Boost your Grades with us today!
Assignment: Family Assessment Part II Essay
Sample Answer for Assignment: Family Assessment Part II Essay Included After Question
Refer back to the interview and evaluation you conducted in the Topic 2 Family Health Assessment assignment. Identify the social determinates of health (SDOH) contributing to the family’s health status. In a 750-1,000-word paper, create a plan of action to incorporate health promotion strategies for this family. Include the following:
- Describe the SDOH that affect the family health status. What is the impact of these SDOH on the family? Discuss why these factors are prevalent for this family.
- Based on the information gathered through the family health assessment, recommend age-appropriate screenings for each family member. Provide support and rationale for your suggestions.
- Choose a health model to assist in creating a plan of action. Describe the model selected. Discuss the reasons why this health model is the best choice for this family. Provide rationale for your reasoning.
- Using the model, outline the steps for a family-centered health promotion. Include strategies for communication.
Cite at least three peer-reviewed or scholarly sources to complete this assignment. Sources should be published within the last 5 years and appropriate for the assignment criteria.
Prepare this assignment according to the guidelines found in the APA Style Guide, located in the Student Success Center. An abstract is not required.
This assignment uses a rubric. Please review the rubric prior to beginning the assignment to become familiar with the expectations for successful completion.
You are required to submit this assignment to LopesWrite. Please refer to the directions in the Student Success Center.
A Sample Answer For the Assignment: Assignment: Family Assessment Part II Essay
Title: Assignment: Family Assessment Part II Essay
In part I of the assessment, I interviewed Family N, a nuclear, African American family comprising six members. The age of the family members includes Mr. N, 58; Mrs. N, 55; firstborn (female), 30 years; second-born (male), 26 years; third-born (male), 23 years; and fourth-born (female), 15 years. During the interview, strengths were noted in the functional health patterns of Nutrition and Activity/Exercise, but problems were identified in Values/Health Perception, Sleep/Rest, and Role-Relationship. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the SDOH affecting family N and create a plan of action to incorporate health promotion measures for the family.
SDOH Affecting Family and Family Health Status
Social determinants of health (SDOH) are the non-medical factors that positively or negatively affect individuals’ health outcomes. All the family members have at least completed their high school education. Their literacy levels have enabled them to understand measures to maintain good health (Hahn, 2021). For instance, Mrs. N observes healthy dietary habits since she understands the health risks of unhealthy diets like high-fat and salty foods. The family’s annual household income is adequate to provide them with decent housing, healthy foods, and access to healthcare, which have significantly led to better health outcomes.
Additionally, employment has positively affected the family and its health status. The family has access to private health insurance provided by Mr. N’s employer, which enables them to access health services that they would be limited from accessing without insurance. Furthermore, the family lives in a rural neighborhood, enabling them to grow vegetables and fruits and source food from the farm (Islam, 2019). This has contributed to positive health outcomes since they can access healthy foods. The security in the neighborhood also enables them to walk to work, which promotes their physical health.
Age-Appropriate Screening Recommendations
Mr. N will be recommended to undergo screenings for hypertension, lung and colorectal cancer. The USPSTF recommends hypertension screening for adults 18 years and above. It also recommends yearly screening for lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) in persons 50 to 80 years with a 20-pack-year smoking history and those currently smoking (USPSTF, n.d.). In addition, the USPSTF recommends colorectal cancer screening for adults 50 to 75 years. Screening recommendations for Mrs. N will include breast cancer, hypertension, colorectal cancer, and cervical cancer. The USPSTF recommends biennial mammography screening in females 50 to 74 years, and she is thus a candidate (USPSTF, n.d.). Furthermore, cervical cancer will be indicated because the USPSTF recommends cervical cancer screening every three years using cervical cytology alone or every five years with high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) test alone.
The firstborn daughter will be recommended screenings for hypertension and cervical cancer using cervical cytology or hrHPV test. Recommended screening for the 26 and 23-year-old sons includes hypertension and HIV. The USPSTF recommends HIV infection screening in adolescents and adults 15 to 65 years (USPSTF, n.d.). Screening for major depression will be recommended for the 15-year-old.
Assessment of the Health Model
The Health Belief Model (HBM) can be used to create a plan of action in health promotion for family N. HBM was developed to explain why individuals engage or fail to engage in preventive health measures. The model asserts that an individual’s belief in a diagnosed illness and their perception of a treatment’s effectiveness predicts their chances of behavior change (Zhao et al., 2022). HBM variables include perceived severity, susceptibility, barriers, benefits, self-efficacy, and cues to action. HBM can be used to identify if the family perceives a threat of developing a chronic illness to be serious. HBM will also identify if they feel they are susceptible to diseases, have the confidence to adopt the recommended preventive measures, and if they perceive that there are more benefits than barriers to adopting the preventive measures.
Application of Health Model
Applying the HBM will be guided by the variables: susceptibility, severity, benefits, barriers, and self-efficacy. In perceived susceptibility, the family members will be assessed on their perception of being at risk of developing chronic illnesses and measured using the five-point Likert scale (Shitu et al., 2022). Perceived severity will include assessing the family’s perception of the seriousness of chronic illnesses. The family will then be asked about their perception of the benefits of adopting healthy lifestyles to assess perceived benefits. Perceived barriers will be assessed by asking about the family’s perception of the factors limiting them from adopting disease-preventive measures (Shitu et al., 2022). Self-efficacy will be measured by assessing the family’s confidence in adopting the recommended preventive interventions. The interviewer will establish a rapport with the family at the beginning of the interview and use respectful language to maintain effective communication.
Conclusion
Various SDOHs have influenced family N’s health, including the education level, income, employment, and neighborhood. The SDOH have positively impacted the family’s health as they understand the impact of lifestyle practices and have access to insurance, healthy foods, and healthcare services. The recommended screenings for the members include hypertension, lung cancer, colorectal cancer, cervical cancer, HIV, and depression. HBM since it will help understand why the family members have adopted or failed to adopt certain preventive measures.
References
Hahn, R. A. (2021). What is a social determinant of health? Back to basics. Journal of public health research, 10(4), 2324. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2021.2324
Islam, M. M. (2019). Social Determinants of Health and Related Inequalities: Confusion and Implications. Frontiers in public health, pp. 7, 11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00011
Shitu, K., Adugna, A., Kassie, A., & Handebo, S. (2022). Application of Health Belief Model for the Assessment of COVID-19 preventive behavior and its Determinants among Students: A structural equation modeling analysis. PloS one, 17(3), e0263568. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263568
United States Preventive Services Taskforce (USPSTF). (n.d.). A and B recommendations | United States preventive services Taskforce. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/recommendation-topics/uspstf-and-b-recommendations
Zhao, Y. C., Zhao, M., & Song, S. (2022). Online Health Information Seeking Among Patients With Chronic Conditions: Integrating the Health Belief Model and Social Support Theory. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 24(11), e42447. doi: 10.2196/42447
Click here to ORDER an A++ paper from our MASTERS and DOCTORATE WRITERS: Assignment: Family Assessment Part II Essay
Assignment: Family Assessment Part II Essay Rubric
|
Sat, Apr 13, 8:35 PM (2 days ago) | |||
|
NRS-429VN | NRS-429VN-O503 | Family Assessment Part II | 150.0 | |||
Criteria | Percentage | Unsatisfactory (0.00%) | Less than Satisfactory (75.00%) | Satisfactory (79.00%) | Good (89.00%) | Excellent (100.00%) |
Content | 80.0% | |||||
SDOH Affecting Family and Family Health Status | 20.0% | SDOH affecting family health status, and the direct impact to the family, are not presented. | SDOH affecting family health status are partially presented. SDOH listed are not relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are unclear. There are inaccuracies. | Key SDOH affecting family health status are summarized. The SDOH identified are relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are generally discussed. More support or rationale is needed in some areas. | The overall SDOH affecting family health status are accurately identified and described. The SDOH identified are relevant to the family. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are discussed. | The SDOH directly affecting family health status are relevant, accurately identified and thoroughly described. The direct impact to the family, and why the factors are prevalent to the family, are discussed in detail. The discussion is well supported and illustrates insight into SDOH and their effect on family health status. |
Age-Appropriate Screening Recommendations | 20.0% | Age-appropriate screenings are not presented. | Screenings are presented for some family members. The screenings are not age appropriate. Screenings are not relevant to the information gathered through family health assessment. | Screenings are presented for each family member. Screenings are generally age appropriate, but entirely not relevant based on the information gathered through family health assessment. More rationale and support is required. | Screenings presented for each family member are age appropriate. Screenings are relevant and based on the information gathered through family health assessment. Some minor rationale or support is needed. | Screenings presented for each family member are age appropriate and highly relevant. Screenings correlate to the information gathered through family health assessment. Strong rationale and support is presented. |
Assessment of Health Model | 20.0% | A health model to assist in the creation of a plan of action is not presented. The model chosen is not a health model. | A health model is selected to assist in creating a plan of action. The description of the model is incomplete. It is unclear why the chosen model is best for this family. | A health model is selected and described. A summary of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. A general overview for why it is best for this family is provided. More rationale and support is required. | A health model is selected and described. A discussion of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. Reasons for why it is best for this family are provided. Some rationale or support is needed. | A health model is selected and thoroughly described. A detailed discussion of how the model will assist in creating a plan of action is presented. Reasons for why it is best for this family are clearly outlined. Strong rationale and support are provided to support reasoning. |
Application of Health Model | 20.0% | Family-centered health promotion using selected health model is omitted. | Steps for a family-centered health promotion are partially presented. The health promotion is not based on the health model. Significant aspects are missing. There are major inaccuracies. | The health model is used to create a general family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome require more detail to illustrate a clear plan of action. A general plan for communication with the family is presented. More rationale and support is required. | The health model is used to create a relevant family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome are illustrated. Strategies for communication with the family are presented. | The health model is used to create a relevant and viable family-centered health promotion. The steps to achieve the desired outcome are described in detail. Appropriate strategies for communication with the family are clearly presented. The health promotion is well-designed and demonstrates an ability to assimilate findings and appropriately apply theoretical knowledge to achieve desired outcomes. |
Organization and Effectiveness | 15.0% | |||||
Thesis Development and Purpose | 5.0% | Paper lacks any discernible overall purpose or organizing claim. | Thesis is insufficiently developed or vague. Purpose is not clear. | Thesis is apparent and appropriate to purpose. | Thesis is clear and forecasts the development of the paper. Thesis is descriptive and reflective of the arguments and appropriate to the purpose. | Thesis is comprehensive and contains the essence of the paper. Thesis statement makes the purpose of the paper clear. |
Argument Logic and Construction | 5.0% | Statement of purpose is not justified by the conclusion. The conclusion does not support the claim made. Argument is incoherent and uses noncredible sources. | Sufficient justification of claims is lacking. Argument lacks consistent unity. There are obvious flaws in the logic. Some sources have questionable credibility. | Argument is orderly, but may have a few inconsistencies. The argument presents minimal justification of claims. Argument logically, but not thoroughly, supports the purpose. Sources used are credible. Introduction and conclusion bracket the thesis. | Argument shows logical progressions. Techniques of argumentation are evident. There is a smooth progression of claims from introduction to conclusion. Most sources are authoritative. | Clear and convincing argument that presents a persuasive claim in a distinctive and compelling manner. All sources are authoritative. |
Mechanics of Writing (includes spelling, punctuation, grammar, language use) | 5.0% | Surface errors are pervasive enough that they impede communication of meaning. Inappropriate word choice or sentence construction is used. | Frequent and repetitive mechanical errors distract the reader. Inconsistencies in language choice (register), sentence structure, or word choice are present. | Some mechanical errors or typos are present, but they are not overly distracting to the reader. Correct sentence structure and audience-appropriate language are used. | Prose is largely free of mechanical errors, although a few may be present. A variety of sentence structures and effective figures of speech are used. | Writer is clearly in command of standard, written, academic English. |
Format | 5.0% | |||||
Paper Format (use of appropriate style for the major and assignment) | 2.0% | Template is not used appropriately or documentation format is rarely followed correctly. | Template is used, but some elements are missing or mistaken; lack of control with formatting is apparent. | Template is used, and formatting is correct, although some minor errors may be present. | Template is fully used; There are virtually no errors in formatting style. | All format elements are correct. |
Documentation of Sources (citations, footnotes, references, bibliography, etc., as appropriate to assignment and style) | 3.0% | Sources are not documented. | Documentation of sources is inconsistent or incorrect, as appropriate to assignment and style, with numerous formatting errors. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, although some formatting errors may be present. | Sources are documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is mostly correct. | Sources are completely and correctly documented, as appropriate to assignment and style, and format is free of error. |
Total Weightage | 100% |
|
|
|||
|