Students will choose a current or past clinical case and write a scholarly paper

Students will choose a current or past clinical case and write a scholarly paper that describes the relationship between a social determinant of health and a specific health outcome ( e.g housing and asthma, income and obesity, etc.). Using the Introduction-Methods-Results-And-Discussion (IMRAD) format, the paper should include a description of the clinical case/medical issue/background, the relevant social determinant of health that impacts the situation, methods of searching for evidence, results of that search and any critical assessment of it, discussion recommendations for change as demonstrated by the action/intervention of the Registered Nurse, and systemic or health policy related recommendations. Recommendations for change and reasons why (medical and social) The paper should be no more than seven pages, not including cover page or references. A two-page Appendix will be allowed. Students may find the following website helpful in completing this assignment: https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/health-promotion/population-health/what-determines-health/what-makes-canadians-healthy-unhealthy.html
Social Determinants of Health Paper: Grading Rubric
Criterion
Excellent
16-20
Good
12-15
Adequate
8-11
Marginal
0-7
Introduction
/20
• Demonstrates a solid description of the clinical case or health condition, highly relevant/referenced material is provided related to the burden of illness
• SDOH is strongly explored, appropriate and clearly referenced
• Link between SDOH and impact on health issue is clearly explored and engaging
• Clinical case or health condition is introduced with some detail and literature
• SDOH is explored with some relevance to health issue discussed and some supporting data presented
• Clinical case or health condition is discussed with little detail provided (more detail required to add clarity)
• SDOH is presented with little details as to relevance to health issue and/or supporting data
• Population is not introduced OR clinical case /health condition description is very vague and broad
• SDOH is presented with description vague and broad, little discussion of relevance
Criterion
Excellent
8-10
Good
6-7
Adequate
4-5
Marginal
0-3
Methods
/10
• Clear description of sources of evidence searched and search terms used
• Description and appropriate use of critical appraisal tool to assess quality of research
• Clear statement of how findings are brought together (e.g. compare and contrast, narratively synthesized)
• Sources described but too few
• Critical appraisal tool described but not appropriately used
• Unclear/unidentifiable method of bringing findings together
• Incomplete/unclear description of sources or search terms used
• Unclear description of critical appraisal tool and inappropriately used
• Described inappropriate method of bringing findings together (e.g. descriptive frequencies for qualitative research)
• No description of sources of evidence used • No description of search terms used
• No description of critical appraisal tool
• No description of how findings are brought together
Criterion
Excellent
16-20
Good
12-14
Adequate
8-10
Marginal
0-7
Results/Discussion
/20
• Number of identified papers/studies located provided with a brief summary of each (aims, participants, method, findings, implications for scholarly paper)
• Clear critical appraisal of strengths and limitations of each paper
• Unclear number of papers/studies located in search
• Some included studies/papers missing a brief summary
• Unclear or incomplete critical appraisal of each included studies/paper • Brief summaries are incomplete
• Some included studies/papers missing a critical appraisal
• Number of included studies/papers not reported
• No brief summary of included studies/papers
• No critical appraisal of included studies/papers
Criterion
Excellent
19-25
Good
12-18
Adequate
6-11
Marginal
0-5
Conclusions
/25
• Strong & relevant recommendations are provided, going beyond referenced material presented by demonstrating critical thinking and ability to integrate theory, literature and data
• Strong & relevant recommendations are provided, going beyond referenced material presented by demonstrating critical thinking and ability to integrate theory, literature and data
• Good discussion and original thinking presented of recommendations
• Good integration of some aspects of theory, literature and data
• Good discussion and original thinking presented of recommendations
• Good integration of some aspects of theory, literature and data
• Limited discussion of recommendations
• Little original thinking presented with minimal integration of literature and data
• Limited discussion of recommendations
• Little original thinking presented with minimal integration of literature and data
• Incomplete discussion of recommendations
• No original thinking or discussion, lack of integrating theory, literature and data
• Incomplete discussion of recommendations
• No original thinking or discussion, lack of integrating theory, literature and data
Criterion
Excellent
8-10
Good
6-7
Adequate
4-5
Marginal
0-3
References
/10
• Cites 5 or more relevant & current (within 10 years) scholarly peer reviewed resources
• Cites 3-4 relevant & current (within 10 years) scholarly peer reviewed resources
• Cites <3 relevant or current resources, majority are scholarly and peer reviewed, includes non-scholarly material • No references, or majority of references are non-scholarly and/or not current and/or not relevant Criterion Excellent 12-15 Good 8-11 Adequate 4-7 Marginal 0-3 Style /15 • Legibility • Grammar, spelling • Sentence structure • Page Limit • Use of APA format • Submission requirements met (Canvas, Turnitin) • No spelling or grammatical errors • Paper follows IMRAD structure • Excellent sentence & paragraph structure • Title page, margins, line spacing, reference page all conform to APA format. • Font size meets APA expectations • Within required page limit • Focused and relevant introduction and statement of purpose • Clearly developed, well-reasoned conclusion with good continuity of thought • Exceptional use of vocabulary • Reader is thoroughly engaged with writing style and information presented • Displays creativity & freshness in sound thinking; elegant & imaginative in summarization of thoughts • Excellent continuity in flow of thoughts • Excellent APA format throughout ● Occasional spelling & grammatical errors • Good sentence and paragraph structure • Title page conforms to APA format • Some margins & line spacing require reviewing • Font size meets expectations. • Overall orderly presentation of material. • Within required page limit • Clearly stated introduction and statement of purpose • Contains appropriate conclusion • Appropriate use of vocabulary • Good use of style with variation in sentences & paragraphs • Deals well with basic concepts / issues • Good flow of thoughts with continuity maintained throughout paper • Proper use of APA format for “in text” citation & reference page • Frequent spelling & grammatical errors • Adequate sentence and paragraph structure • Title page errors noted • Font size meets expectations • Non-scholarly title page • Does not adhere to page limit • Weak or strained introduction and statement of purpose • Repetitive conclusion or contains new information • Limited use of vocabulary • Style is predictable but adequate sentence variation and paragraphs. • Basic concepts dealt with in satisfactory manner • Continuity in flow of thoughts adequate. • Improper use of APA format (missing important components/ reference errors) ● Significant spelling & grammatical errors •Many “run-on” or incomplete sentences •No title page, improper margins, improper line spacing • Incorrect font size •Does not adhere to page limit • Introduction and statement of purpose vague, weak or absent completely •Conclusion vague, weak or absent completely •Flow of paragraphs is confusing &/or disjointed • Limited vocabulary and sentence variety •Basic concepts poorly addressed or absent completely •No continuity in flow of thought •Does not cite source of data • Incorrect “in-text” referencing •Reference page errors