Individual: Authoritative Sources & Links Assignment

Description

Individual: Authoritative Sources & Links Assignment Guidelines & Requirements:

Peer review of this assignment is required.

Submission/Proof of Submission of FIU Writing Center Review is required. Meeting with a tutor from the writing center virtually is available by scheduling an appointment at: https://writingcenter.fiu.edu/resources/online-tut…

2.1 Each student shall submit their draft assignment submission (i.e., complete narrative, citations, references and links), either in person or online, to an FIU Writing Center tutor for their input on the narrative as well as APA Style for the citations and references.

2.2 Either graduate or undergraduate tutor is acceptable.

2.3 It is strongly recommended that students seek to schedule an appointment with the FIU Writing Center as soon as possible since slots tend to fill up fast. Students may ask to share appointment time but that decision is up to the writing center. Book early!

2.4 Proof of submission must accompany the assignment submission. Submission to faculty via canvas email is not permitted.

2.5 Failure to attain and post confirmation of review with the assignment submission will result in a 10% deduction on the score for the assignment.

3. Each student shall:

3.1 Find then read and review two (2) articles meeting the definition of “External Authoritative Sources” (noted below), that discuss diverse populations in healthcare policy in the US or other country; and
3.2 Provide a brief paragraph narrative (one paragraph required for each of the two (2) required “External Authoritative Sources”) incorporating proper APA style for the in-text citations and reference for each source immediately following each narrative; and

3.2.1 Each source shall be substantively cited in a narrative paragraph using proper APA style

3.2.2 Following each narrative paragraph full and complete reference for the source is required

3.2.3 A link to the full article for each of the two(2) required external authoritative sources is required immediately following each reference

3.3 Points will be lost if the reference(s) for the first source does not follow the brief paragraph narrative substantively citing the first source along with the link. Then the second source narrative shall be presented also with proper citation(s), reference and link.

4. Each assignment shall be submitted by each student on or before the designated due date shown on the course schedule and Canvas.

5. “External Authoritative Sources” for purposes of this course shall mean: articles from published books, peer reviewed journal articles, education and government sites as well as non-partisan national or international organizations (such as WHO, UNICEF, UNAIDS etc.,) provided, the article selected must have:

5.1 Authors; and

5.2 In text citations and references to support statements made therein.

5.3 Under no circumstances are newspapers (e.g., the Wall Street Journal), blogs (regardless of source), editorials, panel discussions, definition of terms, the assigned case study, “dot com” sites, and text books from the course or other courses to be used. The foregoing are not considered authoritative for this course.

6.Late submissions are not accepted.

SAMPLE

As requested, below please find a sample of one of the two sources required for the Individual Authoritative Links Assignment. Students may not use this source in their submission or it will receive zero points.

TITLE: The Changed Environment: Pharmaceutical Companies, Medical Providers, and Gifts.

NARRATIVE #1: In ‘’Limiting the Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry Gifts on Physicians: Self-Regulation or Government Intervention?’’ (Grande, 2010), examines the public’s increasing interest in the influence pharmaceutical companies have on physicians through gifts and the efforts for regulation. Grande (2010), sheds light on the influence pharmaceutical gifts have on medical providers and how this scrutiny is questioning the objectivity and independence of physicians and the way they prescribe medication (para. 2). The pharmaceutical gifts that are potentially swaying physicians’ objectivity range from company-sponsored meals, drug samples, to other non “educational” gifts of less value (Grande, 2010, para. 5). Although some gifts might appear trivial, data suggests that even gifts that might not have much significance may create influence (Grande, 2010, para. 12). The public’s interest in the effect these gifts have on physicians was piqued from the realization that drugs that were heavily marketed were revealed to pose public health risks, the rising costs of pharmaceuticals was also a major factor (Grande, 2010, para. 2). Grande explains that efforts toward self-regulation have been made such as the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) issuing voluntary guidelines in 2002(Grande, 2010, para. 5). However, circumstances advise that depending on ethics guidelines to guide self-regulation have been slow to bring substantive change (Grande, 2010, para. 8). As for governmental intervention, Grande (2010), explains that governmental regulations will contain loopholes and the pharmaceutical industry will find ways to promote its products regardless of ethics (para. 26).

Reference:

Grande, D. (2009). Limiting the Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry Gifts on Physicians: Self-Regulation or Government Intervention? Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(1), 79–83.

Link:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-1016-7(link) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC28115…

Then proceed to the second source. Repeat the narrative, citations, reference and link to the full article.

Grid View

	Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Main Posting	45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources. Supported by at least three current, credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module. At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth. Supported by at least three credible sources. Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.	35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s). One or 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. Post is cited with two credible sources. Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Contains some APA formatting errors.	0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately. 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 sources. Not written clearly or concisely. Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors. Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.
Main Post: Timeliness	10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3.
First Response	17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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.	13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Second Response	16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings. Responds fully to questions posed by faculty. Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources. Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed. Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.	14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings. Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues. Responses to faculty questions are 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.	12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth. Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed. Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.	0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth. Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication. Responses to faculty questions are missing. No credible sources are cited.
Participation	5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%)	0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.
Total Points: 100