Policy, Politics, and Global Health Trends – C159
The submission provides an insightful discussion on addressing vaccination rates in schools. Utilitarianism is competently articulated as one of the ethical principles that underpin the perspective presented in this submission. Tim Scott, United States Senator from South Carolina, is specifically recognized as the decision maker to receive the policy brief. The proposal provides a strategic discussion of the challenges of addressing the public policy and the persuasive course of action for Senator Scott to address the challenges. The Health Department and local school districts are strategically identified as the collaborating organizations for the bottom-up approach. The proposal provides a clear discussion of the strengths and challenges of the two approaches. The top-down approach is identified as the most effective approach. However, the summary of expressed interest is incomplete. A discussion of the relevance of the issue is supported by only one source of academically appropriate literature published within the last five years and an explanation of why the policy proposal requires the decision makers attention only cites one piece of nursing literature. A discussion of how the success of the top-down approach will be evaluated requires further development. Also, a discussion related to why the organization has expressed interest in the selected policy was not described, and a discussion of how to approach the health departments and school districts to address the policy proposal is not clearly developed. A logical discussion of the possible roles and responsibilities of the organization members, including problem-solving and capacity building-roles was unable to be located. Lastly, an evaluation plan that utilizes the identified CBPR principles is unclear, and sources require revision to demonstrate competency.
. Articulation of Response (clarity, organization, mechanics)
Highly Competent
A1. Public Policy Issue
Highly Competent
A1a. Issue Selection
Highly Competent
A1b. Issue Relevance
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited support, of the relevance of this public policy issue to health or the nursing profession, using 2 pieces of academically appropriate literature from the last five years.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
A solid summary of the issue of the need for childhood immunizations and the impact upon the community has been included, and one scholarly support citation has been noted. However, a second piece of academically appropriate literature from the last five years could not be located.
A1c. Financial Impact
Competent
A2. Personal Values
Competent
A2a. Ethical Principle or Theory
Competent
B1. Decision Maker
Highly Competent
B1a. Explanation
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of why the public policy requires the decision maker’s attention, using limited relevant nursing research from the last five years to support the position.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
A general discussion regarding why the policy requires the attention of Senator Scott is presented. It is evident that for this aspect, only one relevant nursing research study from the past five years to support the position is cited. Please provide a second research study published within the past five years.
B2. Challenges
Competent
B3. Options/Interventions
Competent
B4. Course of Action
Competent
B5. Success of Policy Brief
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of how the candidate will evaluate the success of the policy brief (a top-down approach).
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
The submission provides a reasonable discussion regarding the initial success of the policy proposal as to when the policy is passed into law. A discussion that addresses how the policy brief will be evaluated using the top-down approach is unclear.
C1. Identified Organization or Community
Highly Competent
C1a. Summary of Expressed Interest
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical summary, with limited detail, of evidence supporting why the organization or community has expressed interest in the selected public policy issue.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
The public health departments and school districts appear to share an interest in supporting this policy brief. However, the specifics outlining why the identified organizations have expressed interest in the policy brief requires further development.
C2. CBPR Principles
Highly Competent
C2a. Approach and Collaboration
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical explanation, with limited detail, of how the candidate could approach and collaborate with the organization or community.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
The submission provides information on how the candidate will approach and collaborate with the two identified organization. However, the discussion addresses a local approach and collaboration. The policy proposal is for a national policy mandate. It is unclear how the collaboration on a local level will enhance the development of a national policy supporting childhood immunizations.
C2b. Goal Alignment
Competent
C2c. Action Steps
Competent
C2d. Roles/Responsibilities
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of the possible roles/responsibilities of community or organization members, including problem-solving and capacity-building roles.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
The roles/responsibilities of the identified organizations in moving the policy forward once it has been passed into law are logically presented. However, an adequately detailed discussion of the possible roles/responsibilities of the organization members (including problem-solving and capacity-building roles) to present and pass the federal policy proposal is not apparent.
C2e. Key Elements of Evaluation Plan
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentThe candidate provides a logical discussion, with limited detail, of key elements of developing a collaborative evaluation plan, using CBPR principles.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
Clearly defined CBPR principles have been included in this assessment and support learning opportunities and utilization of community resources. However, details as to how these align with a clear evaluation plan could not be determined.
C2f. Community/Organization Plan
Competent
D1. Strengths of Each Approach
Competent
D2. Challenges of Each Approach
Competent
D3. Most Effective Approach
Competent
- Sources
Minimally Competent
Minimally CompetentWhen the candidate uses sources, the candidate provides appropriate in-text citations and references with major deviations from APA style.
EVALUATOR COMMENTS: ATTEMPT 1
This aspect will be further evaluated when resubmitted due to probable reference sources addition. Of note, there are significant deviations in APA style in the current submission. For specific instruction on in-text and reference list citations, please click on the link located in the rubric item “Sources.” Please contact the WGU Writing Center if further assistance is needed.
