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

NU 631 Week 1 Discussion 2: Time to Dissect Research Studies NU 631 Week 1 Discussion 2 Time to Dissect Research Studies NU 631 Week 1 Discussion 2: Time to Dissect Research Studies In Cyphers’ article, “The Relationship Between Religiosity and Health-Promoting Behaviors in Pregnant Women”, the theory used is the Health Promotion Model (Cyphers, 2016). It is a middle-range theory that is borrowed from psychology. It is based on the combination of the expectancy-value theory and the social cognitive theory (Cyphers, 2016). This theory describes how a person’s behaviors are impacted by their expectations of how tasks affect achieving success (Expectancy-Value Theory – an Overview | ScienceDirect Topics, 2011). It also encompasses how interactions with others and their environment in a social context influence their behaviors (The Social Cognitive Theory, 2019). The article used this theory to explain how religion affects the health behaviors of pregnant women. The premise was that if women took part in religious practices or were a part of religious groups, they were more inclined to practice safer health behaviors such as avoidance of substances (Cyohers, 2016). Throughout the article, the author describes the use of the theory by relating participation in religion to overall health. Another theory that could have worked well in this article is the Behavioral System Model by Dorothy Johnson. This theory has four assumptions, the first is that humans have a drive that directs their behaviors to achieve certain goals. Secondly, behavior is a choice. Third, the behavioral system is structured by goals, choice, and action. Lastly, there are interactive and interdependent subsystems that maintain a balance. References: Cyphers, N. A., Clements, A. D., & Lindseth, G. (2016). The Relationship Between Religiosity and Health-Promoting Behaviors in Pregnant Women. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(11), 1429–1446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916679623 Expectancy-Value Theory – an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (2011). Science Direct.Com. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/psychology/expectancy-value-theory McEwen, M., & Wills, E. M. (2021). Theoretical Basis for Nursing 5th Edition (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer. The Social Cognitive Theory. (2019, September 9). Sphweb.Edu. https://sphweb.bumc.bu.edu/otlt/mph-modules/sb/behavioralchangetheories/behavioralchangetheories5.html Week 1 Discussion 2: Time to Dissect Research Studies Value: 100 points Due: Create your initial post by Day 3, and reply to at least two of your peers by Day 7. Grading Category: Discussions Note: In this type of discussion, you will not see the responses of your peers until after you have posted your own initial post. Overview Here is a list of five peer-reviewed nursing research journal articles on nursing research that are available through the Regis Library. Choose one of them that is of interest to you to read. Cody, S. E., Sullivan-Bolyai, S., & Reid-Ponte, P. (2018). Making a connection: Family experiences with bedside rounds in the intensive care unit (PDF). Critical Care Nurse, (3), 16–26. Cyphers, N. A., Clements, A. D., & Lindseth, G. (2017). The relationship between religiosity and health-promoting behaviors in pregnant women. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(11), 1429–1446. Joseph, L. (2013). A study to evaluate the effectiveness of planned teaching programme on growth monitoring of children using innovative paediatric growth chart among the third year general nursing and midwifery students in a selected institute at Mangalore (PDF). International Journal of Nursing Education, 5(1), 103–106. Scheidenhelm, S., & Reitz, O. E. (2017). Hardwiring bedside shift report. Journal of Nursing Administration, 47(3), 147–153. Woodall, M., & DeLetter, M. (2018). Colorectal cancer: A collaborative approach to improve education and screening in a rural population (PDF). Clinical Journal of Oncology Nursing, 22(1), 69–75. Initial Post Based on the research article you read, respond to the following prompts: What, if any, was the theoretical framework that was used by article author(s)? Describe the framework; was it from nursing or a borrowed theory? Describe how the framework was used to inform the research study. How much did the researchers write about it in the journal article? For example, was it weaved throughout the paper or mentioned only in the beginning? In your opinion, what other nursing theory might have worked with this research study? Why? Replies Reply to at least two of your peers. In your replies, discuss what surprised you about the theory your peers wrote about and how it’s integrated into the study? What other type of research might this theory be useful in? Please refer to the Grading Rubric for details on how this activity will be graded. The described expectations meet the passing level of 80%. Students are directed to review the Discussion Grading Rubric for criteria which exceed expectations. Posting to the Discussion Forum Select the appropriate Thread. Select Reply. Create your post. Select Post to Forum. The Relationship Between Religiosity and Health-Promoting Behaviors in Pregnant Women is a descriptive and correlational study. It examines the correlation between religiosity and the health-promoting behaviors of pregnant women at Pregnancy Resource Centers (PRCs). This study was guided by Pender’s health promotional model. (Cyphers, et al., 2017). Nola Pender’s model is a theoretical framework focused on the integration of nursing and behavioral science and the influence on health behaviors. This model is used as a guide to examine the biopsychosocial processes that motivate an individual in engaging in health promotion. Factors that contribute to this model are the individual’s perceived benefits of the action, barriers to action, self-efficacy, activity-related affect, and interpersonal or situational influences. This framework is borrowed from psychology but integrates nursing in relation to the behavioral sciences. (McEwen and Willis, 2019, p. 229). Using Pender’s model, this study examined the behaviors of a sample of pregnant women and their correlation with health-promoting behaviors. The goal of the study is to promote health behaviors in pregnancy by identifying the factors that may affect a woman’s adherence. The authors specifically examined the effect of religiosity on the health related behaviors during pregnancy. The health promotional model was revised to focus on personal factors and interpersonal influences to examine the relationships between these factors and the outcome for health-promoting behaviors. Religiosity had not been included in previous studies involving pregnancy with the health promotional model as the theoretical framework. Since religion is a personal factor, the authors decided it would fit the model and could be the focus of the study. The authors referred to the model multiple times throughout the paper. It is discussed in the abstract, introduction, and discussion portions of the paper. Another nursing theory applicable to this study would be Bandura’s self-efficacy theory. Self-efficacy is defined by Peterson and Debrow 2020 as “an individual’s judgment of his or her capabilities to organize and execute courses of action.” This theory is based on the idea that an individual’s preconceived outcomes of an action influences their actions to accomplish any given task. (Peterson & Debrow, 2020, p. 92). This theory would work as a theoretical framework for this model because it would examine the pregnant woman’s cognitive barriers or influences on health-promoting behaviors. If a woman does not believe that her actions will be successful, she will be less likely to adhere to those behaviors. For example, if a pregnant woman is diagnosed with gestational diabetes but does not understand the implications of prolonged hyperglycemia and the effect on her health and the baby’s, she may not adhere to a diabetic diet. There could be varieties of reasons why a woman’s preconceived notions about the results of her actions could affect her adherence or motivation regarding health-promoting behaviors. NU 631 Week 1 Discussion 2 Time to Dissect Research Studies Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our Verified MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS:NU 631 Week 1 Discussion 2: Time to Dissect Research Studies References Cyphers, N. A., Clements, A. D., & Lindseth, G. (2017). The Relationship Between Religiosity and Health-Promoting Behaviors in Pregnant Women. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 39(11), 1429–1446. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945916679623 McEwen, M., & Wills, E. (2019). Theoretical basis for nursing (5th ed.). Wolter Kluwer. Peterson, S. J., & Bredow, T. S. (2020). Middle range theories: Application to nursing research (5th ed.). Wolters Kluwer Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins.   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