Hi, i need the table i uploaded to be filled
Health Promotion Program, Part B2: Evidence-based Literature SearchYou will be expected to search for the highest level of evidence for your health promotion project. Please listen to the lecture on searching the evidence, use the services of the research librarian, and pull from the knowledge gained in NUR 39000 Nursing Research to complete this assignment. The Purdue Owl website is a great resource for you when citing your references in APA style.
Self- Assessment of Learning Styles.pdf 
.
JBI-Levels-of-Evidence(1).pdf
Library Resources: The reference librarian for the School of Nursing has created a very helpful website of library resources for this course. Click on the link below to accept this website:NUR 39400 Library Resource Guide
https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12421733-dt-content-rid-93949047_1/courses/pnw_45033.201920/JBI-Levels-of-Evidence%281%29.pdf
New JBI Levels of Evidence
Developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party October 2013
PLEASE NOTE: These levels are intended to be used alongside the supporting document outlining their use. Using Levels of Evidence does not preclude the need for careful reading, critical appraisal and clinical reasoning when applying evidence.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTIVENESS
Level 1 – Experimental Designs
Level 1.a – Systematic review of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Level 1.b – Systematic review of RCTs and other study designs
Level 1.c – RCT
Level 1.d – Pseudo-RCTs
Level 2 – Quasi-experimental Designs
Level 2.a – Systematic review of quasi-experimental studies
Level 2.b – Systematic review of quasi-experimental and other lower study designs
Level 2.c – Quasi-experimental prospectively controlled study
Level 2.d – Pre-test – post-test or historic/retrospective control group study
Level 3 – Observational – Analytic Designs
Level 3.a – Systematic review of comparable cohort studies
Level 3.b – Systematic review of comparable cohort and other lower study designs
Level 3.c – Cohort study with control group
Level 3.d – Case – controlled study
Level 3.e – Observational study without a control group
Page | 2
Level 4 – Observational –Descriptive Studies
Level 4.a – Systematic review of descriptive studies
Level 4.b – Cross-sectional study
Level 4.c – Case series
Level 4.d – Case study
Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research
Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion
Level 5.b – Expert consensus
Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion
Page | 3
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR DIAGNOSIS
Level 1 – Studies of Test Accuracy among consecutive patients
Level 1.a – Systematic review of studies of test accuracy among consecutive patients
Level 1.b – Study of test accuracy among consecutive patients
Level 2 – Studies of Test Accuracy among non-consecutive patients
Level 2.a – Systematic review of studies of test accuracy among non-consecutive patients
Level 2.b – Study of test accuracy among non-consecutive patients
Level 3 – Diagnostic Case control studies
Level 3.a – Systematic review of diagnostic case control studies
Level 3.b – Diagnostic case-control study
Level 4 – Diagnostic yield studies
Level 4.a – Systematic review of diagnostic yield studies
Level 4.b – Individual diagnostic yield study
Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research
Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion
Level 5.b – Expert consensus
Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion
Page | 4
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR PROGNOSIS
Level 1 – Inception Cohort Studies
Level 1.a – Systematic review of inception cohort studies
Level 1.b – Inception cohort study
Level 2 – Studies of All or none
Level 2.a – Systematic review of all or none studies
Level 2.b – All or none studies
Level 3 – Cohort studies
Level 3.a – Systematic review of cohort studies (or control arm of RCT)
Level 3.b – Cohort study (or control arm of RCT)
Level 4 – Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled studies
Level 4.a – Systematic review of Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled studies
Level 4.b – Individual Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled study
Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research
Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion
Level 5.b – Expert consensus
Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion
Page | 5
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS
Levels
1. Decision model with assumptions and variables informed by systematic review and tailored to fit the decision making context.
2. Systematic review of economic evaluations conducted in a setting similar to the decision makers.
3. Synthesis/review of economic evaluations undertaken in a setting similar to that in which the decision is to be made and which are of high quality (comprehensive and credible measurement of costs and health outcomes, sufficient time period covered, discounting, and sensitivity testing).
4. Economic evaluation of high quality (comprehensive and credible measurement of costs and health outcomes, sufficient time period covered, discounting and sensitivity testing) and conducted in setting similar to the decision making context.
5. Synthesis / review of economic evaluations of moderate and/or poor quality (insufficient coverage of costs and health effects, no discounting, no sensitivity testing, time period covered insufficient).
6. Single economic evaluation of moderate or poor quality (see directly above level 5 description of studies). 7. Expert opinion on incremental cost effectives of intervention and comparator.
Page | 6
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR MEANINGFULNESS
1. Qualitative or mixed-methods systematic review
2. Qualitative or mixed-methods synthesis
3. Single qualitative study
4. Systematic review of expert opinion
5. Expert opinion
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion In Minority Populations
/in Uncategorized /by developerSelect an ethnic minority group that is represented in the United States (American Indian/Alaskan Native, Asian American, Black/African American, Hispanic/Latino, Native Hawaiian, or Pacific Islander). Using health information available from Healthy People, the CDC, and other relevant government websites, analyze the health status for this group.
In a paper of 1,000-1,250 words, compare and contrast the health status of your selected minority group to the national average. Include the following:
Cite at least five scholarly sources to complete this assignment. Sources should be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria and public health content.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide. Please state your purpose and the conclusion clearly
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion In Nursing
/in Uncategorized /by developerDiscuss how the concept of “health” has changed overtime. Discuss how the concept has evolved to include wellness, illness, and overall well-being. How has health promotion changed over time? Why is it important that nurses implement health promotion interventions based on evidence-based practice?
250 words with 3 APA references, NO PLAGIARISM.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Paper 19445243
/in Uncategorized /by developerDue Friday at 12pm EST!!
1. Topic: Mental health: Suicide (MHMD-1)
2. No plagiarism, 3-4 pages without title and reference page!!
3. A minimum of three (3) scholarly articles, from the last 5 years, are used as sources.
4. Rubric guidelines attached
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Planning Project
/in Uncategorized /by developerHealth Promotion Planning Project: Students will use a planning model to plan a health promotion program to reduce or improve on school bus safety, fire safety, oral hygiene, vegetables intake, playground safety, pedestrian safety among children or youth (elementary/middle/high school). (Planning models PRECEDE-PROCEED, MATCH, Intervention Mapping, CDCynergy, SMART, MAPP, Generalized Model for Program Planning). Topics will be assigned to students. No more than 5 students will be assigned the same topic. A 6-8 page paper, typed and double spaced will be required.Include all sources used (APA format). Project is due on November 15th. Project will be turned in under assignments titled: Health Promotion Planning Project. Assess objectives 5, 11.
Health Promotion Planning Project Resource.doc
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Program Part B2
/in Uncategorized /by developerHi, i need the table i uploaded to be filled
Health Promotion Program, Part B2: Evidence-based Literature SearchYou will be expected to search for the highest level of evidence for your health promotion project. Please listen to the lecture on searching the evidence, use the services of the research librarian, and pull from the knowledge gained in NUR 39000 Nursing Research to complete this assignment. The Purdue Owl website is a great resource for you when citing your references in APA style.
Self- Assessment of Learning Styles.pdf
.
JBI-Levels-of-Evidence(1).pdf
Library Resources: The reference librarian for the School of Nursing has created a very helpful website of library resources for this course. Click on the link below to accept this website:NUR 39400 Library Resource Guide
https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12421733-dt-content-rid-93949047_1/courses/pnw_45033.201920/JBI-Levels-of-Evidence%281%29.pdf
New JBI Levels of Evidence
Developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party October 2013
PLEASE NOTE: These levels are intended to be used alongside the supporting document outlining their use. Using Levels of Evidence does not preclude the need for careful reading, critical appraisal and clinical reasoning when applying evidence.
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTIVENESS
Level 1 – Experimental Designs
Level 1.a – Systematic review of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Level 1.b – Systematic review of RCTs and other study designs
Level 1.c – RCT
Level 1.d – Pseudo-RCTs
Level 2 – Quasi-experimental Designs
Level 2.a – Systematic review of quasi-experimental studies
Level 2.b – Systematic review of quasi-experimental and other lower study designs
Level 2.c – Quasi-experimental prospectively controlled study
Level 2.d – Pre-test – post-test or historic/retrospective control group study
Level 3 – Observational – Analytic Designs
Level 3.a – Systematic review of comparable cohort studies
Level 3.b – Systematic review of comparable cohort and other lower study designs
Level 3.c – Cohort study with control group
Level 3.d – Case – controlled study
Level 3.e – Observational study without a control group
Page | 2
Level 4 – Observational –Descriptive Studies
Level 4.a – Systematic review of descriptive studies
Level 4.b – Cross-sectional study
Level 4.c – Case series
Level 4.d – Case study
Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research
Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion
Level 5.b – Expert consensus
Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion
Page | 3
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR DIAGNOSIS
Level 1 – Studies of Test Accuracy among consecutive patients
Level 1.a – Systematic review of studies of test accuracy among consecutive patients
Level 1.b – Study of test accuracy among consecutive patients
Level 2 – Studies of Test Accuracy among non-consecutive patients
Level 2.a – Systematic review of studies of test accuracy among non-consecutive patients
Level 2.b – Study of test accuracy among non-consecutive patients
Level 3 – Diagnostic Case control studies
Level 3.a – Systematic review of diagnostic case control studies
Level 3.b – Diagnostic case-control study
Level 4 – Diagnostic yield studies
Level 4.a – Systematic review of diagnostic yield studies
Level 4.b – Individual diagnostic yield study
Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research
Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion
Level 5.b – Expert consensus
Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion
Page | 4
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR PROGNOSIS
Level 1 – Inception Cohort Studies
Level 1.a – Systematic review of inception cohort studies
Level 1.b – Inception cohort study
Level 2 – Studies of All or none
Level 2.a – Systematic review of all or none studies
Level 2.b – All or none studies
Level 3 – Cohort studies
Level 3.a – Systematic review of cohort studies (or control arm of RCT)
Level 3.b – Cohort study (or control arm of RCT)
Level 4 – Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled studies
Level 4.a – Systematic review of Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled studies
Level 4.b – Individual Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled study
Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research
Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion
Level 5.b – Expert consensus
Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion
Page | 5
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS
Levels
1. Decision model with assumptions and variables informed by systematic review and tailored to fit the decision making context.
2. Systematic review of economic evaluations conducted in a setting similar to the decision makers.
3. Synthesis/review of economic evaluations undertaken in a setting similar to that in which the decision is to be made and which are of high quality (comprehensive and credible measurement of costs and health outcomes, sufficient time period covered, discounting, and sensitivity testing).
4. Economic evaluation of high quality (comprehensive and credible measurement of costs and health outcomes, sufficient time period covered, discounting and sensitivity testing) and conducted in setting similar to the decision making context.
5. Synthesis / review of economic evaluations of moderate and/or poor quality (insufficient coverage of costs and health effects, no discounting, no sensitivity testing, time period covered insufficient).
6. Single economic evaluation of moderate or poor quality (see directly above level 5 description of studies). 7. Expert opinion on incremental cost effectives of intervention and comparator.
Page | 6
LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR MEANINGFULNESS
1. Qualitative or mixed-methods systematic review
2. Qualitative or mixed-methods synthesis
3. Single qualitative study
4. Systematic review of expert opinion
5. Expert opinion
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Program Planning And Evaluation
/in Uncategorized /by developerHi dear,
can you help to finish this assignment with good quality and on time?
there is example file attached please follow the structure;
our focus is on Tobacco Control Program.
Key Informant Interview (CLO 4)
Conduct an interview with the key informant relevant to your group project. A key informant is an adult (> 18 years of age) person who has knowledge about those in the population that you want to reach. They may have formal authority, for example have a position or title. They may have informal authority in the community because they are extremely knowledgeable about the community or program. They are respected.
Data collected from key informant interviews are considered a form of primary data collection. Interview questions will be provided for you via a Key Informant Interview Script. Interviews may be conducted face-to-face or by telephone. Please follow the Key Interview Script and write in all responses directly into the Interview Script Provided. Make sure that each aspect of the Interview Guide is covered and has a response (including all items highlighted in yellow). Do not veer from the Interview Guide. Use it exactly as it is written. (Note: Summaries of the Key Informant Interview will be required for the signature assignment). Upload the completed Interview Script (2 pages maximum
Key Info Interview Script – Word Document (84.1 KB)
Key Info Interview Script Exemplar – Word Document (22.6 KB)
Key Info Interview Rubric – Word Document (82.1 KB)
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Program
/in Uncategorized /by developerHi, i need this chart i provide in the link to be filled based on these information:
Also i give you sample of a assessment as a guide to get an idea what does it mean ‘ Needs Assessment’
Health Promotion Program, Part B: Needs AssessmentThe next step in developing your 10-20 minute health promotion program is to identify the learning needs assessment. Use the information in this chapter, to develop and conduct a needs assessment of 3-5 persons meeting the criteria of the target audience to submit your results. You can conduct this with each person individually or get them together as a small focus group. The needs assessment should be a short interview or survey to determine what the clients’ major concerns are related to the Healthy People 2020 goal and objective you have selected to focus on for this project as well as their overall knowledge in the area
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Project Evaluation
/in Uncategorized /by developerHi, I need these 2 parts of evaluation to be done, it should be appropriate questions for each part. I provide a sample of questions:
Evaluation of client outcomes and satisfaction with the educational experience is an important component of client education. You will need to develop two assessment tools before you educate the clients.
1. The Teacher Evaluation tool evaluates your teaching effectiveness. After teaching your Health Promotion Project, distribute the Learner Evaluation Tool to your audience and collect/submit a summary of the findngs.
2. The Learning Objectives tool evaluates whether your health education resulted in the learner meeting the learning objectives. After teaching your audience, distribute the Learning Objectives tool and collect/submit a summary of the findings
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Project
/in Uncategorized /by developerCommunity Health Promotion Project
For this assignment, you will compose a scholarly paper focused on health promotion for a population of your choosing. Your paper should be 6 to 7 pages in length and formatted in APA style.
Be sure to address the following:
On a separate page, cite all sources using APA format. You can use this APA Citation Helper as a convenient reference for properly citing resources. You may create your essay in this APA-formatted template.
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"
Health Promotion Recommendations For Hispanics Patients With Diabetes
/in Uncategorized /by developerDiscussions are not just opinion to obtain full points, postings must be based on supported fact, not simply opinion. Posting should be a minimum of one short paragraph and a maximum of two paragraphs. Word totals for each post should be in the 100-200 words range. Whether you agree or disagree explain why with supporting evidence and concepts from the readings or a related experience. Include a reference, link, or citation when appropriate. APA 6th edition format for references as well as in-text citations is expected.
Identify a population to assess and develop an evidence-based, primary care health promotion recommendations to deliver in their own communities (Hispanics-Diabetes)
"Looking for a Similar Assignment? Get Expert Help at an Amazing Discount!"