-
QUESTION
PICOT
Population: NP in New Jersey involvement in health policy.
Intervention: Increased number of NP that are involved in health policy.
Comparison: low involvement of NPs in health policy.
Outcome: Increase NPs involvement, and their ability to influence health policy relating to practice change.
Time: Within six months.
In the state of New Jersey what is the effect of NP involvement and ability to influence health policy and practice changes compared to the amount of NP not involve in practicing under policies unfavorable to their interest and consumers of health care services in response to increasing the amount of NP involvement in health policy within six months?"
Week 6 Discussion
No unread replies.No replies.
Respond to the following prompts:
- How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
- In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend?
- NR505NP Scholarly Discussion Rubric
NR505NP Scholarly Discussion Rubric
Criteria
Ratings
Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeApplication of Course Knowledge
Answers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week.
15.0 pts
Excellent
Addresses all aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding.
14.0 pts
Very Good
Addresses most aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding
12.0 pts
Satisfactory
Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question(s) applying experiences, knowledge, and understanding.
8.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Addresses some aspects of the initial discussion question with little depth and lack of application of experiences, knowledge, or understanding.
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not address the initial question(s).
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeEngagement in Meaningful Dialogue With Peers and Faculty
The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.
10.0 pts
Excellent
Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, thereby adding much depth to the discussion.
9.0 pts
Very Good
Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by adding some depth to the discussion.
8.0 pts
Satisfactory
Responds to a student peer and/or course faculty, adding minimal depth to the discussion.
5.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Responds to a student peer or course faculty, adding minimal depth to the discussion.
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
No response post to another student or course faculty.
10.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeIntegration of Evidence
Assigned readings OR online lesson AND at least one outside scholarly source are included. The scholarly source is:
1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years.15.0 pts
Excellent
Integrates evidence from: • assigned readings OR online lessons AND • at least one outside scholarly source. Sources are credited.*
14.0 pts
Very Good
Integrates evidence from: • no assigned readings OR online lesson is included • at least one outside scholarly source is included. Sources are credited.*
12.0 pts
Satisfactory
Integrates evidence from: • assigned readings OR online lesson • no outside scholarly source is included. Sources are credited.*
8.0 pts
Needs Improvement
Integrates evidence from: • assigned readings OR online lesson • no outside scholarly source is included. Sources are not credited.*
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Does not integrate any evidence.
15.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar and Communication
5.0 pts
Excellent
Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (0–1 error in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
4.0 pts
Very Good
Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner (2–3 errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
3.0 pts
Satisfactory
Presents information using understandable language; information is not organized (3–4 errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
2.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Presents information using understandable language; information is not organized (5-6 errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and punctuation).
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
Presents information that is not clear, logical, professional, or organized to the point that the reader has difficulty understanding the post (7 or more errors in English grammar, spelling, syntax, and/or punctuation).
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeReference Citation
5.0 pts
Excellent
References have complete information as required by APA (0-1 errors). In-text citations included for all references, AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors).
4.0 pts
Very Good
References have most information as required by APA (2 errors). In-text citations included for all references, AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors).
3.0 pts
Satisfactory
References have some information as required by APA (3 errors). In-text citations included for all references, AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors).
2.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
References have some information as required by APA (4 errors). In-text citations included for all references AND references are included for all in-text citations (0 errors).
0.0 pts
Unsatisfactory
References missing 5 or more elements AND/OR In-text citations missing OR final references not included for in-text citations.
5.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeLate Penalty Deductions
0.0 pts
0 Points Deducted
A 5% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)
0.0 pts
2.5 Points Deducted
0.0 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeTotal Participation Responses
0.0 pts
0 Points Deducted
A 5% penalty will be imposed for not entering at least THREE posts on the minimum of TWO separate days. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0)
0.0 pts
2.5 Points Deducted
0.0 pts
Total Points: 50.0
| Subject | Nursing | Pages | 7 | Style | APA |
|---|
Answer
-
Week 6 Discussion
How Learning About the History of Research Ethics Impacted My View on Biomedical Research
Human research refers to studies conducted about people with good intentions and avoiding harming. Notably, there are significant risks in human research. In modern research, Ienca et al. (2018) espouse that ethics should be critically considered to avert the issues associated with technology, including how the researcher obtains the respondents’ data.
An overview of the history of research ethics reveals that biomedical research has made significant transformations. Before the 20th century, there did not exist any guidelines or regulations concerning ethics in research. Today, ethical principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and non-maleficence are vital considerations in research. Bodies, such as the institutional review board (IRB), are in place to protect the subjects, including those from the vulnerable populations (Kawar, Pugh, & Scruth, 2016). Another core element from the research is bioethics, which describes the moral life's reasoning in the dimension of life sciences. Bioethics are concerned with the morally right and wrong in bioscience.
By understanding the research ethics history, I now appreciate the importance of ethical guidelines, including informed consent, justice, and autonomy. These aspects direct that human subjects cannot be engaged against their will, and fairness should be reflected when working with various individuals. Taking an example of the Tuskegee syphilis study between 1932 and 1972, where 400 African-American males were infected with the condition and monitored for 40 years, the outcome was a political embarrassment, resulting in President Clinton being forced to apologize to the human subjects (Nix, 2017).
Scenarios, such as the Tuskegee and Thalidomide case studies, demonstrate the importance of abiding by the moral frameworks in research to avert the subjects' harmful impacts. In completing my research on NP involvement in the health policy, ethical principles will be the guiding factor when engaging with the human subjects, and permission from the relevant institutions will be crucial.
Perception of Protecting Today’s Researchers as Human Subjects
In the PICOT regarding the NP involvement and influencing health policies and practice changes, a literature search demonstrates the role of research ethics when engaging the human subjects. O’Connor (2017), through a descriptive method, to evaluate the nurses’ views on using social media as an engagement tool to promote policy development, found out that engaging nurses is essential to maintain continuity in practice and policy. Asuquo et al. (2016), through a qualitative case study in the mother-to-child transmission context in Nigeria, found out that integrating nurses in the policy arena is essential in promoting leadership and developing effective policies that can enhance patient care.
In both studies, the rights of the participants are protected through ensuring informed consent is signed by the participants before engaging the individuals and assurance of the participants that there is no harm or implications in terminating their involvement in the study. Also, enhancing the participants’ awareness regarding the study before commencing the data collection process aid in the individual, making an informed decision on whether to participate. In current studies, issues such as technology have changed the data collection and analysis processes. Further ethical guidelines direct that the individual’s information cannot be used or shared without the person’s consent. Institutions, such as IRB, are crucial in further protection of human subjects’ rights.
There is still more that can be done in promoting ethics in research, particularly studies that involve the human subjects. The IRB can implement advanced technology to continuously evaluate the researchers’ activities, especially those that involve ICT for data collection. Another improvement is to provide a suitable reporting environment for participants when they encounter unethical research issues. These measures will further contribute to mitigation of unethical practices.
References
Asuquo, E., Etowa, J. B., Gifford, W. A., & Holmes, D. (2016). Nurses' involvement in HIV policy formulation in the Nigerian Health Care System. Journal of AIDS and Clinical Research, 7(7), 1.
Ienca, M., Ferretti, A., Hurst, S., Puhan, M., Lovis, C., & Vayena, E. (2018). Considerations for ethics review of big data health research: A scoping review. PloS one, 13(10), e0204937.
Kawar, L. N., Pugh, D. M., & Scruth, E. A. (2016). Understanding the role and legal requirements of the institutional review board. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 30(3), 137-140.
Nix, E. (2017). Tuskegee Experiment: The infamous syphilis study. History. com.
O'Connor, S. (2017). Using social media to engage nurses in health policy development. Journal of nursing management, 25(8), 632-639.