NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
Walden University NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER-Step-By-Step Guide
This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER assignment based on general principles of academic writing. Here, we will show you the A, B, Cs of completing an academic paper, irrespective of the instructions. After guiding you through what to do, the guide will leave one or two sample essays at the end to highlight the various sections discussed below.
How to Research and Prepare for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER depends on the preparation done beforehand. The first thing to do once you receive an assignment is to quickly skim through the requirements. Once that is done, start going through the instructions one by one to clearly understand what the instructor wants. The most important thing here is to understand the required format—whether it is APA, MLA, Chicago, etc.
After understanding the requirements of the paper, the next phase is to gather relevant materials. The first place to start the research process is the weekly resources. Go through the resources provided in the instructions to determine which ones fit the assignment. After reviewing the provided resources, use the university library to search for additional resources. After gathering sufficient and necessary resources, you are now ready to start drafting your paper.
How to Write the Introduction for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
The introduction for the Walden University NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER is where you tell the instructor what your paper will encompass. In three to four statements, highlight the important points that will form the basis of your paper. Here, you can include statistics to show the importance of the topic you will be discussing. At the end of the introduction, write a clear purpose statement outlining what exactly will be contained in the paper. This statement will start with “The purpose of this paper…” and then proceed to outline the various sections of the instructions.
How to Write the Body for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
After the introduction, move into the main part of the NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER assignment, which is the body. Given that the paper you will be writing is not experimental, the way you organize the headings and subheadings of your paper is critically important. In some cases, you might have to use more subheadings to properly organize the assignment. The organization will depend on the rubric provided. Carefully examine the rubric, as it will contain all the detailed requirements of the assignment. Sometimes, the rubric will have information that the normal instructions lack.
Another important factor to consider at this point is how to do citations. In-text citations are fundamental as they support the arguments and points you make in the paper. At this point, the resources gathered at the beginning will come in handy. Integrating the ideas of the authors with your own will ensure that you produce a comprehensive paper. Also, follow the given citation format. In most cases, APA 7 is the preferred format for nursing assignments.
How to Write the Conclusion for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
After completing the main sections, write the conclusion of your paper. The conclusion is a summary of the main points you made in your paper. However, you need to rewrite the points and not simply copy and paste them. By restating the points from each subheading, you will provide a nuanced overview of the assignment to the reader.
How to Format the References List for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
The very last part of your paper involves listing the sources used in your paper. These sources should be listed in alphabetical order and double-spaced. Additionally, use a hanging indent for each source that appears in this list. Lastly, only the sources cited within the body of the paper should appear here.
Stuck? Let Us Help You
Completing assignments can sometimes be overwhelming, especially with the multitude of academic and personal responsibilities you may have. If you find yourself stuck or unsure at any point in the process, don’t hesitate to reach out for professional assistance. Our assignment writing services are designed to help you achieve your academic goals with ease.
Our team of experienced writers is well-versed in academic writing and familiar with the specific requirements of the NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER assignment. We can provide you with personalized support, ensuring your assignment is well-researched, properly formatted, and thoroughly edited. Get a feel of the quality we guarantee – ORDER NOW.
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
- Appraise the Oppenheimer (2010) and Elliott et al. (1999) articles, summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of each study.
- Analyze potential sources of bias in each study, and suggest strategies for minimizing bias.
- Suggest possible confounding variables that may have influenced the results of each study.
Sample Answer for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
Over the years, the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) became well-known for its contributions to cardiovascular epidemiology. We examine the study’s history, past accomplishments, present research agenda, and future research directions in this article.
Many of the key tenets of cardiovascular epidemiology have kept true over time as a result of the original observations from FHS. The initial articles from 4- and 6-year follow-up, published in 1957 and 1959, presented findings such as a higher prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) related to older age and male sex. The FHS was the first to show a graded association between CVD and obesity, systolic blood pressure, cholesterol, and smoking. Furthermore, the scientists noticed that these disorders may interact synergistically, as smokers’ cholesterol levels were higher than non-smokers’. The FHS’s first findings transformed primary CVD prevention (Romero, & Wolf, 2013).
With the fast expanding prevalence of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in the early twentieth century, public health and political authorities in the United States recognized that a national commitment to CVD prevention research was required. In 1948, the National Heart Institute was established, later becoming the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (Romero, & Wolf, 2013). A prospectively observed healthy cohort was chosen as the
ideal sample in which to examine CVD development because CVD covers illnesses with a protracted subclinical course. As a result, the United States Public Health Service launched the country’s first large-scale cardiovascular epidemiology research in 1948.
This cohort study, which began in 1947, has been referred regarded as the “main model of reference” for other cohort studies ever since (Oppenheimer, 2010). This method was really utilized in order to establish a link between cigarette smoking and a higher risk of developing myocardial infarction and other heart-related fatalities it is possible to generate outcomes that can be replicated by other similar studies when researchers use a cohort study design, which helps to improve the validity of study outcomes (Romero, & Wolf, 2013).
As the FHS was being created, it also assisted researchers in making connections between clinical and laboratory data. This strategy enabled researchers to design primary and secondary prevention approaches that assisted in the early detection of illness indicators and risk factors before the disease manifested itself (Oppenheimer, 2010). While it had its advantages, it also had its disadvantages. When the researchers overestimated the number of persons who would refuse to participate in the FHS, they ended up with just 14 percent of the cohort study’s original 5127 participants, which increased the level of bias in the study. As a result of some factors surrounding the Cole War era, the researchers deleted elements that may have caused people distress in order to improve participant involvement.
Such factors may have skewed the results and increased the chances for bias, while also increasing the number of confounding variables in the analysis. Items such as inquiries about mental history, sexual dysfunction, wealth, and social class were deleted from the survey, which makes this even more obvious
References
Oppenheimer, G. M. (2010). Framingham Heart Study: The first 20 years. Progress in
Cardiovascular Diseases, 53(1), 55-61.
Romero, J. R., & Wolf, P. A. (2013). Epidemiology of stroke: legacy of the Framingham Heart Study. Global heart, 8(1), 67-75.
Tsao, C. W., & Vasan, R. S. (2015). The Framingham Heart Study: past, present, and future. International Journal of epidemiology, 44(6), 1763-1766.
Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K., Smith, W. C., & Chambers, W. A. (1999). The
epidemiology of chronic pain in the community. The Lancet, 354(9186), 1248–1252.
Sample Answer for NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
Appraise the Oppenheimer (2010). (Strengths and weaknesses)
In the Framingham Heart Study, elements critical to comprehending the study comprise the public health service, cardiovascular disease, epidemiology, and a controlled clinical trial (Oppenheimer, 2010). Meador’s strong point in the study stands for his capability to cause the Framingham group to support the study (Oppenheimer, 2010). On one account, the study could have the town leaders form part of the study’s Executive Committee. This committee encompassed critical segments from the industrial elite, business elite, outreach segments, and business individuals (Oppenheimer, 2010). In recognizing study weaknesses, it stood problematic to measure the validity of psychic status. Among weaknesses, Meadors held a weak substantiating claim concerning the significance of clinical epidemiology (Oppenheimer, 2010). Additionally, Thomas Dawber that inherited the study excluded one of the initial strengths of the study founded on the goodwill of study participants.
Analyze potential sources of bias in each study, and suggest strategies for minimizing bias.
One of the biases gets seen where Meador falls back on existing volunteers with them comprising 14% of the 5127 participants. Also, the clinical variables had low interests in sociological, constitutional, or psychosomatic determinants that affect heart disease (Oppenheimer, 2010). In the course of the two decades under Dawber’s guidance of Framingham, he stood skeptical on public health or the values of social sciences (Oppenheimer, 2010).
Possible confounding variables that may have influenced the results.
Confounding variables in the cohort study included the revaluation of baseline variables such as blood pressure and weight pressure (Oppenheimer, 2010).
Appraising the Elliott et al. (1999) article. (Strengths and weaknesses)
This study focuses on chronic pain that affects the community in question from an epidemiological viewpoint (Elliott et al., 1999). This study works to reveal why the comprehension of chronic pain has stood limited over the years. The above stances as a solid strength of the researchers of this study. The study likewise explains chronic pain concepts as a community problem, those that get majorly affected, and on efficient chronic pain management (Elliott et al., 1999). For example, chronic pain affects distinct elements, such as economic, social, psychological health, and general health and well-being (Elliott et al., 1999). The researchers also engaged the Genera Practice Administrative System for Scotland (GPASS) which offers strong collaboration (Elliott et al., 1999). On limitations, the aspect of chronic pain prevalence and its evidence in society seem to contradict in their percentages. For example, 46.5% have chronic pain in the population, but on prevalence, it stands at 48.7% (Elliott et al., 1999).
Potential sources of bias in each study, and suggest strategies for minimizing bias.
The study takes a general approach to assess chronic pain in the population-based majorly on its significance and severity. These components give a limited view and lead to the formation of many assumptions. Assumptions in return will affect the study outcomes, such as on percentage distribution or occurrence. To reduce the aforementioned bias, the researchers could have added perspectives on medication use, depressive moods, attention-seeking, anxiety, and insomnia to the study. Other potential contributors to chronic pain include fatigue, distorted mobility, and distorted posture. Also, the researchers have a bias that chronic pain gets connected to advancing age, whereas those of the younger population do not suffer to the same degree (Elliott et al., 1999).
Possible confounding variables that may have influenced the results of each study.
This study has gotten highly influenced by sociodemographic variables noted as housing tenure, as core factors in the study (Elliott et al., 1999).
References
Elliott, A. M., Smith, B. H., Penny, K. I., Smith, W. C., & Chambers, W. A. (1999). The epidemiology of chronic pain in the community.
Oppenheimer, G. M. (2010). Framingham Heart Study: The First 20 Years. Elsevier: Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases, 53, 55-61.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8310 Discussion 2: Appraising the Literature ANSWER
Lopes Write Policy
For assignments that need to be submitted to Lopes Write, 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.
Important information for writing discussion questions and participation
Welcome to class
Hello class and welcome to the class and I will be your instructor for this course. This is a -week course and requires a lot of time commitment, organization, and a high level of dedication. Please use the class syllabus to guide you through all the assignments required for the course. I have also attached the classroom policies to this announcement to know your expectations for this course. Please review this document carefully and ask me any questions if you do. You could email me at any time or send me a message via the “message” icon in halo if you need to contact me. I check my email regularly, so you should get a response within 24 hours. If you have not heard from me within 24 hours and need to contact me urgently, please send a follow up text to
I strongly encourage that you do not wait until the very last minute to complete your assignments. Your assignments in weeks 4 and 5 require early planning as you would need to present a teaching plan and interview a community health provider. I advise you look at the requirements for these assignments at the beginning of the course and plan accordingly. I have posted the YouTube link that explains all the class assignments in detail. It is required that you watch this 32-minute video as the assignments from week 3 through 5 require that you follow the instructions to the letter to succeed. Failure to complete these assignments according to instructions might lead to a zero. After watching the video, please schedule a one-on-one with me to discuss your topic for your project by the second week of class. Use this link to schedule a 15-minute session. Please, call me at the time of your appointment on my number. Please note that I will NOT call you.
Please, be advised I do NOT accept any assignments by email. If you are having technical issues with uploading an assignment, contact the technical department and inform me of the issue. If you have any issues that would prevent you from getting your assignments to me by the deadline, please inform me to request a possible extension. Note that working fulltime or overtime is no excuse for late assignments. There is a 5%-point deduction for every day your assignment is late. This only applies to approved extensions. Late assignments will not be accepted.
If you think you would be needing accommodations due to any reasons, please contact the appropriate department to request accommodations.
Plagiarism is highly prohibited. Please ensure you are citing your sources correctly using APA 7th edition. All assignments including discussion posts should be formatted in APA with the appropriate spacing, font, margin, and indents. Any papers not well formatted would be returned back to you, hence, I advise you review APA formatting style. I have attached a sample paper in APA format and will also post sample discussion responses in subsequent announcements.
Your initial discussion post should be a minimum of 200 words and response posts should be a minimum of 150 words. Be advised that I grade based on quality and not necessarily the number of words you post. A minimum of TWO references should be used for your initial post. For your response post, you do not need references as personal experiences would count as response posts. If you however cite anything from the literature for your response post, it is required that you cite your reference. You should include a minimum of THREE references for papers in this course. Please note that references should be no more than 5 years old except recommended as a resource for the class. Furthermore, for each discussion board question, you need ONE initial substantive response and TWO substantive responses to either your classmates or your instructor for a total of THREE responses. There are TWO discussion questions each week, hence, you need a total minimum of SIX discussion posts for each week. I usually post a discussion question each week. You could also respond to these as it would count towards your required SIX discussion posts for the week.
I understand this is a lot of information to cover in 5 weeks, however, the Bible says in Philippians 4:13 that we can do all things through Christ that strengthens us. Even in times like this, we are encouraged by God’s word that we have that ability in us to succeed with His strength. I pray that each and every one of you receives strength for this course and life generally as we navigate through this pandemic that is shaking our world today. Relax and enjoy the course!
Hi Class,
Please read through the following information on writing a Discussion question response and participation posts.
Contact me if you have any questions.
Important information on Writing a Discussion Question
- Your response needs to be a minimum of 150 words (not including your list of references)
- There needs to be at least TWO references with ONE being a peer reviewed professional journal article.
- Include in-text citations in your response
- Do not include quotes—instead summarize and paraphrase the information
- Follow APA-7th edition
- Points will be deducted if the above is not followed
Participation –replies to your classmates or instructor
- A minimum of 6 responses per week, on at least 3 days of the week.
- Each response needs at least ONE reference with citations—best if it is a peer reviewed journal article
- Each response needs to be at least 75 words in length (does not include your list of references)
- Responses need to be substantive by bringing information to the discussion or further enhance the discussion. Responses of “I agree” or “great post” does not count for the word count.
- Follow APA 7th edition
- Points will be deducted if the above is not followed
- Remember to use and follow APA-7th edition for all weekly assignments, discussion questions, and participation points.
- Here are some helpful links
- Student paper example
- Citing Sources
- The Writing Center is a great resource