RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY
jaydensonuse the attached info for this work
4 months ago
10
files (5)WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx
wk4epirubrics.docx
- Week4epimatHooshmandTelemedicine.pdf
- wk4epimateria-EBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.pdf
- wk4epiEBSCO-FullText-03_17_2026.html
WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx
RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY
Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.
Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.
For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
TO PREPARE:
· Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. ( Tip: When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)
· Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:
· Purpose
· Study population
· Length of the trial
· Data collection methods
· Outcome measures
· Results and conclusions
· Ethical issues associated with the study
· Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
· Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.
· Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.
· Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.
image1.jpeg
wk4epirubrics.docx
NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric
|
NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric |
||
|
Criteria |
Ratings |
Pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeRESPONSIVENESS TO DISCUSSION QUESTION (20 possible points): Discussion posts minimum requirements: The original posting must be completed by Day 3 at 11:59pm ET. Two response postings to two different peer original posts, on two different days, are required by Day 6 at 11:59pm ET. Faculty member inquiries require responses, which are not included in the peer posts. Your Discussion Board postings should be written in Standard Academic English and follow APA 7 style for format and grammar as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. Be sure to support the postings with specific citations from this week's learning resources as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) |
20 to >19.0 ptsExcellent• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and exceed the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. Goes beyond what is required in some meaningful way (e.g., the post contributes a new dimension, unearths something unanticipated) • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Detailed response to faculty. 19 to >15.0 ptsGood• Discussion postings and responses are responsive to and meet the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student responds to the question/s being asked or the prompt/s provided. • Demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Appropriate reply to faculty. 15 to >12.0 ptsFair• Discussion postings and responses are somewhat responsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • The student may not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Minimally demonstrates that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Brief response to faculty with minimal effort. 12 to >0 ptsPoor• Discussion postings and responses are unresponsive to the requirements of the Discussion instructions. • Does not clearly address the objectives of the discussion or the question/s or prompt/s. • Does not demonstrate that the student has read, viewed, and considered a variety of learning resources, as well as resources available through the Walden University library and other credible online resources (guidelines, expert opinions etc.) • Fails to respond to faculty inquiries. |
20 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTENT REFLECTION and MASTERY: Initial Post (30 possible points) |
30 to >29.0 ptsExcellentInitial Discussion posting: • Post demonstrates mastery and thoughtful/accurate application of content and/or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. 29 to >23.0 ptsGoodInitial Discussion posting: • Posts demonstrate some mastery and application of content, applicable skills, or strategies presented in the course. • Posts are substantive and reflective, with analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings and current credible evidence. • Initial post is supported by 3 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. 23 to >18.0 ptsFairInitial Discussion posting: • Post may lack in depth, reflection, analysis, or synthesis but rely more on anecdotal than scholarly evidence. • Posts demonstrate minimal understanding of concepts and issues presented in the course, and, although generally accurate, display some omissions and/or errors. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. 18 to >0 ptsPoorInitial Discussion posting: • Post lacks in substance, reflection, analysis, or synthesis. • Posts do not generalize, extend thinking or evaluate concepts and issues within the topic or context of the discussion. • Relevant examples and scholarly resources are not provided. |
30 pts |
|
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION 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. |
10 pts |
Total Points: 100
WK4epidiscRANDOMIZEDTRIALSINEPIDEMIOLOGY.docx
RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN EPIDEMIOLOGY
Imagine that researchers are conducting a randomized controlled trial of a high-fiber supplement as a preventive measure in persons at increased risk of type 2 diabetes. People enrolled in the study are disease free at the time they agree to participate in the trial, but they all have a family history of type 2 diabetes and are considered at high risk (80%) to develop the disease during their lifetime. The 10,000 participants who start the trial are healthy individuals who are randomly allocated to receive either high-fiber supplements or placebo for several years. As you can imagine, this study will be quite expensive and will require a large infrastructure of personnel and materials to carry it out successfully.
Because type 2 diabetes has reached epidemic proportions in the United States, the potential benefits of this research are important at a population level. Unfortunately, high-fiber supplements have also been shown in a few studies to be associated with gastrointestinal blockage (which can be life-threatening) and reduced nutrient absorption, which may lead to anemia, osteoporosis, and other debilitating chronic diseases. The supplements may also reduce absorption of certain medications and cause gastrointestinal distress. The potential side effects of continuous high-fiber supplementation are only partially understood, and long-term effects are unknown.
For this Discussion, you are asked to identify an example of an experimental study design in the literature and consider the ethical implications of the randomized controlled trial design.
RESOURCES
Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. Click the weekly resources link to access the resources.
TO PREPARE:
· Search databases in the Walden Library and locate a peer-reviewed article from the last 5 years that uses a randomized controlled trial study design. The subject of the study may be any topic professionally relevant or interesting to your practice. You may not select an article already posted by one of your colleagues for this Discussion. ( Tip: When searching, you may use “randomized trial” as one of your search phrases.)
· Critically analyze the following aspects of the research study:
· Purpose
· Study population
· Length of the trial
· Data collection methods
· Outcome measures
· Results and conclusions
· Ethical issues associated with the study
· Ask yourself: How did this research study benefit from its experimental design? What was achieved by randomization that might not otherwise have been achieved?
BY DAY 3 OF WEEK 4
Post a cohesive scholarly response that addresses the following:
· Summarize the research study addressing the aspects bulleted above.
· Identify and discuss the ethical issues associated with this study.
· Be sure to include a link to the article in your post.
