find a qualitative AND a quantitative study article in the library, provide the APA reference and answer the questions to apprai

NRSE 4550 RUBRIC: MODULE 2: ASSESSMENT 4: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT – QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ARTICLE ANALYSIS (30 pts)

Last updated: 10/25/2017 © 2017 School of Nursing Ohio University Page 1 of 5

Criteria

Levels of Achievement Accomplished Needs

Improvement Not Acceptable

Question 1 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 2 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 3 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 4 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 5 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 6 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 7 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 8 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 9 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 10 0.5 to 0.5 points 0.25 to 0.25 0 to 0 points

NRSE 4550 RUBRIC: MODULE 2: ASSESSMENT 4: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT – QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ARTICLE ANALYSIS (30 pts)

Last updated: 10/25/2017 © 2017 School of Nursing Ohio University Page 2 of 5

Criteria

Levels of Achievement Accomplished Needs

Improvement Not Acceptable

answered in complete sentence

Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

points Provided answer not in complete sentence

Provided incorrect answer

Question 11 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 12 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 13 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 14 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 15 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 16 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 17 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 18 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

NRSE 4550 RUBRIC: MODULE 2: ASSESSMENT 4: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT – QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ARTICLE ANALYSIS (30 pts)

Last updated: 10/25/2017 © 2017 School of Nursing Ohio University Page 3 of 5

Criteria

Levels of Achievement Accomplished Needs

Improvement Not Acceptable

Question 19 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 20 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 21 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 22 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 23 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 24 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 25 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 26 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 27 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

NRSE 4550 RUBRIC: MODULE 2: ASSESSMENT 4: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT – QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ARTICLE ANALYSIS (30 pts)

Last updated: 10/25/2017 © 2017 School of Nursing Ohio University Page 4 of 5

Criteria

Levels of Achievement Accomplished Needs

Improvement Not Acceptable

Question 28 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 29 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 30 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 31 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 32 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 33 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 34 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 35 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

Question 36 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

NRSE 4550 RUBRIC: MODULE 2: ASSESSMENT 4: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENT – QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE ARTICLE ANALYSIS (30 pts)

Last updated: 10/25/2017 © 2017 School of Nursing Ohio University Page 5 of 5

Criteria

Levels of Achievement Accomplished Needs

Improvement Not Acceptable

Question 37 answered in complete sentence

0.5 to 0.5 points Provided correct answer in a complete sentence

0.25 to 0.25 points Provided answer not in complete sentence

0 to 0 points Provided incorrect answer

APA Citation and References

9 to 9.5 points Citations are made appropriately; formatted correctly in APA style in all instances; references page is complete and correctly formatted

1 to 4 points Very few citations are made appropriately or citations are not formatted correctly in APA style; references page is missing several sources or is not formatted correctly

0 to 0 points No citations are used or no attempt at APA style citation was made; references page is missing the majority of sources and/or is not formatted correctly, or is absent

Professionally written, no abbreviations, no spelling/ grammar errors

0 to 2 points One point deducted for each error up to two points.

European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 2016, Vol. 15(7) 513 –521 © The European Society of Cardiology 2015 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1474515115618569 cnu.sagepub.com

E U R O P E A N SOCIETY OF CARDIOLOGY ®

Introduction

An aging population and greater survival rates of patients with acute coronary events have increased the prevalence of individuals living with established coronary heart dis- ease (CHD) susceptible to recurrence.1 Evidence suggests that the disease process can be slowed or reversed through lifestyle changes.1,2 Despite this, several studies have reported poor disease-related knowledge in patients with CHD,3–5 that patients desire more information and support after discharge from the hospital6–8 and that they often fail to maintain lifestyle changes.9

European guidelines on cardiovascular disease preven- tion in clinical practice1 recommend health education

following discharge from the hospital to minimize adverse events. Patient education can increase knowledge and enhance behaviour changes10 and improve patients’

What is a good educator? A qualitative study on the perspective of individuals with coronary heart disease

Margrét H Svavarsdóttir1,2,3, Arun K Sigurdardottir3 and Aslak Steinsbekk1

Abstract Background: Patient views are especially important in patient education, as patient involvement is essential. However, no empirical research clarifies what knowledge, skills and competencies are needed for health professionals to competently serve as a good educator according to the patients themselves. Aim: To explore what qualities patients with coronary heart disease perceive in a good educator. Methods: A qualitative research method, with semi-structured individual interviews, was used in this study. Purposeful sampling was used to recruit participants from a general hospital in Iceland and in Norway. The data were analysed using systematic text condensation. Results: The participants included 17 patients who had been through a percutaneous coronary intervention and participated in formal patient education after discharge from hospital. The patients saw a good educator as one who they feel is trustworthy and who individualizes the education to patients’ needs and context and translates general information to their personal situation in lay language. Building trust was dependent on the patients’ perceiving the educator to be knowledgeable and good at connecting with the individual patient, so that the patients feel they are being treated as a whole person with equality and respect. Conclusions: The patients perceived the capability of building trust and tailoring the education to the individual as the most prominent characteristics of a good educator. Training skills that facilitate patients’ trust, being observant of the patient and his learning needs and adjusting the patient education to individual needs and situations should be key objectives in health professionals’ training in patient education.

Keywords Professional competence, coronary disease, health educators, patient education as topic, secondary prevention, trust

Date received: 9 August 2015; accepted: 27 October 2015

1 Department of Public Health and General Practice, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway

2St Olavs Hospital, Trondheim University Hospital, Norway 3School of Health Sciences, University of Akureyri, Iceland

Corresponding author: Margrét Hrönn Svavarsdóttir, Department of Public Health and General Practice, NTNU, Postbox 8905 MTFS, 7491 Trondheim, Norway. Email: [email protected]; [email protected]

618569CNU0010.1177/1474515115618569European Journal of Cardiovascular NursingSvavarsdóttir et al. research-article2015

Original Article

514 European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing 15(7)

health-related quality of life.11 Educating patients with CHD and their families is an integral component of sec- ondary prevention, in which health professionals play a key role. It is therefore essential that health professionals have the competence necessary to serve effectively as edu- cators for patients with CHD. Competence in patient edu- cation refers to proficient use of communication skills, such as the provision of information, advice and behaviour modification methods, to influence the patients’ knowl- edge, opinions, and health and illness behaviour.12 Yet, few studies13 have sought to show what competencies are needed to implement patient education for patients with CHD.

There is a growing recognition that health professionals can learn from patients, and the value of patient views is increasingly being recognized. Patient views are especially important in patient education, as patient involvement is essential. The value of utilizing the opinion of patients has been demonstrated in the development of patient educa- tional material,14 educational interventions15 and in some educational programmes the experiences of users are regarded as equally important as the contributions of the health professionals.16 Several studies have explored the educational needs and preferences of patients with CHD6– 8,17 and their disease experiences.18–20 Patients’ views on what competencies health professionals need to implement good patient education can help to determine the knowledge and skills needed to conduct effective education and can be used to improve health professionals’ competencies in creat- ing and implementing quality patient education. However, no empirical research clarifies what competencies a good educator needs according to the patients themselves.

The aim of this study was to explore what patients with CHD who have participated in patient education after a percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) perceive as a good educator.

Methods

A qualitative research method with semi-structured face- to-face individual interviews was used in this study. This is an appropriate method of data collection when the enquir- ies relate to personal experience and perceptions21 and is thus well suited to provide an understanding of the issues of importance to patients.

Sample and recruitment

The aim was to recruit Icelandic and Norwegian individu- als with CHD who had undergone PCI less than 24 months earlier. Participants were required to have received formal patient education after their hospital stay, to be ⩾ 18 years of age and to be able to understand the study and study procedure. There were no further exclusion criteria. Participants were selected with purposeful sampling, to

ensure variation in age, gender and time since the PCI. To further increase the variation in the sample, patients from two countries were invited to participate. To recruit patients, nurses in one general hospital in Iceland and one in Norway introduced the study to eligible participants, handed out invitation letters and enrolled volunteers.

Data collection

The data were collected between June 2014 and May 2015. The interviews were conducted by the first author at a location chosen by the participants. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. The average inter- view duration was 44 min (range 17–69 min).

To ensure that all participants revealed their view on the same topic, an interview guide was used. The interview guide was developed by the first author with the help of a literature review, own insight and experience with the sub- ject, and a critical review and discussions with co-authors and a team of experienced researchers. The main question in the interviews was: Could you please describe your experience with patient education after your CHD inci- dent? The main question was followed up with open ques- tions about the participants’ experiences with patient education after the PCI, during and after their hospital stay, what they perceived as a good educator, what they appreci- ated the most in educators’ ‘performance’ and what they perceived as positive and negative aspects of the patient education they received.

The interview guide was revised after each interview and adjusted according to the themes that appeared in the previous interviews. Early in the data sampling, it became apparent that trust played a large role in the interviews, so a question about trust in patient education and what enhanced patient–provider trust was added. Other changes were minor and related to clarity of wording and sequence of questions.

Ethical considerations

The participants received written and oral information about the study, and they were informed that they could withdraw at any time and that confidentiality was assured. Written informed consent was obtained from participants before the interviews were conducted.

The study was conducted in accordance with the Helsinki declaration22 and was approved by the regional committee for medical research ethics in Norway (2014/947) and the ethics committee of Akureyri Hospital (3/2014) in Iceland.

Analysis

The data were analysed using systematic text condensation as described by Malterud.23 We began the iterative

Svavarsdóttir et al. 515

four-step process after the first interview by reading the transcribed interviews to obtain a general impression and identify preliminary themes. In the second step, we sys- tematically reviewed the transcriptions line by line, identi- fied the units of meaning, and classified and sorted them into themes. In the third step we sorted the units of mean- ing into subgroups and reduced the content into a distilla- tion of rephrased quotations, trying to maintain as much as possible of the original terminology used by the partici- pants. In the last step, we summarized the contents of each code group into generalized descriptions and concepts.

Analysis was carried out by the first author and dis- cussed and negotiated with the co-authors. To avoid pre- conceptions affecting the reflexivity of the results, we critically discussed the interpretation of the interviews between the co-authors and a team of experienced research- ers. Recruitment and interviewing of participants were continued until no new themes were found. The analysis was validated by reviewing the original transcripts of each interview to make sure that they were reflected in the results. The Icelandic and Norwegian citations were trans- lated into English by the first author and validated by co- authors. The citations that best illustrated the themes were chosen to illustrate the results. Those are marked with the participant’s sex, age, whether they underwent a primary (p-PCI) or elective PCI (e-PCI) and time from the PCI.

Results

Seventeen Icelandic and Norwegian patients with CHD, eight women and nine men, who had undergone PCI were

interviewed. The average length from the PCI was 6.5 months (1.5–19 months). Their average age was 59 years (range 47–72) (Table 1).

The findings were categorized into two themes that sum up the participants’ description of a good educator (Table 2). Trustworthy reflects the two main factors that contribute to the patients’ trust in the educator: that the educator is knowledgeable with professional credibility and is able to connect with the patients such that the patients feel treated as whole persons with equality and respect. The patients also wanted good educators to be able to individualize education to their individual needs and context.

Trustworthy

Knowledgeable. To trust the educators and be willing to follow their advice, the patients said that they needed to feel that the educators knew what they were talking about. This included the educator being confident and competent in explaining and answering questions. It was also beneficial if the information was congruent with what other health professionals had told them, and the patients’ prior knowledge or beliefs were also used to determine the educator’s reliability. If the patients suspected information to be based on convenience or personal opinions rather than scientific knowledge, they said they tended to lose faith in that educator. Speaking honestly about the patients’ s

Who We Are

We are a professional custom writing website. If you have searched a question and bumped into our website just know you are in the right place to get help in your coursework.

Do you handle any type of coursework?

Yes. We have posted over our previous orders to display our experience. Since we have done this question before, we can also do it for you. To make sure we do it perfectly, please fill our Order Form. Filling the order form correctly will assist our team in referencing, specifications and future communication.

Is it hard to Place an Order?

1. Click on the “Place order tab at the top menu or “Order Now” icon at the bottom and a new page will appear with an order form to be filled.

2. Fill in your paper’s requirements in the "PAPER INFORMATION" section and click “PRICE CALCULATION” at the bottom to calculate your order price.

3. Fill in your paper’s academic level, deadline and the required number of pages from the drop-down menus.

4. Click “FINAL STEP” to enter your registration details and get an account with us for record keeping and then, click on “PROCEED TO CHECKOUT” at the bottom of the page.

5. From there, the payment sections will show, follow the guided payment process and your order will be available for our writing team to work on it.