Unit 3 Assignment: Consumer Health Information Website Analysis Paper

Submit Assignment

• DueJul 26by11:59pm


• Points330


• Submittinga text entry box or a file upload

Instructions

The purpose of this assignment is to apply knowledge of reliable and valid information sources to patient education in clinical nursing practice and to evaluate patient educational materials posted on the internet.

The assignment for this week consists of3-5 pagepaper evaluating consumer/patient health information on the web. You will be required to find a website that is designed to provide health information to the consumer/patient and analyze it according to the criteria described below. You are required to report your analysis in a formal course paper.

• Choose a health topic/issue in which you want to educate your patient/consumer/family about (diabetes, heart failure, teenage pregnancy, depression, etc…) and briefly describe in your paper :
  
  
  • An explanation of your health topic/issue and why you selected it (Significance of the topic/issue selected).
  
  
  
  

• Find an internet source that is designed to provide information/education about your selected health topic/issue and analyze the following:

• 
  
  
  
  • describe the website (main title, information)
  
  
  • describe the overall impression about the design of the website (organization, easiness of finding information, easiness to read, table of content/index, colors, font, does it look professional).
  
  
  • Who is sponsoring the website?
  
  
  • How often is the site updated? When was the site created? Was it updated recently?
  
  
  • Does it state that the content is not medical advice?
  
  
  • Who is the intended audience? Does the site have a clear target audience? Is the information presented appropriate to the target population?
  
  
  
  

• How credible are the information presented:

• 
  
  
  
  • Is there any evidence that the author of the web information has some authority in the field about which she or he is providing information? Who is responsible for the information? What are the author's credentials? Is a mechanism in place for you to contact the author?
  
  
  • Are there clues that the author/s are biased? For example, is he/she selling or promoting a product? Is the author taking a personal stand on a social/political issue or is the author being objective ? Bias is not necessarily "bad," but the connections should be clear.
  
  
  • Does the information have a complete list of works cited, which reference credible, authoritative sources? Is the information valid and supported by evidence? Are omissions noted? Is the author's point of view objective and unbiased?
  
  
  • Is the information accurate? Any inconsistencies, inaccuracies, errors, false information, etc…
  
  
  • Are there links that point to additional, valuable resources with minimum effort?
  
  
  
  

• Adequacy:

• 
  
  
  
  • Over all, does the site provide consumer/patient education? is the education adequate or does the consumer have to go somewhere else to find answers about the topic?
  
  
  
  

• Sophistication of the information:

• 
  
  
  
  • Is this source too elementary, too technical, too advanced, or just right?
  
  
  • Is the purpose of the site clearly stated? Does the site match its purpose? Is the site intended to educate or sell?
  
  
  
  

• Submit a3-5 pageanalysis paper following APA format (include title page, running head, introduction, headings, Summary paragraph, reference page, in-text citation). You need to includeat least 5 reliable and current (within the last 5 years)referencesof whichatleast 3 journal articles.
  

Supporting Materials:

• Medical Library Association (2019).Find good health information(Links to an external site.). [Website]. Retrieved from https://www.mlanet.org/resources/userguide.html.


• Montecino, V. (1998).Criteria to evaluate the credibility of WWW resources(Links to an external site.). [Website]. Retrieved from http://mason.gmu.edu/~montecin/web-eval-sites.htm.

Estimated time to complete: 6 hours

Rubric

NU525 Unit 3 Assignment: Data-to-Wisdom Continuum Analysis PaperNU525 Unit 3 Assignment: Data-to-Wisdom Continuum Analysis Paper

Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTopicNU525-CO2	40.0ptsLevel 5Identifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic that addresses potentially significant aspects of the topic. 35.2ptsLevel 4Identifies a creative, focused, and manageable topic that addresses important and notable aspects of the topic. 32.0ptsLevel 3Identifies a focused and manageable/doable topic that appropriately addresses relevant aspects of the topic. 28.8ptsLevel 2Identifies a topic that while manageable/doable, is too narrowly focused and leaves out relevant aspects of the topic. 25.6ptsLevel 1Identifies a topic that is far too general and wide-ranging as to be manageable and doable. 0.0ptsLevel 0Does not clearly identify a topic that is relative to the assignment.	40.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeExisting Knowledge, Research, and/or ViewsNU525-CO2	40.0ptsLevel 5Synthesizes in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches. 35.2ptsLevel 4Examines in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches. 32.0ptsLevel 3Explains in-depth information from relevant sources representing various points of view/approaches. 28.8ptsLevel 2Relates information from relevant sources representing limited points of view/approaches. 25.6ptsLevel 1Relates information from irrelevant sources representing limited points of view/ approaches. 0.0ptsLevel 0Information is irrelevant to the topic. No clear point of view/approaches.	40.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeDesign Process	55.0ptsLevel 5All elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are skillfully developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be synthesized from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines. 49.5ptsLevel 4Most critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are appropriately developed. Appropriate methodology or theoretical frameworks may be analyzed from across disciplines or from relevant sub-disciplines. 44.0ptsLevel 3Some critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are appropriately developed, however, more subtle elements are ignored or unaccounted for. 38.5ptsLevel 2Critical elements of the methodology or theoretical framework are missing, incorrectly developed, or unfocused. 33.0ptsLevel 1Inquiry design demonstrates a misunderstanding of the methodology or theoretical framework. 0.0ptsLevel 0The design of the paper is not based upon a clear methodology or framework.	55.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAnalysisNU525-CO2	75.0ptsLevel 5Organizes and synthesizes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus. 67.5ptsLevel 4Organizes and analyzes evidence to reveal insightful patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus. 60.0ptsLevel 3Organizes evidence to reveal important patterns, differences, or similarities related to focus. 52.5ptsLevel 2Organizes evidence, but the organization is not effective in revealing important patterns, differences, or similarities. 45.0ptsLevel 1Describes evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus. 0.0ptsLevel 0Lists evidence, but it is not organized and/or is unrelated to focus.	75.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeConclusion	30.0ptsLevel 5States a conclusion that is a logical extrapolation from the inquiry findings. 27.0ptsLevel 4States a conclusion that is a logical interpretation of the inquiry findings. 24.0ptsLevel 3States a conclusion focused solely on the inquiry findings. The conclusion arises specifically from and responds specifically to the inquiry findings. 21.0ptsLevel 2States a general conclusion that, because it is so general, also applies beyond the scope of the inquiry findings. 18.0ptsLevel 1States an ambiguous or unsupportable conclusion from inquiry findings. 0.0ptsLevel 0States an illogical conclusion from inquiry findings.	30.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLimitations and Implications	30.0ptsLevel 5Insightfully discusses in detail relevant and supported limitations and implications. 27.0ptsLevel 4Examines relevant and supported limitations and implications. 24.0ptsLevel 3Discusses relevant and supported limitations and implications. 21.0ptsLevel 2Presents relevant and supported limitations and implications. 18.0ptsLevel 1Presents limitations and implications, but they are unsupported. 0.0ptsLevel 0Presents limitations and implications, but they are irrelevant.	30.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWriting	30.0ptsLevel 5The paper exhibits a superior command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling. 27.0ptsLevel 4The paper exhibits a strong command of written English language conventions. The paper has no errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impair the flow of communication. 24.0ptsLevel 3The paper exhibits a command of written English language conventions. The paper has minor errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impact the flow of communication. 21.0ptsLevel 2The paper exhibits a limited command of written English language conventions. The paper has frequent errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that impede the flow of communication. 18.0ptsLevel 1The paper exhibits little command of written English language conventions. The paper has errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader to stop and reread parts of the writing to discern meaning. 0.0ptsLevel 0The paper does not demonstrate command of written English language conventions. The paper has multiple errors in mechanics, grammar, or spelling that cause the reader difficulty discerning the meaning.	30.0pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAPAPRICE-I	30.0ptsLevel 5The required APA elements are all included with correct formatting, including in-text citations and references. 27.0ptsLevel 4The required APA elements are all included with minor formatting errors, including in-text citations and references. 24.0ptsLevel 3The required APA elements are all included with multiple formatting errors, including in-text citations and references. 21.0ptsLevel 2The required APA elements are not all included and/or there are major formatting errors, including in-text citations and references. 18.0ptsLevel 1Several APA elements are missing. The errors in formatting demonstrate a limited understanding of APA guidelines, in-text-citations, and references. 0.0ptsLevel 0There is little to no evidence of APA formatting and/or there are no in-text citations and/or references.	30.0pts
Total Points:330.0

Unit 3 Discussion - Consumer Website Analysis" aria-describedby="msf0-previous-desc" style="color: rgb(45, 59, 69); background: rgb(245, 245, 245); border: 1px solid rgb(199, 205, 209); border-radius: 3px; transition: background-color 0.2s ease-in-out 0s; display: inline-block; position: relative; padding: 8px 14px; margin-bottom: 0px; font-size: 1rem; line-height: 20px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; cursor: pointer; overflow: hidden; text-shadow: none; user-select: none; float: left;">PreviousNext Module:

Unit 4 - Application of Informatics: Data and Records" style="float: right;">Next