: Select one wearable technology used for health and wellness. Refer to the Week 3 lesson and the assignment guidelines for more information on wearable technologies. Use this template to complete

RH case study

RH case study Initial Psychiatric Interview/SOAP Note Template There are different ways in which to complete a Psychiatric SOAP (Subjective, Objective, Assessment, and Plan) Note. This is a template that is meant to guide you as you continue to develop your style of SOAP in the psychiatric practice setting. Criteria

Lesson 6 – 3165

Instructions: Remember, there are Original research articles that are based on an experiment or study.  Often they follow the IMRAD format: introduction, methods, results, and discussion, and Review articles (literature reviews) are written to bring together and summarize the results/conclusions from multiple original research articles/studies. This analysis will be performed in

assign9

Mindmap This week’s mindmap is focused on psychological disorders. In this exercise, you will complete a Mind Map to gauge your understanding of this week’s content. Select one of the possible topics provided to complete your MindMap assignment. · Generalized anxiety disorder · Depression · Bipolar disorders · Schizophrenia ·

MM 2 forms

MM 2 forms Johns Hopkins Evidence-Based Practice Model for Nursing and Healthcare Professionals Hierarchy of Evidence Guide Appendix D © 2022 Johns Hopkins Health System/Johns Hopkins School of Nursing P a g e | 1 Note: Refer to the appropriate Evidence Appraisal Tool (Research [Appendix E] or Nonresearch [Appendix F])