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.
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.
Rubric Detail
Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.
Name: NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric
Grid View
List View
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Main Posting:
Response to the Discussion question is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
Main Posting:
Writing
Main Posting:
Timely and full participation
First Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
First Response:
Writing
First Response:
Timely and full participation
Second Response:
Post to colleague’s main post that is reflective and justified with credible sources.
Second Response:
Writing
Second Response:
Timely and full participation
Point range: 90-100
40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Thoroughly responds to the Discussion question(s).
Is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
No less than 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three current credible sources.
6 (6%) – 6 (6%)
Written clearly and concisely.
Contains no grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
9 (9%) 10 (10%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
9 (9%)-9 (9%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
6 (6%)-6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
5 (5%)-5(5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
9 (9%)-9 (9%)
Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
Responds to questions posed by faculty.
The use of scholarly sources to support ideas demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
6 (6%)-6 (6%)
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.
5 (5% )-5(5%)
Meets requirements for timely, full, and active participation.
Posts by due date.
Point range: 80-89
35 (35%)-39 (39%)
Responds to most of the Discussion question(s).
Is somewhat reflective with critical analysis and synthesis representative of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
50% of the post has exceptional depth and breadth.
Supported by at least three credible references.
5 (5%)-5(5%) Written concisely.
May contain one to two grammatical or spelling errors.
Adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.
8 (8%)-8 (8%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts main Discussion by due date.
8 (8%) – 8 (8%) Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
5 (5%)-5(5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
8 (8%) -8(8%)
Response has some depth and may exhibit critical thinking or application to practice setting.
5 (5% )-5(5%)
Communication is mostly professional and respectful to colleagues.
Response to faculty questions are mostly answered, if posed.
Provides opinions and ideas that are supported by few credible
sources.
Response is written in standard, edited English.
4 (4%)-4 (4%)
Meets requirements for full participation.
Posts by due date.
Point range: 70-79
31 (31%)-34 (34%) Responds to some of the Discussion question(s).
One to two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Cited with fewer than two credible references.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%) Written somewhat concisely.
May contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Contains some APA formatting
errors.
7 (7%) -7(7%)
Posts main Discussion by due date.
7 (7%)-7 (7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
3 (3%) – 3 (3%)
Posts by due date.
7 (7%) -7(7%)
Response is on topic and may have some depth.
4 (4%) – 4 (4%)
Response posed in the Discussion may lack effective professional communication.
Response to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
Few or no credible sources are cited.
3 (3%)-3(3%)
Posts by due date.
Point range: 0-69
0 (0%)-30 (30%)
Does not respond to the Discussion question(s).
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
Contains only one or no credible references.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Not written clearly or concisely.
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
0 (0%)-2(2%)
Does not meet requirements for full participation.
Does not post by due date.
0 (0%) – 6 (6%)
Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
0 (0%) – 3 (3%)
Responses posted in the Discussion lack effective communication.
Response to faculty questions are missing.
No credible sources are cited.
0 (0%) – 2 (2%)
Does not meet requirements for
full participation.
Does not post by due date.
Total Points: 100
Name: NURS_8310_Week4_Discussion_Rubric
