Response post!

please quickly respond to this discussion post making sure you follow the instructions and rubric! No plagiarism or AI use please!

Rubric: CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points)

20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion 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. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion 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. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion 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. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion 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. • Posts on same day.

20 pts  

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

20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion 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. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion 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. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion 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. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day.

20 pts  

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

10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion 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 ptsGoodDiscussion 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 ptsFairDiscussion 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 ptsPoorDiscussion 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.

Instructions: Post at least two substantive responses to peers in a different group who analyzed at least one different article in their initial post. Include information from the Learning Resources in your responses as appropriate. You may expand on each peer’s posting with additional insight and resources about study designs, ask a question to further the discussion, or offer polite disagreement or critique supported with evidence. You may also make a suggestion or comment that guides or facilitates the discussion. At least one of your response posts should address the applicability of observational studies for improving population health status. Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students.

Discussion post:  

Whittle and Diaz-Artiles (2020) conducted this study to investigate why COVID-19 rates varied significantly across different areas of New York City during the early days of the pandemic. They found that neighborhood characteristics, including younger dependents, increased population density, lower middle-class households, and a higher number of African American residents rather than Caucasian residents, were associated with increased numbers of COVID cases (Whittle and Diaz-Artiles, 2020). This study encompassed a large group of individuals by utilizing 177 zip code tabulation areas, covering 99.9% of New York City's population (Whittle and Diaz-Artiles). This ecological model was a suitable choice for studying this population, and they employed a mixed model to thoroughly assess the population. These researchers considered many variables, including age, population density, household income, race/ethnicity, and other socioeconomic factors, to complete the study. This study has a strong evidence-based background, identifying factors that contributed to the increased number of COVID cases. I believe that by utilizing the ecological model, they were able to more effectively account for and analyze variables to establish connections between them and the number of COVID cases. However, it seems that this mostly addressed structural factors and not socioeconomic factors to establish good connections. Most of the conclusions drawn seem appropriate considering what I know about the COVID data. New York City is highly populated, and yet it was still able to cover most of its residents, providing a solid basis for the data and results.

                                                                                             Article 2

     Spector et al. (2020) investigated the health-related quality of life among individuals who are chronically homeless, comparing it to that of those who can live in permanent supportive housing. Permanent supportive housing encompasses both fixed-site housing and scattered-site housing, in which individuals are housed within the community (Spector et al., 2020). This study also deals with individuals who have supportive services such as the Assertive Community Treatment team and those who lack these supportive services. Sampling was completed using the SF-36 to yield results, including the Physical Component Score and the Mental Component Summary score, to assess how individuals are coping. These researchers also studied data on demographics, different health behaviors, housing conditions, and symptoms, including those of depression (Spector et al., 2020). The study found that the availability of supportive services was not associated with an improved health-related quality of life in these individuals. Fixed sit housing was found to aid in mental well-being and improve scores in this area. Physical health was more dependent on personal factors such as age, disability, and mental health status. This study demonstrates that mental health can significantly impact long-term quality of life, and that factors such as housing type, support services, and symptom monitoring may play a crucial role in promoting quality of life. In my opinion, this study had more variables and was more difficult to fully assess the link between permanent supportive housing and its impact on physical and mental health and well-being. Given the circumstances, however, I believe this was a suitable analysis type for this study and provided insight into what might aid in improving these factors in our chronically homeless population.

                                                                                             References

Whittle, R. S., Diaz-Artiles, A. (2020). An ecological study of socioeconomic predictors in detection of COVID-19 cases across neighborhoods in New York CityLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. BMC Medicine, 18 (1),Article 271. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-020-01731-6

Spector, A. L., Quinn, K. G., McAuliffe, T. L., DiFranceisco, W., Bendixen, A., Dickson-Gomez, J. (2020). Health-related quality of life and related factors among chronically homeless adults living in different permanent supportive housing models: A cross-sectional studyLinks to an external site.Links to an external site.. Quality of Life Research: An International Journal of Quality-of-Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation , 29 (8), 20512061. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02482-wLinks to an external site.