You will develop a 9- to 12-page paper that outlines a health advocacy campaign designed to promote policies to improve the health of a population of your choice. This week, you will establish the framework for your campaign by identifying a population health concern of interest to you. You will then provide an overview of how you would approach advocating for this issue. In Week 9, you will consider legal and regulatory factors that have an impact on the issue and finally, in Week 10, you will identify ethical concerns that you could face as an advocate. Specific details for each aspect of this paper are provided each week. The Final Paper will be due in Week 10. This paper will serve as the Portfolio Application for the course.
Before you begin, review the complete Assignment.
This week, begin developing your health advocacy campaign by focusing on the following:
To prepare for this final portion of your paper:
Review provisions 7, 8, and 9 of the ANA Code of Ethics in relation to advocacy for population health.Reflect on the ethical considerations you may need to take into account in your advocacy campaign.Research the ethical considerations and lobbying laws relevant to the location where your advocacy campaign will occur.Consider potential ethical dilemmas you might face in your campaign.To complete: Revise and combine parts one and two of your previous papers and add the following:
Explain any ethical dilemmas that could arise during your advocacy campaign, and how you would resolve them.Describe the ethics and lobbying laws that are applicable to your advocacy campaign.Evaluate the special ethical challenges that are unique to the population you are addressing.Provide a cohesive summary for your paper.Reminder: You will submit one cogent paper that combines the previous applications (Parts One and Two) plus the new material.
Your paper should be about 10 pages of content, not including the title page and references.Rubric Detail
A rubric lists grading criteria that instructors use to evaluate student work. Your instructor linked a rubric to this item and made it available to you. Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Content
Top of Form
Name: NURS_5050_Week_07_Application_Rubric
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Quality of Work Submitted: The extent of which work meets the assigned criteria and work reflects graduate level critical and analytic thinking.
Points Range: 27 (27%) – 30 (30%)
Assignment exceeds expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 75% containing exceptional breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics.
Points: 25 (25%)
Points Range: 24 (24%) – 26 (26%)
Assignment meets expectations. All topics are addressed with a minimum of 50% containing good breadth and depth about each of the assignment topics.
Feedback:
I think I get your general idea but your paper was very vague as if you haven’t fully developed your ideas.
Points Range: 21 (21%) – 23 (23%)
Assignment meets most of the expectations. One required topic is either not addressed or inadequately addressed.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 20 (20%)
Assignment superficially meets some of the expectations. Two or more required topics are either not addressed or inadequately addressed.
Quality of Work Submitted: The purpose of the paper is clear.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
A clear and comprehensive purpose statement is provided which delineates all required criteria.
Points: 4 (4%)
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Purpose of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Purpose of the assignment is vague or off topic.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
No purpose statement was provided.
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extend to which the work reflects the student’s ability to: Understand and interpret the assignment’s key concepts.
Points Range: 9 (9%) – 10 (10%)
Demonstrates the ability to critically appraise and intellectually explore key concepts.
Points: 8 (8%)
Points Range: 8 (8%) – 8 (8%)
Demonstrates a clear understanding of key concepts.
Points Range: 7 (7%) – 7 (7%)
Shows some degree of understanding of key concepts.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Shows a lack of understanding of key concepts, deviates from topics.
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extend to which the work reflects the student’s ability to: Apply and integrate material in course resources (i.e. video, required readings, and textbook) and credible outside resources.
Points: 20 (20%)
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
Demonstrates and applies exceptional support of major points and integrates 2 or more credible outside sources, in addition to 2-3 course resources to suppport point of view.
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Integrates specific information from 1 credible outside resource and 2-3 course resources to support major points and point of view.
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Minimally includes and integrates specific information from 2-3 resources to support major points and point of view.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
Includes and integrates specific information from 0 to 1 resoruce to support major points and point of view.
Assimilation and Synthesis of Ideas: The extend to which the work reflects the student’s ability to: Synthesize (combines various components or different ideas into a new whole) material in course resources (i.e. video, required readings, textbook) and outside, credible resources by comparing different points of view and highlighting similarities, differences, and connections.
Points: 19 (19%)
Points Range: 18 (18%) – 20 (20%)
Synthesizes and justifies (defends, explains, validates, confirms) information gleaned from sources to support major points presented. Applies meaning to the field of advanced nursing practice.
Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%)
Summarizes information gleaned from sources to support major points, but does not synthesize.
Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%)
Identifies but does not interpret or apply concepts, and/or strategies correctly; ideas unclear and/or underdeveloped.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 13 (13%)
Rarely or does not interpret, apply, and synthesize concepts, and/or strategies.
Written Expression and Formatting Paragraph and Sentence Structure: Paragraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are clearly structured and carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance.
Points: 5 (5%)
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity 80% of the time.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity 60%- 79% of the time.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for structure, flow, continuity and clarity < 60% of the time.
Written Expression and Formatting English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors.
Points: 4 (4%)
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding.
Written Expression and Formatting The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, margins, indentations, page numbers, running head, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%)
Uses correct APA format with no errors.
Points: 4 (4%)
Points Range: 4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Contains a few (1-2) APA format errors.
Points Range: 3.5 (3.5%) – 3.5 (3.5%)
Contains several (3-4) APA format errors.
Points Range: 0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
Raw Total: 89.00000 (of 100.00000)
Name:NURS_5050_Week_07_Application_Rubric
Bottom of Form
Exit
ExitRunning head: PART 2 ADVOCACY CAMPAIGN 1
PART 2 ADVOCACY CAMPAIGN 4
Part 2 Advocacy Campaign
Renee Lucci
Walden University, NURS-6050N
April 15th, 2018
Part 2 Advocacy Campaign
Stigma towards people with mental illnesses exists at the individual, organizational, group, and institutional levels in the American society. The stigma has affected patients negatively as most of them delay or refuse to seek medical services. In the past, the government has enacted various policies and laws to try to reduce the stigma. However, discrimination is still a problem among the people with psychological issues. The purpose of this paper is to propose the enactment of a policy to end mental health stigma among high school students.
Creation of New Legislation
The strategy is to recommend the creation of a new policy that would ensure high school students with mental disorders do not face discrimination. Essentially, the legislature would require every state in the country to develop a policy to initiate advocacy campaigns against mental health stigma. The teachers and the students would receive training on psychological disorders. Therefore, the policy would ensure both the teachers and the students change their attitudes and behaviors towards the mentally ill. Well, I don’t think education can “ensure” a change in attitudes and behaviors of any kind. Training would be carried out using various methods such as social media and videos. Currently, some states already have policies that try to reduce discrimination of those with mental conditions (Hersen & Sturmey, 2013). Nonetheless, the majority of the states do not have such policies and the existing are not exclusively targeting stigma in high schools. Most people develop either positive or negative attitudes as teenagers hence the need to teach them at a young age.
Impact of Existing Laws on Proposed Advocacy
The existing regulations on mental health are likely to affect the proposed policy. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is a regulation focusing on the rights of young people with both physical and mental disabilities. The law does that by ensuring that the youths with disabilities have access to free public education (Office on Women’s Health, 2010). Besides, according to the act, schools have to address the unique needs that students have so that they could succeed. The proposed policy encourages students and teachers to accept the teenagers struggling with mental disorders. As a result, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would assist in the implementation of the proposed policy. The act makes schools accept more students with mental disabilities including illnesses thus the stigma should reduce. Besides, interacting with many classmates who have mental disorders is an effective way of minimizing prejudice.
Influencing Legislators Using the “Three Legs” of Lobbying
The legislators must be convinced of the necessity of the proposed policy, and the three legs is an effective method of influencing them. The first stage of the technique is the inclusion of the professional lobbyists who are the representative of groups with special interests (Milstead, 2016). In this case, the input of the American Nurses Association (ANA) and the American Psychiatric Nurses Association (APNA) is necessary. These associations have nurses who are experts in mental health conditions and will persuade the policymakers to pass the regulation. I’m still not sure exactly what you are trying to pass. The “three legs” technique also consists of the grassroots lobbyists who are the constituents of the legislators. The step is vital in creating a network of people to support the proposed policy. For instance, approaching the media, parents of children with mental illnesses, school directors, and other educators would develop grassroots supporters. Moreover, the grassroots supporters will be educated on the adverse effect of stigma on the teenagers with mental conditions. The grassroots supporters must also understand the lengthy process of policymaking and the need to develop strong relationships and is committed to the campaign.
Finally, money plays a fundamental role in the lobbying process. Without adequate finances to support the advocacy campaigns, it is difficult to influence the legislators (Milstead, 2016). Therefore, money would be raised from the nursing professional organizations and the grassroots supporters. The biggest mistake that nurses sometimes make is ignoring the importance of financial support in advocacy campaigns. The organizers of the campaign to end mental health stigma in high schools are committed to raising the necessary finances. The ANA and the APNA offered financial support to advocacy efforts in the past.
Anticipated Obstacles and Ways of Overcoming Them
One of the obstacles that might affect the legislative processes the timing of the advocacy campaigns. The likelihood of influencing the policymakers depends on the timing of the political climate. Milstead (2016) claimed that nurses should be smart and politically savvy to succeed in lobbying. Hence, the best time to approach the legislators would be during the election period when policymakers are campaigning. Another challenge is lack of adequate finances to support the legislative process. A significant amount of funds is required to educate the grassroots members and to approach the policymakers. Seeking sponsorships and partnerships with other interested healthcare organizations, businesses, NGOs, and famous personalities would raise the required finances.
In brief, developing a new policy would be useful in minimizing mental illness stigma in schools because the existing laws have not adequately addressed the issue. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act would have a positive influence on the campaign. Moreover, using the “three legs” technique would be useful in seeking the help of the legislators. The technique involves raising finances and using both professional and grassroots lobbyists. The legislative procedure might be affected by challenges such as timing and inadequate funds, but effective strategies would overcome the obstacles.
References
Hersen, M., & Sturmey, P. (2013). Handbook of evidence-based practice in clinical psychology, adult disorders. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley.
Milstead, J. A. (2016). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (5th ed.). Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.
Office on Women’s Health. (2010, March 29). Americans with Disabilities Act and mental illness. Retrieved from https://www.womenshealth.gov/mental-health/your-rights/americans-disability-act.html
