Data Collection Plan (100 points) and Discussion Board (50 points) Purpose: To assess ability to synthesize key course concepts and the ability to design and implement a data collection and analysis plan (Objectives 1 – 5). Due date: Sunday of Week 5 (draft and initial discussion participation is due by Wednesday) Submitted: Blackboard Throughout the course, students should be thinking about their clinical scholarly projects and how key concepts are generally or specifically related to the project. The signature assignment in this course is a draft of the metholdology chapter of the clinical scholarly project which will explain the expected data collection and analysis. This Week 5 assignment is a PowerPoint presentation of your intended data collection and analysis plan. The goal of the assignment is to assess students’ readiness to do the final assignment in the course and the oral defense of the clinical scholarly project. The focus of the assignment is on developing a clear vision of (a) what should be done in a clinical scholarly project to collect, analyze and interpret data appropriately. This assignment must be submitted by Sunday, end of Week 5. Students must use the assignment template provided in and attach a PowerPoint file. Students are expected to use the feedback they got from their instructor on previous assignments as they prepare for this assignment. Students are encouraged to work with classmates, instructors, and mentors/chairs when preparing the assignment. However, this assignment is not group work. Each student’s final presentation file should be unique to the student and reflect his/her background, experience, expertise, integrity, and specific doctoral project. The assignment consists of two parts: Part I. PowerPoint Presentation (100 Points) The student should prepare a PowerPoint presentation, including slides and presenter notes (not a narrated or video presentation). It should be organized in the format shown below. Students should choose the most important quantitative outcome of the clinical scholarly project as the topic of the Analysis Plan. Students should make sure that the audience will understand what change in practice s/he will be evaluating, why it is an important problem, why s/he is predicting the results s/he is predicting, and how the results will impact nursing practice if s/he achieves them. The project will draw heavily on the project proposal developed in DNPU 706. Slide 1 – Title and Author Slide 2 – Problem statement (brief explanation of the background and significance of the clinical scholarly project) Slide 3 – Claim (predicted result of the clinical scholarly project) Slide 4 – Evidence (statistical evidence from the literature review to support the claim) Slide 5 – Reasoning (explanation of how the evidence supports the claim; include a clear statement of the analysis planned and the predicted result) Slide 6 – Implications (what are the implications of your study on EBP?) Slide 7 – Sample (describe your sample and the population it is drawn from) Updated 8/1/2017 Slide 8 – Variables (Identify your primary outcome and predictor variable(s)) Slide 9 – Collection Plan and Timeline (Briefly describe the data collection plan – may use up to two slides) Slide 10 – References (alphabetical list of citations in APA format) Part II. Draft Feedback and Discussion You will post a DRAFT of this plan to the class discussion by Wednesday of Week 5 along with a 1-2 paragraph CER Summary of your plan (typed into the discussion). Your classmates will have an opportunity to provide feedback by Saturday, and you will submit a final draft of this plan by Sunday, midnight. Student work will be graded with a rubric and individual feedback from instructors will be posted. Students are expected to use the feedback in preparing for the final assignment. The Data Collection Plan (100) will be graded using the rubric below. Exemplary 4 Clear and concise explanation of the significance of the problem Insightful, clear, and thorough use of CER approach evident in presentation Synthesizes data to provide a clearly appropriate justification to the audience Clearly defines sample, recruitment strategy, and the population it is drawn from (AND) Appropriately identifies variables. Proficient 3 Adequate explanation of the significance of the problem Developing 2 Explanation of the significance of the problem lacks focus Emerging 1 Nature of the problem is not clear Adequate use of CER approach evident in presentation Attempt to use CER approach in presentation CER approach not used in presentation Provides a clear justification to the audience Provides a poorly explained justification to the audience Does not provide a justification to the audience Defines sample, and recruitment strategy, but relationship to population is unclear (OR) Not all variables are appropriately identified. No definition of sample or explanation of variables. Plan and Timeline (3.75) Collection plan is appropriate and CSP benchmarks (CSP Handbook), identifies collection tool, and is realistic Collection plan is appropriate but may not include benchmarks, (OR) does not clearly identify collection tool (OR) timeline may be unrealistic. Expression (3.75) Presentation is engaging, and communicates clearly using appropriate professional tone, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. No errors in APA format. Presentation communicates clearly with few errors in professional tone, grammar, spelling, or punctuation. Few errors in APA. Sample poorly defined and recruitment strategy or relationship to population is unclear (AND) Not all variables are appropriately defined. Data collection plan isn’t fully developed or does not align with CSP benchmarks. (AND/OR) Tool not clearly identified. (OR) No timeline discussed. Presentation has many distracting errors in professional tone, grammar, spelling, or punctuation. Many errors in APA format. Problem (2.5) Organization/CER (5) Implications (5) Sample and Variables (5) No discussion of data collection plan, tools, or timeline. Presentation does not communicate clearly. (OR) APA not used. Presentation Feedback Discussion (50) will be graded with the following rubric (deadline is Saturday): Original post (3.75) Exemplary 4 Fully responds to all questions in DB Prompt with insightful appraisal of evidence Proficient 3 Responds to all questions, but lacks development (AND) Clear statement of evidence and conclusion Initial post by Thursday of the assigned week Developing 2 Does not respond to all questions (OR) Response not in appropriate format. Emerging 1 Does not respond to all questions. (AND) Response not in appropriate format. Initial post by Friday of the assigned week Initial post after Friday of the assigned week. Timeliness of original posts (1.25) Initial post by Wednesday of the assigned week. Comments on Others’ Posts (3.75) Provides relevant and helpful feedback with insightful, clear, and thorough use of CER approach in discussions with classmates. Provides relevant and helpful feedback with use of CER approach in discussions with classmates. Responses lack substance and attempt to use CER approach in discussions with classmates. Poor response quality Engagement (1.25) Responses to at least three classmates (AND) Responses spread over more than two days Responds to fewer than three classmates (OR) Responses on two days. Expression and Format (2.5) Writing is graduate level and engaging. (AND) Written responses communicate clearly using appropriate professional tone, grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Writing is graduate level and engaging. (AND) Written responses may not communicate clearly, use appropriate professional tone, or there may be a few errors grammar, spelling, and punctuation without detracting from readability. Responds to two classmates on two days (OR) all responses on one day Writing may not be graduate level. (OR) Written responses do not communicate clearly, use appropriate professional tone, or there are several errors grammar, spelling, and punctuation, detracting from overall readability. Responds to one classmate on one day (OR) does not respond to classmates. Poor writing quality, poor communication and unprofessional tone. (OR) Extensive errors in spelling, grammar, or punctuation that detract from the readability. Sample Draft Analysis Plan Problem • Increase in type 2 diabetes amongst children ages 10 to 17. • Increased consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages, leading to obesity and type 2 diabetes. • 4.7 million youths ages 6 to 17 years are at risk for becoming overweight or are overweight (Berry, Urban & Grey, 2006). • According to Creasey (2013), “We are in the midst of a youth diabetes epidemic that is perpetuated by all these sugary drinks”. Claim Providing an educational program for children 10-17 that will help to decrease the consumption of sugary drinks by 20% thereby helping to prevent subsequent development of obesity and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Evidence • Consumption of carbonated sugary drinks produced a modest reduction in the number of carbonated drinks consumed, which was associated with a reduction in overweight children and obese children. • Total carbonated drinks: Control group • Mbefore = 1.6 (SDbefore = 0.6) and Mafter = 1.8 (SDafter = 0.6). CI= 0.2 [-0.2, 0.5], p = 0.4. • Intervention group • Mbefore = 1.9 (SDbefore =0.5) and Mafter = 1.3 (SDafter = 0.6). CI= 0.6 [-1.0,-0.1], p = .02. Reasoning • Consumption of carbonated beverages over three days decreased in the intervention group (those who received education) when compared to the control group. • The change was statistically significant based upon the before and after comparison of means between the two groups. • Therefore, the claim is supported. Implications • The results of this study will help to generalize: • a reduction of type 2 diabetes amongst children and adolescents. • an increase in quality of life (QOL) in children and family members. • a reduction in overall health care costs. • improved patient satisfaction outcomes. • improved clinical patient outcomes. • a decrease in obesity amongst children. • a decrease in soda and other sugary drink consumption. • improve overall health in the population. Sample • 50 children from a local school will be selected for 2 groups from a random sample. 1 control group and 1 intervention group (boys and girls). • Descriptive statistics will be compared for generalization. • A consent form will be available for parents of all minor participants. • Sample will include children between ages 10 and 17. Variables • Dependent variable (DV): the development of Type 2 diabetes and obesity. • Independent variable (IV): Sugary drink consumption. • Subjects: Children ages 10 to 17. • Results: Demographics: Children from Oakland, California Unified School District. Check in with doctoral chair 701 Complete Data Collection Begin data analysis 707 Spring II BUIRB approval Spring I Fall II Submit IRB application Data Analysis & synthesis Write Project Up 709 Summer I Plan & Timeline Project Oral Defense 708 References Creasey, A. (2013, October, 29). Sugar high: Drinks tied to obesity face greater scrutiny. Appeal-Democrat. Retrieved from http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/local_news/sugar-highdrinks/article_4bc2663a-4063-11e3-93c-0019bb30f31a.html James, J., Thomas, P., Cavan, D., and Kerr, D. (2004). Preventing Childhood Obesity by Reducing Consumption of Carbonated Drinks: Cluster Randomized Control Trial. The British Medical Journal, 328, 1237. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38077.458438.EE Milik, V. S., Popkin, B. M., Bray, G. A., Despres, J., and Hu, F. (2010). Sugar-Sweetened Beverages, Obesity, Type 2 diabetes Mellitus, and Cardiovascular Disease Risk. Circulation, Retrieved from Paynter, N. P., Yeh, H., Voutilainen, S., Schmidt, M., Heiss, G., Folsom, A. R., Brancati, F. L., and Kao, W. H. (2006). American Journal of Epidemiology, volume 164, Issue 11, pp. 1075-1084.
Purchase answer to see full attachment