{"id":13313,"date":"2023-04-11T01:34:32","date_gmt":"2023-04-11T01:34:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/article-analysis-1points120rubric-assessment-traits-requires-lopeswrite-assessment-description\/"},"modified":"2023-04-11T01:34:32","modified_gmt":"2023-04-11T01:34:32","slug":"article-analysis-1points120rubric-assessment-traits-requires-lopeswrite-assessment-description","status":"publish","type":"questions","link":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/questions\/article-analysis-1points120rubric-assessment-traits-requires-lopeswrite-assessment-description\/","title":{"rendered":"Article Analysis 1\u200bPoints\u200b120\u200bRubric\u200b Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite Assessment Description"},"content":{"rendered":"

Article Analysis 1\u200bPoints\u200b120\u200bRubric\u200b Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite<\/p>\n

Assessment Description<\/div>\n
The interpretation of research in health care is essential to decision making. By understanding research, health care providers can identify risk factors, trends, outcomes for treatment, health care costs and best practices. To be effective in evaluating and interpreting research, the reader must first understand how to interpret the findings.<\/div>\n
For this assignment:<\/div>\n
Search the GCU Library and find three different health care articles that use quantitative research. Do not use articles that appear in the topic Resources or textbook. Complete an article analysis for each using the “Article Analysis 1” template.<\/div>\n
Refer to the “Patient Preference and Satisfaction in Hospital-at-Home and Usual Hospital Care for COPD Exacerbations: Results of a Randomised Controlled Trial,” in conjunction with the “Article Analysis Example 1,” for an example of an article analysis.<\/div>\n
While APA style is not required for the body of this assignment, solid academic writing is expected, and documentation of sources should be presented using APA formatting guidelines, which can be found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center.<\/div>\n
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion. <\/div>\n
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. A link to the LopesWrite technical support articles is located in Class Resources if you need assistance.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Rubric Criteria<\/div>\n
Collapse All Rubric CriteriaCollapse All<\/div>\n
Three Quantitative Articles<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Three Quantitative Articles<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Three articles are presented. All three articles are based on quantitative research.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
N\/A<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Three articles are presented. Of the articles presented, only two articles are based on quantitative research.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
N\/A<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Fewer than three articles are presented. None of the articles presented use quantitative research.<\/div>\n
Article Citation and Permalinka 2<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Article Citation and Permalinka 2<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is accurately presented in APA format. Page numbers are accurate and used in all areas when citing information.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format. Page numbers are used to cite information. There are minor errors.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. Article citation is presented in APA format, but there are errors. Page numbers to cite information are missing, or incorrect, in some areas.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are presented. There are significant errors. Page numbers are not indicated to cite information, or the page numbers are incorrect.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Article citation and permalink are omitted.<\/div>\n
Broad Topic Area\/Title<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Broad Topic Area\/Title<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are fully presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are presented. There are some minor errors, but the content overall is accurate.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are summarized. There are some minor inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are referenced but are incomplete.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Broad topic area and title are omitted.<\/div>\n
Independent and Dependent Variables and Type of Data for Variables<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Independent and Dependent Variables and Type of Data for Variables<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Variable types and data for variables are omitted.<\/div>\n
Population of Interest for the Study<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Population of Interest for the Study<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Population of interest for the study is omitted.<\/div>\n
Sample<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Sample<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Sample is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Sample is omitted.<\/div>\n
Sampling Method<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Sampling Method<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Sampling method is presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Sampling is presented. Minor detail is needed for accuracy.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Sampling is presented. There are inaccuracies.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Sampling is presented. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Sampling method is omitted.<\/div>\n
Descriptive Statistics<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Descriptive Statistics (mean, median, mode; standard deviation) (Identify examples of descriptive statistics in the article.)<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Descriptive statistic examples from the article are presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Descriptive statistic examples from the article are presented. There are some very minor inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Descriptive statistic examples from the article are omitted. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
Inferential Statistics (Identify examples of inferential statistics in the article.)<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Inferential Statistics (Identify examples of inferential statistics in the article.)<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Inferential statistic examples from the article are presented and accurate.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Inferential statistic examples from the article are presented. There are some very minor inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Inferential statistic examples from the article are omitted. There are major inaccuracies or omissions.<\/div>\n
Mechanics of Writing<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
Criteria Description<\/div>\n
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, and language use)<\/div>\n
5. 5: Excellent<\/div>\n
12 points<\/div>\n
The writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English.<\/div>\n
4. 4: Good<\/div>\n
10.2 points<\/div>\n
Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. The writer uses a variety of effective sentence structures and figures of speech.<\/div>\n
3. 3: Satisfactory<\/div>\n
9 points<\/div>\n
Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct and varied sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are employed.<\/div>\n
2. 2: Less Than Satisfactory<\/div>\n
7.8 points<\/div>\n
Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register) or word choice are present. Sentence structure is correct but not varied.<\/div>\n
1. 1: Unsatisfactory<\/div>\n
0 points<\/div>\n
Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is employed.<\/div>\n
Total120 points<\/div>\n
Article Analysis 1<\/div>\n
Article Citation and Permalink (APA format)<\/div>\n
Article 1<\/div>\n
Article 2<\/div>\n
Article 3<\/div>\n
Point<\/div>\n
Description<\/div>\n
Description<\/div>\n
Description<\/div>\n
Broad Topic Area\/Title<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Identify Independent and Dependent Variables and Type of Data for the Variables<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Population of Interest for the Study<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Sample<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Sampling Method<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Descriptive Statistics (Mean, Median, Mode; Standard Deviation)<\/div>\n
Identify examples of descriptive statistics in the article.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Inferential Statistics<\/div>\n
Identify examples of inferential statistics in the article.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
First Article<\/div>\n
A Quantitative Observational Study of INQUIRY: The Journal of Health Care<\/div>\n
Organization, Provision, and Financing<\/div>\n
Volume 55: 1\u201312<\/div>\n
\u00a9 The Author(s) 2018<\/div>\n
Article reuse guidelines:<\/div>\n
sagepub.com\/journals-permissions<\/div>\n
DOI: 10.1177\/0046958018800906<\/div>\n
journals.sagepub.com\/home\/inq<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Physician Influence on Hospital Costs<\/div>\n
Herbert Wong, PhD1, Zeynal Karaca, PhD1,<\/div>\n
and Teresa B. Gibson, PhD2<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/div>\n
Physicians serve as the nexus of treatment decision-making in hospitalized patients; however, little empirical evidence describes the influence of individual physicians on hospital costs. In this study, we examine the extent to which hospital costs vary across physicians and physician characteristics. We used all-payer data from 2 states representing 15 237 physicians and 2.5 million hospital visits. Regression analysis and propensity score matching were used to understand the role of observable provider characteristics on hospital costs controlling for patient demographics, socioeconomic characteristics, clinical risk, and hospital characteristics. We used hierarchical models to estimate the amount of variation attributable to physicians. We found that the average cost of hospital inpatient stays registered to female physicians was consistently lower across all empirical specifications when compared with male physicians. We also found a negative association between physicians\u2019 years of experience and the average costs. The average cost of hospital inpatient stays registered to foreign trained physicians was lower than US-trained physicians. We observed sizable variation in average costs of hospital inpatient stays across medical specialties. In addition, we used hierarchical methods and estimated the amount of remaining variation<\/div>\n
attributable to physicians and found that it was nonnegligible (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]: 0.33 in the full sample). Historically, most physicians have been reimbursed separately from hospitals, and our study shows that physicians play a role in influencing hospital costs. Future policies and practices should acknowledge these important dependencies. This study lends further support for alignment of physician and hospital incentives to control costs and improve outcomes.<\/div>\n
Keywords<\/div>\n
physician practice styles, physician influence, costs, hospital costs, physician characteristics, physicians, inpatients, decision making, observational study, regression analysis<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Second Article<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
To cite this article: Kate\u0159ina Glumb\u00edkov\u00e1, Alice Gojov\u00e1, Michal Burda, Radka Pol\u00e1kov\u00e1 & Pavel<\/div>\n
Rusnok (2020) The use of health care services by homeless shelter residents, European Journal<\/div>\n
of Social Work, 23:4, 699-710, DOI: 10.1080\/13691457.2019.1583639<\/div>\n
To link to this article: https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1080\/13691457.2019.1583639<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
The use of health care services by homeless shelter residents<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Kate\u0159ina Glumb\u00edkov\u00e1a, Alice Gojov\u00e1a, Michal Burdab, Radka Pol\u00e1kov\u00e1b and Pavel Rusnokb<\/div>\n
aDepartment of Social Work, Faculty of Social Studies, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, the Czech Republic; bInstitute<\/div>\n
for Research and Applications of Fuzzy Modeling, University of Ostrava, Ostrava, the Czech Republic<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
ABSTRACT<\/div>\n
This submitted article is based on partial data from the Health and Use of<\/div>\n
Health Care Services by Shelters Users research, taking advantage of the<\/div>\n
sequential synergy of qualitative and quantitative research strategies. The<\/div>\n
quantitative research involved 192 respondents, while the qualitative<\/div>\n
research involved 30 communication partners. The article aims at finding<\/div>\n
out the relationship between selected health characteristics of the shelter<\/div>\n
population and their impact on the use of health care services. The article<\/div>\n
presents data from the quantitative research that are further illustrated by<\/div>\n
qualitative data. The data were analyzed using descriptive statistical<\/div>\n
methods, a Fisher\u2019s exact test, a Wilcoxon test and a Proportion Matching<\/div>\n
Test. The relationship between mental health and use of health care<\/div>\n
services (especially in the case of women) has been proven. Homeless<\/div>\n
people who do not use any health care services are, on average, for a longer<\/div>\n
period in temporary housing; whereas those who rated their health as more<\/div>\n
serious used health care services more frequently. In the conclusion, the<\/div>\n
authors present the implications for social work that resulted from the survey.<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Third Article<\/div>\n
Harries et al. BMC Medical Education (2021) 21:14<\/div>\n
                   https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1186\/s12909-020-02462-1<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on<\/div>\n
medical students: a multicenter<\/div>\n
quantitative study<\/div>\n
Aaron J. Harries1* , Carmen Lee1, Lee Jones2, Robert M. Rodriguez1, John A. Davis2, Megan Boysen-Osborn3,<\/div>\n
Kathleen J. Kashima4, N. Kevin Krane5, Guenevere Rae6, Nicholas Kman7, Jodi M. Langsfeld8 and Marianne Juarez1*<\/div>\n
Abstract<\/div>\n
Background: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the United States (US) medical education system with the<\/div>\n
necessary, yet unprecedented Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) national recommendation to<\/div>\n
pause all student clinical rotations with in-person patient care. This study is a quantitative analysis investigating the<\/div>\n
educational and psychological effects of the pandemic on US medical students and their reactions to the AAMC<\/div>\n
recommendation in order to inform medical education policy.<\/div>\n
Methods: The authors sent a cross-sectional survey via email to medical students in their clinical training years at<\/div>\n
six medical schools during the initial peak phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. Survey questions aimed to evaluate<\/div>\n
students\u2019 perceptions of COVID-19\u2019s impact on medical education; ethical obligations during a pandemic; infection<\/div>\n
risk; anxiety and burnout; willingness and needed preparations to return to clinical rotations.<\/div>\n
Results: Seven hundred forty-one (29.5%) students responded. Nearly all students (93.7%) were not involved in<\/div>\n
clinical rotations with in-person patient contact at the time the study was conducted. Reactions to being removed<\/div>\n
were mixed, with 75.8% feeling this was appropriate, 34.7% guilty, 33.5% disappointed, and 27.0% relieved.<\/div>\n
Most students (74.7%) agreed the pandemic had significantly disrupted their medical education, and believed they<\/div>\n
should continue with normal clinical rotations during this pandemic (61.3%). When asked if they would accept the<\/div>\n
risk of infection with COVID-19 if they returned to the clinical setting, 83.4% agreed.<\/div>\n
Students reported the pandemic had moderate effects on their stress and anxiety levels with 84.1% of respondents<\/div>\n
feeling at least somewhat anxious. Adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) (53.5%) was the most important<\/div>\n
factor to feel safe returning to clinical rotations, followed by adequate testing for infection (19.3%) and antibody<\/div>\n
testing (16.2%).<\/div>\n
Conclusions: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the education of US medical students in their clinical training<\/div>\n
years. The majority of students wanted to return to clinical rotations and were willing to accept the risk of COVID-<\/div>\n
19 infection. Students were most concerned with having enough PPE if allowed to return to clinical activities.<\/div>\n
Keywords: Undergraduate medical education, COVID-19 pandemic, Medical student anxiety<\/div>\n
\u00a9 The<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n
Example<\/div>\n
 <\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Article Analysis 1\u200bPoints\u200b120\u200bRubric\u200b Assessment Traits Requires Lopeswrite Assessment Description The interpretation of research in health care is essential to decision making. By understanding research, health care providers can identify risk factors, trends, outcomes for treatment, health care costs and best practices. To be effective in evaluating and interpreting research, the reader must first understand how […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":[],"disciplines":[190],"paper_types":[],"tagged":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/13313"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/questions"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=13313"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/questions\/13313\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13313"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"disciplines","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/disciplines?post=13313"},{"taxonomy":"paper_types","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/paper_types?post=13313"},{"taxonomy":"tagged","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.goodacademic.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tagged?post=13313"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}