Discussion: Screening for Disease

Walden University Discussion: Screening for Disease-Step-By-Step Guide

This guide will demonstrate how to complete the Walden University Discussion: Screening for Disease 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 Discussion: Screening for Disease

Whether one passes or fails an academic assignment such as the Walden University Discussion: Screening for Disease 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 Discussion: Screening for Disease

The introduction for the Walden University Discussion: Screening for Disease 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 Discussion: Screening for Disease

After the introduction, move into the main part of the Discussion: Screening for Disease 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 Discussion: Screening for Disease

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 Discussion: Screening for Disease

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 Discussion: Screening for Disease 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.

Sample Answer for Discussion: Screening for Disease

The relevance of cervical cancer as a global health concern is reflected by its position as the fourth most common female cancer worldwide, being at four percent (Kessler, 2017). Unfortunately, almost 84 percent of cervical cancer incidences occur in underdeveloped countries, including Africa, Latin America, and the Caribbean (Kessler, 2017, p. 172). Furthermore, within the United States, cervical cancer is evident as the 14th most frequent cancers (Kessler, 2017, p. 173). Nearly half of those women who are sexually active have a susceptibility to the human papillomavirus (HPV), the main cause for cervical cancer (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021b). Within the United States about 79 percent of men and women are infected with HPV, leading to over 11,000 women developing HPV leading to cancer (Kessler, 2017, p. 173). Risk factors do include about 90 percent of HPV infections leading to an untraceable predisposition to cervical cancer within one to two years (Kessler, 2017, p. 174). Immunocompromised women from drugs or chlamydia are proven to lead to cervical cancer incidences (Kessler, 2017). Preventative measures do include HPV vaccinations for males and females, limiting partners, use of condoms with men, and avoiding sex with multiple partners (Kessler, 2017). The HPV vaccination was made available in 2006, for multiple groups of individuals. HPV vaccination is recommended to be present after the first sexual incidence or prior to this original experience (Kessler, 2017). Three vaccines are available to prevent HPV, including Gardasil. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention suggest the first does may start at age nine but should be initiated from ages 11 to 12 and the second dose six to 12 months later (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021a). However, it is not recommended that those who are not vaccinated are to converse with providers as there may be less benefit from ages 27 to 45 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2021a).

Those exposed to HPV still are encouraged to receive vaccination after being exposed to protect their future affiliates. In addition, it is recommended that women are screened with a Pap test to reflect abnormal findings to review need for treatment. If detected, abnormal Pap tests can return to normal nine out of ten times, or about 90 percent, of HPV infections without treatment (Kessler, 2017, p. 176). Age does take a factor into this situation, showing females between 30 and 65 years old should have testing every five years, and those under 30 years old HPV testing alone should not be completed (Kessler, 2017, p. 176). For those who were vaccinated, amongst males and females, has not yet met the recommended vaccination levels (Kessler, 2017).

Ethical considerations include the healthcare disparities of those of lower economical status who cannot afford vaccinations, whether from financial complication with or without insurance. Education and provisions for areas of rural standing may decrease exposure or understanding of the importance of the vaccination. There may be community assistance provided within various areas of states, counties, or cities. Ethical considerations may be justified by means of provider, parent, and community support. Religious, cultural, and/or ethnicity acceptance or understanding can be evident for vaccinations. For example, Hispanic women were shown to have increased knowledge of a Pap test by means of educational sessions (Kessler, 2017, p. 179). These can be provided within pre-adolescent, adolescent, and adult situations to understand risks as an early age and multiple partners, particularly in sexual education for males, females, and having sexual encounters with multiple individuals and those males who are uncircumcised (Kessler, 2017, p. 179). Basic sexual education is a knowledge base for all to understand, regardless of religious entities. An example may be of the Catholicism individuals. There may be a belief of not having multiple partners and ensuring virginity until marriage. However, lack of knowledge in itself may show an aspect of negligence of others. Even if the belief or acceptance may not be present, the knowledge does assist a population-based status for all.

Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Discussion: Screening for Disease

Basis and Influence on Assessment

A population of those under age 18 are encouraged to be vaccinated but is noted to be not evident due to lack of knowledge or

information for those of this age group (Kessler, 2017). Parental barriers are evident related to the belief of being low risk or financial implications. Providers’ lack of recommendation may also play a vital role of decreased vaccination rates (Kessler, 2017). This screening could be both population-based within age groups who are who are not sexually active and high-risk for those who are sexually active, have multiple partners, obese, and/or do not have regular Pap tests (Kessler, 2017). These barriers can be overcome by increased communication. This can influence multiple associations to review the assessment of those at risk, at need for further education, at need for financial needs, and setting up health visits (Kessler, 2017). For example, there may be a requirement for college males to have further information of the vaccine through education or the need for parents to be aware of the preventative initiations for HPV in prevention of cervical cancer in females.

Moving Policy Forward

The use of reported data can allow for the Health Belief Model and the Transtheoretical Model can be used to educate on interventions. Overall, more knowledge of series of strategies and behavioral change is evident supporting again the need for increased communication and gain of knowledge (Kessler, 2017). What is to be communicated is of utmost importance, this includes vaccines are safe, efficient, tolerated, and that the need for follow-up vaccines are useful (Kessler, 2017). Policies should occur at the three levels of patient, provider, and health system (Cartmell et al., 2018). A health system policy aspect to take into consideration is the healthcare costs affiliated with purchasing and storing vaccines, calling for a need for an internal validity evaluation. Those that may need additional coverage or assistance can be presented within an organization’s policy to improve vaccinations (Friis & Sellers, 2021; Kessler, 2017). For patient and provider levels, implementation of a system to educate and support individuals about the vaccine can allow motivation of conversations, decrease missed opportunities from parents or adults for vaccine, utilize local health department resources, build vaccine recommendations, and view further refusal or acceptance of vaccinations (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2017; Cartmell et al., 2018).

References

Cartmell, K., Young-Pierce, J., McGue, S., Alberg, A., Luque, J., Zubizarreta, M., & Brandt, H.
(2018). Barriers, facilitators, and potential strategies for increasing HPV vaccination: A statewide assessment of inform action. Papillomavirus Research, 5, 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pvr.2017.11.003
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021a, July). HPV vaccine. U.S. Department of
Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/parents/vaccine-for-hpv.html
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021b, December). Basic information about
cervical cancer. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/cervical/basic_info/index.htm#:~:text=It%20occurs%20most%20often%20in,person%20to%20another%20during%20sex.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2017). Top 10 tips for HPV vaccination success:
Attain and maintain high HPV vaccination rates. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/hpv/hcp/2-dose/top-10-vaxsuccess.html#:~:text=Use%20an%20effective%20approach%20by,HPV%20cancers%2C%20and%20whooping%20cough.
Friis, R. & Sellers, T. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Barlett
Learning.
Kessler, T. (2017). Cervical cancer: Prevention and early detection. Seminars in
Oncology Nursing, 33(2), 172-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soncn.2017.02.005

Sample Answer 2 for Discussion: Screening for Disease

Prostate cancer is the second most frequent cancer diagnosis made in men and the fifth leading cause of death worldwide. Prostate cancer may be asymptomatic at the early stage and often has an indolent course that may require only active surveillance. The morbidity and mortality rate if prostate cancer increases with an increase in age (Rawla, 2019). The highest number of reported cases is seen in men above 65 years. Genetics has been shown to be linked to the incidence of prostate cancer, with incidences higher in African American men, than in Caucasian males. The cause for this disparity is not clear although recent studies have shown that white men are more likely to go for checkup and screening more often (Rawla, 2019).

Hugosson, et al., (2010), conducted a study to ascertain the prostate cancer mortality rate among patients that have been screened, results showed that early screening was beneficial and drastically reduced the mortality rate. Early and regular screening of prostate specific antigen (PSA) among men > 45 years old has been shown to reduce the mortality rate and aids in treatment.

The PSA screening high risk based as well as population based. It is more prevalent among African American men. Statistically, it is most often seen among men 65 years and older. Screening encourages a better understanding of the etiology of the cancer, the causative risk factors and preventive measures of the disease (Kheirandish & Chinegwundoh, 2011).

Regular Screening and early identification of prostate cancer significantly reduces the mortality rate of prostate cancer. Screening assists in identifying the age group and race at risk which is beneficial in planning and management of the disease.

References

Hugosson, J., Carlsson, S., Aus, G., Bergdahl, S., Khatami, A., Lodding, P., … & Lilja, H.

(2010). Mortality results from the Göteborg randomised population-based prostate-cancer screening trial. The lancet oncology, 11(8), 725-732

Kheirandish, P., & Chinegwundoh, F. (2011). Ethnic differences in prostate cancer. British

journal of cancer, 105(4), 481-485. Retrieved from https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc2011273

Rawla, P. (2019). Epidemiology of prostate cancer. World journal of oncology, 10(2), 63.

retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6497009/

Sample Answer 3 for Discussion: Screening for Disease

Screening for disease helps detect potential health conditions in individuals who do not show any significant disease symptoms. The US Preventive Service Task Force Screen for colon cancer for all adults ages 45 and continues with regular screening through 75 years. Colon cancer is considered the nation’s third leading cause of cancer death in people (USPSTF. 2021). The risk is modified and non-modified factors. The modified factors are lifestyle changes such as diet, weight, exercise, long-term smoking, and unhealthy alcohol use.

In contrast, non-modified risk factors include age, family history, history of inflammatory bowel disease (Ulcerative colitis and Crohn’s disease), lynch syndrome, race, ethnic background, and type 2 diabetes (American Cancer Society, 2021). It also recommends that it should be an individual decision to start screening. Age is one of the most vital risk factors for colorectal cancer, with incidence rates increasing with age and 94% of new cases of colorectal cancer occurring in adults 45 years or older (National Cance Institute, 2021). Individuals ranging from 45 years or older must consult with healthcare professionals regarding when to start screening, even if the risk factors are absent. Leading ethical considerations associated with the USPSTF recommendation include patient autonomy and beneficence. Ubel et al. (2018) argue that it is important to respect an individual’s decision as required by the law. However, respecting patients’ autonomy should give them choices and disclose various risks and benefits of screening. The epidemiologist must assess if the screening benefits outweigh its risk. Thus, recommendations are justified for colorectal cancer screening. It also endorses that the decision to start screening should be independent.

Epidemiologic data to formulate policy for improving health

Screening tools are considered helpful in improving health outcomes and reducing healthcare costs by ensuring early interventions (Friss& Sellers, 2020). Screening for colorectal cancer presents a critical health burden; the possibility for prevention by removing precursors and early detection of CRC results in lowering morbidity and mortality because CRC can attractively target population screening. Colorectal cancer screening is available globally, and stool-based and direct visualization screening test is the gold standard of CRC screening. It is fundamental to improving health, and early detection improves prognosis, and fewer colorectal cancer death occurs when screening begins at 45 years vs. 50 years (USPSTF, 2018).

Cancer intervention & Surveillance modeling Network (CISNET) suggests screening should stop for adults aged 76-85 years due to health statuses such as life expectancy and comorbid conditions. There is also the risk versus benefits from perforation and increased bleeding from colonoscopy (Lin, Perdue, Henrikson, et al., 2021).

Black adults have the highest incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer than other races/ethnicities. From 2013 to 2017, incidence rates for colorectal cancer were 43.6 cases per 100,000 Black adults, 39.0 cases per 100,000 American Indian/Alaska Native adults, 37.8 cases per 100,000 White adults, 33.7 cases per 100,000 Hispanic/Latino adults, and 31.8 cases per 100,000 Asian/Pacific Islander adults (Howlan, Noon, Krapcho et al. 2017).

Social impact in addressing the population health problem

Some social impact of addressing colon cancer screening may be a lack of awareness. It may prohibit the patient from completing prescreening assessment forms. Sometimes lack of knowledge of the preparation protocol for a colonoscopy may also be a barrier. And sometimes, patients fear positive test results, so it delays screening. Another social impact may be mistrust for the health care provider either from other individual experience or their own experience. And most importantly, health disparities are caused by inequalities to access to healthcare and quality CRC screening and treatment. Despite these trends, Black adults across all ages, including those younger than 50 years, continue to have a higher incidence of and mortality from colorectal cancer than white adults.

Health Interventions.

The screening program reviewed is populated-based, and its conclusive findings can be applied to the general population. Additionally, conclusive data can be utilized to improve health policy. Lastly, the screening program provides an opportunity for researchers to investigate further screening recommendations for adults aged 45-75 years.

References

Cancer stat facts: colorectal cancer. National Cancer Institute. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/colorect.html

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2020). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Howlader N, Noone AM, Krapcho M, et al. SEER Cancer Statistics Review, 1975-2017. National Cancer Institute. Published April 15, 2020. Accessed March 30, 2021. https://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_ 2017/

Lin JS, Perdue LA, Henrikson NB, Bean SI, Blasi PR. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: An Evidence Update for the US Preventive Services Task Force. Evidence Synthesis No. 202. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2021. AHRQ publication 20-05271-EF-1.

Ubel, P. A., Scherr, K. A., & Fagerlin, A. (2018). Autonomy: What’s shared decision making have to do with it? The American Journal of Bioethics, 18(2), W11–W12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2017.140984

United States Preventive Taskforce (2021): Colorectal Cancer: Screening. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening