Walden University – NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks
Walden University – NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks
NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks
Collaboration offers the advantage of other experiences and viewpoints to confirm or challenge your own. Discussions can do the same and for some topics, getting early feedback is especially valuable. This Discussion is one such example. As you dig into the science of translation and select a framework or model for your proposed EBP QI project, you can look to your class colleagues for a check on your choice and your reasoning.
To prepare NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks Paper:
- Review the Week 5 Learning Resources. Pay particular attention to the featured frameworks/models, below, in the White, Dudley-Brown, and Terhaar text.
- Identify the translation science framework or model that is most relevant to your practice problem from among the following three models and consider your reasoning:
- Roger’s Diffusion of Innovations (pp. 36–39);
- Knowledge-to-Action (pp. 42–45);
- Theory of Reasoned Action (pp. 66–67).
- Assess your understanding of “translation science” and how you would explain it in the context of evidence-based practice and quality improvement.
With these thoughts in mind …
By Day 3 of Week 5
Post an explanation of the translation science framework or model that you selected and explain why it is most relevant to your practice problem. Be specific and provide examples.
Read a selection of your colleagues’ posts.
By Day 6 of Week 5
Respond to at least two colleagues on 2 different days, with preference to colleagues who selected different translation science frameworks or models from the one you chose. Recommend another framework/model they might consider and/or clarify their explanation of translation science. Cite sources to support your posts.
Note: For this NURS 8114 Week 5 Translation Models and Frameworks Discussion, you are required to complete your initial post before you will be able to view and respond to your colleagues’ postings. Begin by clicking on the “Post to Discussion Question” link and then select “Create Thread” to complete your initial post. Remember, once you click on Submit, you cannot delete or edit your own posts, and you cannot post anonymously. Please check your post carefully before clicking on Submit!
Submission and Grading Information
Grading Criteria
Post by Day 3 of Week 5 and Respond by Day 6 of Week 5
NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks
Top of Form
Knowledge to Action framework with Substance Abuse Clients with a Mental Illness
Clients with a mental illness is reluctant to admit to having a substance abuse problem. Clients with a substance abuse problem is reluctant to acknowledging an underlying mental illness. In both cases, the Knowledge to action model is appropriate. The key to research with substance abuse/mental illness is acknowledgement of the problem, identifying the problem, implementing a plan and appropriate evaluations and outcomes.
According to White, Dudley-Brown & Terhaar (2019), the knowledge to action model (KTA), new knowledge is funneled through a process and stages until it is beneficial. With mental illness clients with substance abuse issues, the KTA model allows the client to adapt to new information about their illness, develop new ways of handling the disease process without the use of substance abuse and adapt positive resources and tools to deal with both mental illness and substance abuse.
References
White, K. M., Dudley-Brown, S., & Terhaar, M. F. (Eds.). (2019). Translation of evidence into nursing and healthcare (3rd ed.). Springer.
Katina
Top nursing paper writers on hand to assist you with assignment : NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks
Get assistance with your nursing paper
NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks Rubric Grading Criteria
| 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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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 |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely. Contains no grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Written concisely. May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors. Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Written somewhat concisely. May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors. |
Points Range: 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 |
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts main Discussion by due date. |
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
|
| First Response: Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
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. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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 |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting. |
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. |
|
| Second Response: Writing |
Points Range: 6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
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. |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
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. |
Points Range: 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. |
Points Range: 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 |
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation. Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date. |
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation. Does not post by due date. |
|
| Total Points: 100 | |||||
NURS 8114 Week 5 Discussion: Translation Models and Frameworks Paper Writing Help