NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations
NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations
NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations
Children immunization can be seen to be high even though some parents insist that the persistent usage of vaccines used for immunization may be the ones responsible for autism. The research question is does immunization causes autism. The hypothesis that can be developed is ;( 1) the null hypothesis the administration of many vaccines weakens the body’s immune system and (2) the alternative hypothesis of how vaccines cause autism in an individual.
Autism is the independent variable, while immunization is the dependent variable. One can either have autism with or without immunization; therefore, autism does not depend on immunization. Autism can be developed when there is a combination of non-genetic and genetic or an influence of the environment (Gerber and Offit, 2009). Additionally, autism can be developed when the parents are advanced in age, birth complications, and pregnancies, such as when there is an occurrence of extremely premature children who have a birth weight that is low in addition to when there is an existence of multiple pregnancies which are when an individual gets twins, triplets, etc. Notably, when there is less spacing from one child to another while giving birth can also be one of the factors that can cause autism.
The other factor that can make one develop autism is that autism can be a disability that can be developed depending on the way the brain usually functions. The ingredients of vaccines, more so thimerosal, a preservative mercury-based that can be used for preventive vaccines, do not influence the immune system (Chen and DeStefano, 2001). In addition, an individual can have autism since it runs in the family due to their genetic makeup.
Struggling to Meet Your Deadline?
Get your assignment on NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Meet my deadline
References
Andrews, N., Miller, E., Taylor, B., Lingam, R., Simmons, A., Stowe, J., & Waight, P. (2002). Recall bias, MMR, and autism. Archives of disease in childhood
Chen, R. T., & DeStefano, F. (2001). Vaccine adverse events: causal or coincidental?
Gerber, J. S., & Offit, P. A. (2009). Vaccines and autism: a tale of shifting hypotheses. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America
Taylor, B., Miller, E., & Farrington, P. (2000). Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. The Lancet.
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations
“Much of the clinical research relevant to nursing explores whether a relationship exists between two patient characteristics. Understanding potentially related characteristics helps nurses better identify which physical, psychological, or demographic factors are associated with reason for concern” (American Nurse, 2011).
Photo Credit: Getty Images
A DNP-prepared nurse may use correlational research to investigate relationships between associated variables. This type of research allows for the investigation of connections and the measurement of numerous variables. While this research is not used to determine causality, it can be useful in proving theory. So, when might it be necessary to investigate an issue or topic through relationships and associations?
For this Discussion, review the Learning Resources and reflect on a particular topic of interest that may benefit from a correlational study. Formulate a research question and consider your hypotheses and prediction. Reflect on the effectiveness of conducting correlational research.
Reference:
American Nurse. (2011). Understanding correlation analysis. https://www.myamericannurse.com/understanding-correlation-analysis/
To Prepare:
Review this week’s Learning Resources and focus on the types of research questions that can be answered using a correlational statistic.
Brainstorm a number of healthcare delivery or nursing practice problems that could be explored using correlational statistics. Then, select one problem on which to focus for this Discussion.
Formulate a research question to address the problem and that would lead you to employ correlational statistics.
Develop a null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses.
Ask yourself: What is the expected direction of the relationship?
By Day 3 of Week 6
Post a brief description of the problem you chose as the focus of this Discussion, along with your research question. Make your point. Explain your null hypothesis and alternate hypotheses for your research question, as well as the dependent and independent variables that you believe will best support the research study. Then, explain your prediction for the expected (positive or negative) relationship between the variables you identified. Why do you believe such a relationship will exist? What other factors could influence the outcome? Provide specifics and examples.
By Day 6 of Week 6
Read a selection of your colleagues’ responses and respond to at least two of your colleagues on two different days in one or more of the following ways:
Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research.
Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.
Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.
Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.
Suggest an alternative perspective based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.
Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
To access your rubric:
Week 6 Discussion Rubric
Also Check Out: NURA 6053 Discussion 2 Your Leadership Profile Walden
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: NURS 8201 Week 6 Discussion: Correlations
Post by Day 3 of Week 6 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 6
To Participate in this Discussion:
Week 6 Discussion
Amir, M., Khademian, Z., & Kikandish, R. (2018). The effect of nurse empowerment
educational program on patient safety culture: A randomized control trial. BMC Medical Education. 18(158). https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1255-6
Nakagawa, S., Johnson, P. C., & Schielzeth, H. (2017). The coefficient of determination R 2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 14(134), 20170213. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
Bartlett, N., Langerak, S., Lucas, L., Archibald, J., Robbins, T., Thompson, M., … & Sparks, A. (2019). Intensive Care to Intermediate Care Bridge Program. https://core.ac.uk/reader/270181500
Change is inevitable as many would like to say and just like being a nurse, changes occur every day and new research is being done to create evidenced based practices that would encourage quality patient care. Being a nurse for about 6 years now, I have encountered many changes through policies that needed to occur to assist in quality patient care. Also, working on Guam with an expanding multicultural population and within a government hospital, it is advisable that we follow and implement updated healthcare policies. One of the main new practice problems that we are currently encountering is the idea that nurses who wish to transfer to the intensive care unit is not receiving the proper education and transitional bridge into the ICU setting.
The critical care unit is a specialty unit that requires advanced skills and educational training and essentials of critical care orientation in order to attain acute care assessment skills. Due to an increase in the heavy and acutely ill patient population our ICU is trying to implement is starting up an educational bridge program for nurses who wish to transition into the ICU setting. However, just like change is bound to happen, not many nurses are receptive to receiving changes afraid of punitive actions towards mistakes, and may be afraid to reach out to other management about competency. In order to prioritize patient safety, the complexity of patients’ condition and treatment process in the intensive care unit predisposes patients to more hazardous events. Therefore, correlation studies should be done to determine if there are positive outcomes when implementing an educational bridge to transition into the ICU setting.
Correlation research can be defined as research design that investigates relationships between variables without the researchers controlling or manipulating them (Bhandari, 2021). In a randomized control study done by Amiri, Khademian, & Nikandish (2018), with a randomized experimental and control groups consisting of distribution of pamphlets about culture of safety and hospital surveys with a pre- and post- test; empowering nurses and supervisors through educational programs on patient safety could improve patient care outcomes. The epidemiology of errors included medication doses, prescription, and transcription, poor communication lack of knowledge and inadequate training are the main causes of nursing errors in the ICU. As a result, high morbidity and mortality associated with medication errors indicate the importance of promoting safety through educational bridging to transition in the ICU. Significant improvements were observed in promoting organizational learning, continuous improvements, and promoting patient safety as a result of post-test from the control group that received the educational bridge of transition into the ICU with a positive correlative dimension (72.3% positive responses).
In the end, it all comes down to knowing the foundation of nursing and from there build clinical performance that is suitable for the ICU setting. In article done by Shogi et.al. (2019), the gap between educational and clinical practice continues to be a challenge for educational experts therefore, this qualitative interview analysis study was conducted among nurses and administrators there is a need to bridge the gap between theory and practice. The theory and practice gap has been a consistent nursing problem encountered by both new graduates and experienced nurses. Incompatibility of theoretical education with the performance of nurses in the clinical setting can lead to inappropriate use of scientific resource coupled with adherence to conventional traditional methods in the healthcare setting resulting in ineffective nursing practice. Evidence based practices are coupled with quality patient care therefore, the link between knowledge and practice is vital for supporting clinical decision making and development in the nursing profession. This theory gap not only reduces motivation but also lead to a decrease in quality patient care. Mentorship and preceptorship would aid in bridging this gap to work efficiently and meet the ever changing healthcare needs.
Our ICU management is now re-introducing current theories in practice patients and validate scientific evidence with the inclusion of other fundamental measures such as cultivating positive attitudes, re-orienting nursing studies, and education. Effective education is key to implantation of quality care. Nurses serve as the bridge to management in promoting educational clinical guidelines based on their local facilities to share expectations.
Reference(s):
Amir, M., Khademian, Z., & Kikandish, R. (2018). The effect of nurse empowerment
educational program on patient safety culture: A randomized control trial. BMC Medical Education. 18(158). Retrieved from https://bmcmededuc.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12909-018-1255-6
Bhandari, R. (2021). An introduction to correlational research. Scribbr Statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.scribbr.com/methodology/correlational-research/
Shogi, M., Sajadi, M., Oskiue, F., Dehnad, A., & Borimnejad, L. (2019). Strategies for bridging
the theory-practice gap from the perspective of nursing expert. Science Direct. 5(9). Retrieved from https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2405844019361638
Name: NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent
90–100
Good
80–89
Fair
70–79
Poor
0–69
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)
Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.
31 (31%) – 34 (34%)
Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.
0 (0%) – 30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.
Main Posting:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting errors.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post main Discussion by due date.
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
First Response:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
First Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
9 (9%) – 9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
Second Response:
Writing
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_8201_Week7_Discussion_Rubric
Don’t wait until the last minute
Fill in your requirements and let our experts deliver your work asap.
Start My Order
