NURS 8100 WEEK 4 Contextual Factors
NURS 8100 WEEK 4 Contextual Factors
The identified advocacy priority is enacting policies that foster preventive and screening services for AAs. This advocacy aims to increase the early detection of chronic illnesses and promote better disease prognosis. Preventive health care can reduce health disparities and increase the life expectancy of AAs with chronic illnesses. Contextual features entail how clinical decisions are influenced by family, professional, religious, financial, legal, and institutional factors.
Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
NURS 8100 WEEK 4 Contextual Factors
Just from $13/Page
The contextual factors that will favor getting my advocacy priority on the agenda include my healthcare organization and nursing practice. My healthcare organization has, over the years, been encouraging employees, including nurses, to actively engage in advocacy initiatives. It supports employees who are involved in advocacy and links them to appropriate advocacy channels (Porche, 2021). Thus, the organization will be a supportive factor in driving my agenda to advocate for preventive and screening services for AAs. In addition, the nursing profession has encouraged nurses to advocate through professional organizations (Porche, 2021). As a member of a nursing professional organization, I can seek assistance from the organization in pushing my advocacy agenda and developing a policy to increase access to preventive and screening services.
Nevertheless, factors like politics and regulations might hinder me from getting my advocacy priority on the agenda. Influencing a change in public policy is often challenging and complex, especially for individuals with limited power and resources. One of the major challenges is that developing a public policy is hardly ever a linear process (Dawes, 2020). Consequently, putting my advocacy priority on the agenda will require complex interactions and negotiations among various stakeholders (Reynolds et al., 2020). This will include politicians, advisers, interest groups, bureaucrats, and other stakeholders. These contextual factors may affect the possibility of policy change coming to place.
References
Dawes, D. E. (2020). The Political Determinants of Health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
Reynolds, J. P., Stautz, K., Pilling, M., Van der Linden, S., & Marteau, T. M. (2020). Communicating the effectiveness and ineffectiveness of government policies and their impact on public support: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Royal Society Open Science, 7(1), 190522. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.190522
Porche, D. J. (2021). Health Policy: Applications for Nurses and Other Healthcare Professionals. Jones & Bartlett Learning.
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
- 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)
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?
By Day 6 of Week 4
Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days by supporting or expanding on the ideas identified by your colleague or sharing additional perspectives on the analysis of contextual factors described by your colleague.
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 ptsExcellent
• 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 ptsGood
• 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 ptsFair
• 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 ptsPoor
• 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 ptsExcellent
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 ptsGood
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 ptsFair
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 ptsPoor
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 ptsExcellent
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 ptsGood
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 ptsFair
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 ptsPoor
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 ptsExcellent
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 ptsGood
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 ptsFair
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 ptsPoor
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 ptsExcellent
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 ptsGood
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 ptsFair
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 ptsPoor
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 |
