Columbia Tuberculosis Epidemiology Paper Assignment

Question Description
I’m studying for my Nursing class and need an explanation.

Choose one of the communicable diseases listed below and write a paper (2,000-2,500 words) in which you apply the concepts of epidemiology and nursing research to a communicable disease. Refer to “Communicable Disease Chain,” “Chain of Infection,” and the CDC website for assistance when completing this assignment. See the attached files for details

communicable_diseas

You must proofread your paper. But do not strictly rely on your computer’s spell-checker and grammar-checker; failure to do so indicates a lack of effort on your part and you can expect your grade to suffer accordingly. Papers with numerous misspelled words and grammatical mistakes will be penalized. Read over your paper – in silence and then aloud – before handing it in and make corrections as necessary. Often it is advantageous to have a friend proofread your paper for obvious errors. Handwritten corrections are preferable to uncorrected mistakes.

Use a standard 10 to 12 point (10 to 12 characters per inch) typeface. Smaller or compressed type and papers with small margins or single-spacing are hard to read. It is better to let your essay run over the recommended number of pages than to try to compress it into fewer pages.

Likewise, large type, large margins, large indentations, triple-spacing, increased leading (space between lines), increased kerning (space between letters), and any other such attempts at “padding” to increase the length of a paper are unacceptable, wasteful of trees, and will not fool your professor.

The paper must be neatly formatted, double-spaced with a one-inch margin on the top, bottom, and sides of each page. When submitting hard copy, be sure to use white paper and print out using dark ink. If it is hard to read your essay, it will also be hard to follow your argument.

ADDITIONAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE CLASS

Discussion Questions (DQ)

Initial responses to the DQ should address all components of the questions asked, include a minimum of one scholarly source, and be at least 250 words.
Successful responses are substantive (i.e., add something new to the discussion, engage others in the discussion, well-developed idea) and include at least one scholarly source.
One or two sentence responses, simple statements of agreement or “good post,” and responses that are off-topic will not count as substantive. Substantive responses should be at least 150 words.
I encourage you to incorporate the readings from the week (as applicable) into your responses.
Weekly Participation

Your initial responses to the mandatory DQ do not count toward participation and are graded separately.
In addition to the DQ responses, you must post at least one reply to peers (or me) on three separate days, for a total of three replies.
Participation posts do not require a scholarly source/citation (unless you cite someone else’s work).
Part of your weekly participation includes viewing the weekly announcement and attesting to watching it in the comments. These announcements are made to ensure you understand everything that is due during the week.
APA Format and Writing Quality

Familiarize yourself with APA format and practice using it correctly. It is used for most writing assignments for your degree. Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for APA paper templates, citation examples, tips, etc. Points will be deducted for poor use of APA format or absence of APA format (if required).
Cite all sources of information! When in doubt, cite the source. Paraphrasing also requires a citation.
I highly recommend using the APA Publication Manual, 6th edition.
Use of Direct Quotes

I discourage overutilization of direct quotes in DQs and assignments at the Masters’ level and deduct points accordingly.
As Masters’ level students, it is important that you be able to critically analyze and interpret information from journal articles and other resources. Simply restating someone else’s words does not demonstrate an understanding of the content or critical analysis of the content.
It is best to paraphrase content and cite your source.
LopesWrite Policy

For assignments that need to be submitted to LopesWrite, please be sure you have received your report and Similarity Index (SI) percentage BEFORE you do a “final submit” to me.
Once you have received your report, please review it. This report will show you grammatical, punctuation, and spelling errors that can easily be fixed. Take the extra few minutes to review instead of getting counted off for these mistakes.
Review your similarities. Did you forget to cite something? Did you not paraphrase well enough? Is your paper made up of someone else’s thoughts more than your own?
Visit the Writing Center in the Student Success Center, under the Resources tab in LoudCloud for tips on improving your paper and SI score.
Late Policy

The university’s policy on late assignments is 10% penalty PER DAY LATE. This also applies to late DQ replies.
Please communicate with me if you anticipate having to submit an assignment late. I am happy to be flexible, with advance notice. We may be able to work out an extension based on extenuating circumstances.
If you do not communicate with me before submitting an assignment late, the GCU late policy will be in effect.
I do not accept assignments that are two or more weeks late unless we have worked out an extension.
As per policy, no assignments are accepted after the last day of class. Any assignment submitted after midnight on the last day of class will not be accepted for grading.
Communication

Communication is so very important. There are multiple ways to communicate with me:
Questions to Instructor Forum: This is a great place to ask course content or assignment questions. If you have a question, there is a good chance one of your peers does as well. This is a public forum for the class.
Individual Forum: This is a private forum to ask me questions or send me messages. This will be checked at least once every 24 hours.

Epidemiology Paper – Rubric

Comprehensive Description of a Communicable Disease and the Demographic of Interest

Criteria Description

Comprehensive Description of a Communicable Disease and the Demographic of Interest

5. Excellent

12.5 points

Overview describing the demographic of interest and clinical description of the communicable disease is presented with a thorough, accurate, and clear overview of all of the clinical descriptors.

4. Good

11.5 points

Clinical description of the communicable disease and demographic of interest is provided. Summary is brief but accurate.

3. Satisfactory

11 points

Overview of the demographic of interest and clinical description of the communicable disease is presented with some inaccuracies of the clinical descriptors.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

10 points

Limited and/or vague summary of demographic of interest and communicable disease is provided. Overview does not offer a clear representation of information necessary for epidemiological study.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Demographic of interest and clinical description are omitted or presented with many inaccuracies.

Determinants of Health and Explanation of How Determinants Contribute to Disease Development

Criteria Description

Determinants of Health and Explanation of How Determinants Contribute to Disease Development

5. Excellent

12.5 points

Paper comprehensively discusses the determinants of health in relation to the communicable disease, explains their contribution to disease development, and provides evidence to support main points.

4. Good

11.5 points

Paper describes each determinant of health with a comprehensive discussion of their contribution to disease development and progression.

3. Satisfactory

11 points

Paper identifies the determinants of health in relation to the communicable disease selected but does not include an explanation of their role in the development of disease.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

10 points

Paper partially describes the determinants of health in relation to disease development.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Description of the determinants of health and their role in disease development is omitted or presented with many inaccuracies.

Epidemiologic Triangle (Host Factors, Agent Factors, and Environmental Factors

Criteria Description

Epidemiologic Triangle (Host Factors, Agent Factors, and Environmental Factors

5. Excellent

25 points

The communicable disease is described thoroughly, accurately, and clearly within an epidemiological triangle. A visual description of the triangle and how the components of the model interact is included.

4. Good

23 points

The communicable disease is described accurately within the context of the epidemiologic triangle. A brief description of factors and interaction is presented.

3. Satisfactory

22 points

The communicable disease is described accurately and clearly within the context of the epidemiologic triangle.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

20 points

The communicable disease is described with some inaccuracies within the epidemiologic triangle. A visual description of the factors and interaction is not present.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Description of the epidemiologic triangle is omitted or presented with many inaccuracies.

Role of the Community Health Nurse and Importance of Demographic Data

Criteria Description

Role of the Community Health Nurse and Importance of Demographic Data

5. Excellent

25 points

Discussion of the role of the community health nurse is clear, comprehensive, and inclusive of the community nurse’s responsibilities to primary, secondary, and tertiary prevention through tasks such as case finding, reporting, data collection and analysis, and follow-up. A clear explanation of the importance of demographic data to community health is presented.

4. Good

23 points

Discussion of the role of community health nurse is clear, with a comprehensive description of skills associated with community assessment and planning. An explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is presented.

3. Satisfactory

22 points

Discussion of the role of the community health nurses is limited, with a brief overview of skills associated with community assessment and planning. An explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is summarized.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

20 points

Discussion of the role of the community health nurse is vague, with no integration of case finding, reporting, data collecting, data analysis, or follow-up skills. An incomplete explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is provided.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Discussion of the role of the community health nurse is omitted or unclear. An explanation of why demographic data are necessary to community health is omitted or unclear.

National Agency or Organization That Works to Addresses Communicable Disease

Criteria Description

National Agency or Organization That Works to Addresses Communicable Disease

5. Excellent

12.5 points

An agency or organization is identified. A clear and accurate description of efforts to address communicable disease is offered.

4. Good

11.5 points

An agency or organization is identified, but discussion regarding efforts to address communicable disease is brief.

3. Satisfactory

11 points

An agency or organization is identified, but discussion regarding efforts to address communicable disease is lacking.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

10 points

An agency or organization is identified, but discussion is vague or inaccurate in relation to the communicable disease chosen.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Agency and description of contribution are omitted.

Global Implication

Criteria Description

Global Implication

5. Excellent

12.5 points

A discussion of the global implication of the disease is clear, comprehensive, and inclusive with a comprehensive description of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is provided.

4. Good

11.5 points

A discussion of the global implication of the disease is clear, with a comprehensive description of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is provided.

3. Satisfactory

11 points

A discussion of the global implication of the disease is limited, with some integration of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is provided.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

10 points

A discussion of the global implication of the disease is vague, with no integration of how this is addressed in other countries or cultures and if the disease is endemic to a particular area. An example is not provided.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Global implication of the disease is omitted or unclear.

Thesis, Position, or Purpose

Criteria Description

Communicates reason for writing and demonstrates awareness of audience.

5. Excellent

6.25 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is clearly communicated throughout and clearly directed to a specific audience.

4. Good

5.75 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is adequately presented. An awareness of the appropriate audience is demonstrated.

3. Satisfactory

5.5 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is discernable in most aspects but is occasionally weak or unclear. There is limited awareness of the appropriate audience.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is unfocused or confused. There is very little awareness of the intended audience.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is not discernible. No awareness of the appropriate audience is evident.

Development, Structure, and Conclusion

Criteria Description

Advances position or purpose throughout writing; conclusion aligns to and evolves from development.

5. Excellent

6.25 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is logically advanced throughout. The progression of ideas is coherent and unified. A clear and logical conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

4. Good

5.75 points

The thesis, position, or purpose is advanced in most aspects. Ideas clearly build on each other. Conclusion aligns to the development of the purpose.

3. Satisfactory

5.5 points

Limited advancement of thesis, position, or purpose is discernable. There are inconsistencies in organization or the relationship of ideas. Conclusion is simplistic and not fully aligned to the development of the purpose.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5 points

Writing lacks logical progression of the thesis, position, or purpose. Some organization is attempted, but ideas are disconnected. Conclusion is unclear and not supported by the overall development of the purpose.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

No advancement of the thesis, position, or purpose is evident. Connections between paragraphs are missing or inappropriate. No conclusion is offered.

Evidence

Criteria Description

Selects and integrates evidence to support and advance position/purpose; considers other perspectives.

5. Excellent

6.25 points

Specific and appropriate evidence is included. Relevant perspectives of others are clearly considered.

4. Good

5.75 points

Relevant evidence that includes other perspectives is used.

3. Satisfactory

5.5 points

Evidence is used but is insufficient or of limited relevance. Simplistic explanation or integration of other perspectives is present.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

5 points

Evidence is limited or irrelevant. The interpretation of other perspectives is superficial or incorrect.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Evidence to support the thesis, position, or purpose is absent. The writing relies entirely on the perspective of the writer.

Mechanics of Writing

Criteria Description

Includes spelling, capitalization, punctuation, grammar, language use, sentence structure, etc.

5. Excellent

2.5 points

No mechanical errors are present. Appropriate language choice and sentence structure are used throughout.

4. Good

2.3 points

Few mechanical errors are present. Suitable language choice and sentence structure are used.

3. Satisfactory

2.2 points

Occasional mechanical errors are present. Language choice is generally appropriate. Varied sentence structure is attempted.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

2 points

Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors are present. Inconsistencies in language choice or sentence structure are recurrent.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Errors in grammar or syntax are pervasive and impede meaning. Incorrect language choice or sentence structure errors are found throughout.

Format/Documentation

Criteria Description

Uses appropriate style, such as APA, MLA, etc., for college, subject, and level; documents sources using citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., appropriate to assignment and discipline.

5. Excellent

3.75 points

No errors in formatting or documentation are present.

4. Good

3.45 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used with only minor errors.

3. Satisfactory

3.3 points

Appropriate format and documentation are used, although there are some obvious errors.

2. Less Than Satisfactory

3 points

Appropriate format is attempted, but some elements are missing. Frequent errors in documentation of sources are evident.

1. Unsatisfactory

0 points

Appropriate format is not used. No documentation of sources is provided.

Total 125 points