he assignment on global public health issues is intricately connected to the cou

he assignment on global public health issues is intricately connected to the course materials provided through Course Point, including the podcasts and interactive modules. These resources are designed to support and enhance your understanding of the assignment’s topics by providing foundational knowledge, real-world examples, and interactive learning experiences. Here’s how they relate:
Foundation of Knowledge:Podcasts: The Course Point podcasts offer expert discussions on global public health issues such as infectious diseases, chronic illnesses, environmental health, and health equity. These discussions provide a solid foundation of knowledge that is directly relevant to the assignment topics. For example, if your assignment involves developing an intervention for reducing the spread of infectious diseases, the podcasts on global health security and pandemic preparedness will offer valuable insights and evidence that you can incorporate into your work.
Interactive Modules: The interactive modules provide a hands-on learning experience, allowing you to engage with the material in a practical way. These modules often simulate real-world scenarios, such as outbreak investigations or the impact of climate change on health. This experience is directly applicable to the assignment, where you are expected to analyze global public health challenges and propose evidence-based interventions.
This assessment fulfills the following objectives:
MLO 8.1, 8.2
Refer to the Course Structure and Alignment page for detailed information regarding objectives alignment to materials, activities and assessments.
Instructions
Scenario Overview:You are a public health professional attending an international conference focused on global public health issues. The conference brings together experts, policymakers, and healthcare providers from around the world to discuss pressing health challenges and develop collaborative strategies for addressing them. The attendees are divided into three groups, each tasked with discussing a specific aspect of global public health. Your role is to facilitate a discussion within your group, drawing on your knowledge and experience to explore the complexities of global health challenges.
Group 2: Chronic Diseases and the Global Burden of Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs)Scenario: Your group is discussing the increasing prevalence of chronic non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as heart disease, diabetes, and cancer. These conditions are becoming more common worldwide, particularly in low- and middle-income countries, and they pose significant challenges to global public health.
Discussion Questions:
What are the primary global drivers of the increase in chronic diseases?Consider factors such as urbanization, lifestyle changes, and aging populations.
What strategies can be implemented at a global level to reduce the burden of NCDs?Discuss prevention, early detection, and management strategies that could be effective across different cultural and economic contexts.
How can global health initiatives be designed to address the disparities in NCD outcomes between high-income and low-income countries?Explore the role of policy, education, and healthcare infrastructure in reducing these disparities.
RequirementsInitial Post
Word Count: The initial post should be between 250 – 300 words.
Content:Discuss a specific community health issue.
Explain the significance of this issue in the context of community health nursing.
Provide evidence-based practices or interventions that address this issue.
Reflect on personal experiences or observations related to the topic, if applicable.
Sources Referenced:Use at least two credible sources (e.g., peer-reviewed journals, reputable health organizations).
Properly cite all sources in APA format.
Include a reference list at the end of the post.
Deadline:First reply should be posted by Day 4 of the discussion week.
Second reply should be posted by Day 7 of the discussion week.
Peer Replies
Number of Replies:Respond to two peers, one from each of the other two groups.
Choose one peer from each of the other two groups (groups here)
Word Count:Each reply should be between 150 words.
Content:Engage with the peer’s post by providing thoughtful feedback, additional insights, or alternative perspectives.
Support your replies with evidence or personal experience when relevant.
Ask open-ended questions to encourage further discussion.
General Guidelines
Tone and Etiquette:Maintain a respectful and professional tone in all posts and replies.
Be constructive and supportive in your feedback.
Timeliness:Submit the initial post by the specified deadline.
Post replies within the given timeframe to ensure peers have time to respond.
Engagement:Actively participate in the discussion throughout the week.
Aim to contribute meaningfully to the learning community.
Evaluation Criteria
Quality of Content:Depth of analysis and understanding of the topic.
Relevance and accuracy of information provided.
Engagement:Interaction with peers and quality of contributions to the discussion.
Writing and Format:Clarity, coherence, and organization of posts.
Correct use of grammar, punctuation, and APA format for citations and references.
Rubric
DISCUSSION BOARD GRADING RUBRICDISCUSSION BOARD GRADING RUBRICCriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeInitial Post to Assigned Discussion Question3 ptsExceptionalInitial post is made in a timely fashion, by day 4, giving others ample opportunity to respond.2 ptsGoodInitial post is made by day 5, giving others limited opportunity to respond.1 ptsNeeds ImprovementInitial post is made by day 6 or 7, giving others minimal opportunity to respond.0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingInitial post is not made.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReplies to Initial Post for Each of the Alternate Peer Group’s Assigned Discussion Question3 ptsExceptionalParticipated on two days.2 ptsGoodParticipated on only one day. Posted two replies on same day as initial post.1 ptsNeeds ImprovementPosted initial post and one reply.0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingReplies not posted.
3 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEvidence of Critical Thinking and Critical Analysis for Initial Post20 ptsExceptionalSynthesizes new content from assignment and what has already been learned in the course; addresses inconsistencies; poses new possibilities based on readings and research.15 ptsGoodTranslates new content from the assignment and what has already been learned in the course; addresses inconsistencies; connects to other content and real-life situations. Less than 250 words.10 ptsNeeds ImprovementMakes connections from real-life situations but the translation of new content is unclear, not firmly established, or not obvious.0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingMakes no connections from real-life situations but the translation of new content is unclear, not firmly established, or not obvious.
20 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReply to Peer #1 Initial Post7 ptsExceptionalReplies to alternate peer discussion. Reply includes critique and analysis of the peer’s points mentioned, comparing and or contrasting how the writer supports or questions that point. Uses at least one new peer-reviewed reference.5 ptsGoodReplies to alternate peer discussion. Reply includes analysis of points mentioned, comparing and or contrasting why the writer agrees or disagrees. Evidence is not clearly connected.3 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvides opinions; reply is rudimentary and superficial, lacking any degree of analysis, critique, comparison, or contrast. No references utilized. Less than 150 words.0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingNo reply.
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReply to Peer #2 Initial Post7 ptsExceptionalReplies to alternate peer discussion. Reply includes critique and analysis of the peer’s points mentioned, comparing and or contrasting how the writer supports or questions that point. Uses at least one new peer-reviewed reference.5 ptsGoodReplies to alternate peer discussion. Reply includes analysis of points mentioned, comparing and or contrasting why the writer agrees or disagrees. Evidence is not clearly connected.3 ptsNeeds ImprovementProvides opinions; reply is rudimentary and superficial, lacking any degree of analysis, critique, comparison, or contrast. No references utilized. Less than 150 words.0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingNo reply.
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReadings and Resources5 ptsExceptional Minimum of two (2) references for initial post (textbook and/or one to two peer-reviewed journal articles) published within five (5) years unless a classic or historical source. • Minimum of one (1) additional different reference for each peer reply (two [2] total). • Reply references may be peer-reviewed journal articles published within the last five (5) years unless a classic or historical source or valid and reliable government or organizational website. • Peer-reviewed journal articles should be available in the FSW Library. Journal articles from StatPearls database or the National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information are also acceptable. • NOTE: A total of four (4) different references must be used.
0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingReferences are not supplied or do not meet the minimum criteria.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar, Spelling, and APA Format5 ptsExceptionalProper grammar, spelling, and APA format of citations and references is used throughout the initial post and two peer replies. 0 to 2 errors3 ptsGoodContains minor errors in grammar, spelling, and/or in APA format of citations and references. 3 to 4 errors1 ptsNeeds ImprovementContains multiple errors in grammar, spelling, and/or APA format of citations and references. 5 to 6 errors0 ptsInsufficiency or LackingLacks proper grammar or APA format; contains multiple misspelled words. Greater than 6 errors
5 pts
Total Points: 50