Discussion: Week 4 Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully

Discussion: Week 4 Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully

Discussion: Week 4 Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully

Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.

Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.

ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Good News For Our New customers . We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us

For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.

RESOURCES

Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity.

Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.

WEEKLY RESOURCES

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 2, “Identifying Outcomes in Population-Based Nursing”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 8, “Experimental Study Designs”

Goldstein, C. E., Weijer, C., Brehaut, J. C., Fergusson, D. A., Grimshaw, J. M., Horn, A. R., & Taljaard, M. (2018). Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: A review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentationLinks to an external site.. BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0253-x

Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services. (n.d.). Developing researchLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/student-research/developing-research

EXAMPLES OF STUDIES UTILIZING EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY DESIGNS

These studies should be used as informative examples. Please locate another article on your own to use for the Discussion.

Hooshmand, M., & Foronda, C. (2018). Comparison of telemedicine to traditional face-to-face care for children with special needs: A quasiexperimental study. Telemedicine Journal and E-health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 24(6), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0116

Sawyer, A., Kaim, A., Le, H.-N., McDonald, D., Mittinty, M., Lynch, J., & Sawyer, M. (2019). The effectiveness of an app-based nurse-moderated program for new mothers with depression and parenting problems (eMums Plus): Pragmatic randomized controlled trialLinks to an external site.. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e13689. https://doi.org/10.2196/13689

Optional Resource

Dennis, C. L., Grigoriadis, S., Zupancic, J., Kiss, A., & Ravitz, P. (2020). Telephone-based nurse-delivered interpersonal psychotherapy for postpartum depression: Nationwide randomised controlled trialLinks to an external site.. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.275

TO PREPARE:

Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. (Tip: When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)

Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:

Purpose

Study population

Length of the trial

Data collection methods

Outcome measures

Results and conclusions

Ethical issues associated with the study

Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?

BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4

Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:

Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.

Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.

Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.

BY DAY 6 OF WEEK 4

Respond to at least two 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.

Make a suggestion 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.

LEARNING RESOURCES

Required Readings

Curley, A. L. C. (Ed.). (2020). Population-based nursing: Concepts and competencies for advanced practice (3rd ed.). Springer.

Chapter 2, “Identifying Outcomes in Population-Based Nursing”

Friis, R. H., & Sellers, T. A. (2021). Epidemiology for public health practice (6th ed.). Jones & Bartlett.

Chapter 8, “Experimental Study Designs”

Goldstein, C. E., Weijer, C., Brehaut, J. C., Fergusson, D. A., Grimshaw, J. M., Horn, A. R., & Taljaard, M. (2018). Ethical issues in pragmatic randomized controlled trials: A review of the recent literature identifies gaps in ethical argumentationLinks to an external site.. BMC Medical Ethics, 19(1), Article 14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12910-018-0253-x

Walden University Office of Research and Doctoral Services. (n.d.). Developing researchLinks to an external site.. https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/research-center/student-research/developing-research

EXAMPLES OF STUDIES UTILIZING EXPERIMENTAL AND QUASI-EXPERIMENTAL STUDY DESIGNS

These studies should be used as informative examples. Please locate another article on your own to use for the Discussion.

Hooshmand, M., & Foronda, C. (2018). Comparison of telemedicine to traditional face-to-face care for children with special needs: A quasiexperimental study. Telemedicine Journal and E-health: The Official Journal of the American Telemedicine Association, 24(6), 433–441. https://doi.org/10.1089/tmj.2017.0116

Sawyer, A., Kaim, A., Le, H.-N., McDonald, D., Mittinty, M., Lynch, J., & Sawyer, M. (2019). The effectiveness of an app-based nurse-moderated program for new mothers with depression and parenting problems (eMums Plus): Pragmatic randomized controlled trialLinks to an external site.. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e13689. https://doi.org/10.2196/13689

Optional Resource

Dennis, C. L., Grigoriadis, S., Zupancic, J., Kiss, A., & Ravitz, P. (2020). Telephone-based nurse-delivered interpersonal psychotherapy for postpartum depression: Nationwide randomised controlled trialLinks to an external site.. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 216(4), 189–196. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.2019.275

NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric

Criteria Ratings Pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points) Discussion post minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 10:59 pm CT. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 10:59 pm CT. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week’s learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Exceeds the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Meets the minimum requirements for discussion posts.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the minimum requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date at least in part.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Does not meet the requirements for discussion posts; has not posted by the due date and did not discuss late post timing with faculty.

20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points)

30 to >29.0 pts

Excellent

Initial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

29 to >23.0 pts

Good

Initial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings.

23 to >18.0 pts

Fair

Initial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence.

18 to >0 pts

Poor

Initial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided.
30 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • No response to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

19 to >15.0 pts

Good

Discussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Responds to questions posed by faculty.

15 to >12.0 pts

Fair

Discussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.

12 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Does not respond to questions posed by faculty.
20 pts

This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points)

10 to >9.0 pts

Excellent

Discussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

9 to >8.0 pts

Good

Discussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

8 to >6.0 pts

Fair

Discussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.

6 to >0 pts

Poor

Discussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints.
10 pts

Total Points: 100