(240)-343-2585 info@essaymerit.com

NU 629 Week 6 Discussion 1: Men’s Health Planning NU 629 Week 6 Discussion 1 Men’s Health Planning NU 629 Week 6 Discussion 1: Men’s Health Planning What are the recommendations and source(s)/options for the colorectal cancer screening test?      The recommendations of different organizations are varied when it comes to the age for screening for colorectal cancer. General consensus states average risk adults age 50-75 should be screened for this. Currently, the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (or USPSTF) recommends screening for colorectal cancer for adults age 50 to 75 years as there is high certainty that the benefit is substantial. As for adults age 45 to 49 years old, USPSTF provides a screening recommendation, but at a moderate certainty that the benefit is substantial (“Colorectal Cancer: Screening,” 2021). Nonetheless, the guidelines have expanded to screening adults beginning age 45 for other organizations. For example, the American Cancer Society (ACS) as well as the American College of Gastroenterology recommends those at average risk for colorectal cancer start at age 45 due to studies indicating increased rates of cancer in those younger than 50 (Wolf et al., 2018). The different types of colorectal cancer screening tests include stool based tests (such as fecal immunochemical tests) as well as visual exams (colonoscopy, done every 10 years) (“When Should You Start Getting Screened for Colorectal Cancer,” 2021). The patient thinks he does not have to worry about “being screened” until age 50. Is he correct? Why or why not?      Though I understand the patient’s view, in his case he is incorrect about not having to worry about being screened despite his age under 50. As mentioned previously, current screening based on a few organizations have lowered age suggestions in the past few years to begin at age 45 (“What Should I Know About Screening?”, 2021). The CDC and ACS recommends even earlier screening for individuals who have higher risk factors for colorectal cancer. In this situation, the strongest case in point being the family history of the patient’s uncle who was diagnosed with colon cancer at age 54. In addition to his BMI measurement classified as obese and lack of annual physical checkups, his lifestyle factors may also contribute to an increased risk of the disease (“What Are Risk Factors of Colorectal Cancer,” 2021). What age would you recommend screening for this patient and why? Does his family history come into play here?      I would absolutely recommend this man for colorectal cancer screening as soon as possible due to his family history. Initiating screening at an earlier age than recommended based on family history of cancer is a strongly recommended strategy for detecting early-onset colorectal cancer (Gupta et al., 2020). Existing research has shown that having 1 affected first-degree relative can increase colorectal cancer twofold alone. A family risk identified alone is worth an early screen, as insufficient collection of history is often a barrier in identifying individuals who would benefit sooner (Lowery et al., 2016). References Colorectal cancer: Screening. (2021, May 18). U.S. Retrieved from https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation/colorectal-cancer-screening Gupta, S., Bharti, B., Ahnen, D.J., Buchanan, D.D., Cheng, I.C., Cotterchio, M., Figueiredo, J.C., Gallinger, S.J., Haile, R.W., Jenkins, M.A., Lindor, N.M., Macrae, F.A., Le Marchand, L., Newcomb, P.A., Thibodeau, S.N., Win, A.K. & Martinez, M.E. (2020). Potential impact of family history–based screening guidelines on the detection of early-onset colorectal cancer. Cancer, 126, 3013-3020. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.32851 Lowery, J.T., Ahnen, D.J., Schroy, P.C., III, Hampel, H., Baxter, N., Boland, C.R., Burt, R.W., Butterly, L., Doerr, M., Doroshenk, M., Feero, W.G., Henrikson, N., Ladabaum, U., Lieberman, D., McFarland, E.G., Peterson, S.K., Raymond, M., Samadder, N.J., Syngal, S., Weber, T.K., Zauber, A.G. & Smith, R. (2016). Understanding the contribution of family history to colorectal cancer risk and its clinical implications: A state-of-the-science review. Cancer, 122, 2633-2645. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30080 What are risk factors of colorectal cancer? (2021, February 8). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/basic_info/risk_factors.htm What should I know about screening? (2021, February 8). Retreived from https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/basic_info/risk_factors.htm When should you start getting screened for colorectal cancer. (2021, February 4). Retrieved from https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/american-cancer-society-updates-colorectal-cancer-screening-guideline.html Wolf, A.M., Fontham, E.T., Church, T.R., Flowers, C.R., Guerra, C.E., LaMonte, S.J., Etzioni, R., McKenna, M.T., Oeffinger, K.C., Shih, Y.-C.T., Walter, L.C., Andrews, K.S., Brawley, O.W., Brooks, D., Fedewa, S.A., Manassaram-Baptiste, D., Siegel, R.L., Wender, R.C. & Smith, R.A. (2018). Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk adults: 2018 guideline update from the American Cancer Society. CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians, 68, 250-281. https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21457 Week 6 Discussion 1: Men’s Health Planning Value: 100 points Due: Initial post by Day 3, Response by Day 7 Grading Category: Discussions Initial Post This discussion will allow you to examine several different preventive guidelines related to men’s health. Choose one of the following topics and respond to the thread corresponding to the question you select. Please include at least three scholarly sources within your initial post. Note: As you are choosing a topic, please try to make sure that all topics are chosen by at least one person. You can see this by noting if anyone has posted to the topic within the corresponding threads. Topic 1: Colorectal Cancer Screening A 47-year-old man presents to your clinic for a routine physical. He considers himself to be “fairly healthy” and doesn’t routinely go to the doctor. His last physical was five years ago. In reviewing his chart, you see that his BMI is 30, he exercises twice a week at the local gym, and he does not take any medication. Part of your discussion during today’s visit is about screening for colorectal cancers. He did endorse some constipation in the review of systems. He noted an uncle in his family history who was diagnosed at age 54 with colon cancer. You begin to talk about colorectal screening, and the patient interrupts you and tells you that he is only 47 and that he should not have to worry about it until he is 50. What are the recommendations and source(s)/options for the colorectal cancer screening test? The patient thinks he does not have to worry about “being screened” until age 50. Is he correct? Why or why not? What age would you recommend screening for this patient and why? Does his family history come into play here? Topic 2: Prostate Cancer Screening Your patient is an otherwise healthy, white 55-year-old man who presents for his annual physical. He has a history of hypertension and takes Losartan 50 mg daily. His family history is negative for cardiovascular disease or cancer. His review of systems is negative. The patient is a paramedic and exercises regularly. The patient’s BMI is 23. He states that one of his friends was diagnosed with prostate cancer and asks if he needs to be screened. Which screening guidelines would you utilize? Keeping the guideline you used in mind, explain and provide rationales for whether you would change your recommendations if: The patient had a family history of prostate cancer. The patient was African American. The patient was 76 years old. Topic 3: Testicular Cancer Screening A 35-year-old African American male is being seen for a pre-employment physical. His father was recently treated for prostate cancer. His BMI is 24, and his past medical history was negative except for an appendectomy 15 years ago. He states he is too young to be screened for prostate cancer, but he wants to be screened for testicular cancer. What are the primary risk factors for testicular cancer? What are the screening options for testicular cancer and which guidelines did you utilize? Is screening recommended for this patient, and how would you counsel this patient? Reply Posts NU 629 Week 6 Discussion 1 Men’s Health Planning Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NU 629 Week 6 Discussion 1: Men’s Health Planning Review the initial post of two other peers who chose different topics. When replying to your peers, answer at least ONE of the following questions based on each topic: Colorectal Cancer Screening Does insurance/cost of tests come into your decision-making? Why or why not? What about patient reliability? Prostate Cancer Screening How would you counsel this patient? How do some of the various guidelines for prostate cancer screening differ? Compare at least two. Testicular Cancer Screening Discuss the health plan you would develop for this patient considering his age, race, and family history. Are there community-level plans that could influence your individual health plan for this patient? Reply to at least two of your classmates who picked two topics different from yours on two separate days (minimum) utilizing at least two scholarly references per peer post. Please refer to the Grading Rubric for details on how this activity will be graded. Posting to the Discussion Forum Select the appropriate Thread. Select Reply. Create your post. Select Post to Forum. Discussion Question Rubric Note: Scholarly resources are defined as evidence-based practice, peer-reviewed journals; textbook (do not rely solely on your textbook as a reference); and National Standard Guidelines. Review assignment instructions, as this will provide any additional requirements that are not specifically listed on the rubric. Note: The value of each of the criterion on this rubric represents a point range. (example: 17-0 points) Discussion Question Rubric – 100 Points Criteria Exemplary Exceeds Expectations Advanced Meets Expectations Intermediate Needs Improvement Novice Inadequate Total Points Quality of Initial Post Provides clear examples supported by course content and references. Cites three or more references, using at least one new scholarly resource that was not provided in the course materials. All instruction requirements noted. 40 points Components are accurate and thoroughly represented, with explanations and application of knowledge to include evidence-based practice, ethics, theory, and/or role. Synthesizes course content using course materials and scholarly resources to support importantpoints. Meets all requirements within the discussion instructions. Cites two references. 35 points Components are accurate and mostly represented primarily with definitions and summarization. Ideas may be overstated, with minimal contribution to the subject matter. Minimal application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is present but missing depth and/or development. Is missing one component/requirement of the discussion instructions. Cites one reference, or references do not clearly support content. Most instruction requirements are noted. 31 points Absent application to evidence-based practice, theory, or role development. Synthesis of course content is superficial. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. No references cited. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits post late. 27 points 40 Peer Response Post Offers both supportive and alternative viewpoints to the discussion, using two or more scholarly references per peer post. Post provides additional value to the conversation. All instruction requirements noted. 40 points Evidence of further synthesis of course content. Provides clarification and new information or insight related to the content of the peer’s post. Response is supported by course content and a minimum of one scholarly reference per each peer post. All instruction requirements noted. 35 points Lacks clarification or new information. Scholarly reference supports the content in the peer post without adding new information or insight. Missing reference from one peer post. Partially followed instructions regarding number of reply posts. Most instruction requirements are noted. 31 points Post is primarily a summation of peer’s post without further synthesis of course content. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. Did not follow instructions regarding number of reply posts. Missing reference from peer posts. Missing several instruction requirements. Submits post late. 27 points 40 Frequency of Distribution Initial post and peer post(s) made on multiple separate days. All instruction requirements noted. 10 points Initial post and peer post(s) made on multiple separate days. 8 points Minimum of two post options (initial and/or peer) made on separate days. 7 points All posts made on same day. Submission demonstrates inadequate preparation. No post submitted. 6 points 10 Organization Well-organized content with a clear and complex purpose statement and content argument. Writing is concise with a logical flow of ideas. 5 points Organized content with an informative purpose statement, supportive content, and summary statement. Argument content is developed with minimal issues in content flow. 4 points Poor organization and flow of ideas distract from content. Narrative is difficult to follow and frequently causes reader to reread work. Purpose statement is noted. 3 points Illogical flow of ideas. Prose rambles. Purpose statement is unclear or missing. Demonstrates incomplete understanding of content and/or inadequate preparation. No purpose statement. Submits assignment late. 2 points 5 APA, Grammar, and Spelling Correct APA formatting with no errors. The writer correctly identifies reading audience, as demonstrated by appropriate language (avoids jargon and simplifies complex concepts appropriately). Writing is concise, in active voice, and avoids awkward transitions and overuse of conjunctions. There are no spelling, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 5 points Correct and consistent APA formatting of references and cites all references used. No more than two unique APA errors. The writer demonstrates correct usage of formal English language in sentence construction. Variation in sentence structure and word usage promotes readability. There are minimal to no grammar, punctuation, or word-usage errors. 4 points Three to four unique APA formatting errors. The writer occasionally uses awkward sentence construction or overuses/inappropriately uses complex sentence structure. Problems with word usage (evidence of incorrect use of thesaurus) and punctuation persist, often causing some difficulties with grammar. Some words, transitional phrases, and conjunctions are overused. Multiple grammar, punctuation, or word usage errors. 3 points Five or more unique formatting errors or no attempt to format in APA. The writer demonstrates limited understanding of formal written language use; writing is colloquial (conforms to spoken language). The writer struggles with limited vocabulary and has difficulty conveying meaning such that only the broadest, most general messages are presented. Grammar and punctuation are consistently incorrect. Spelling errors are numerous. Submits assignment late. 2 points 5 Total Points 100 Order Now