- Premium Academic Help From Professionals
- +1 323 471 4575
- support@essaybasket.com
Epidemiology and Public Health Week 08 Discussion
Epidemiology and Public Health Week 08 Discussion
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
Epidemiology and Public Health Week 08 Discussion
NR514-NEED RESPONSES
Cyron Dalida
The CDC defines the health-related quality of life (HRQL) on the individual level as physical and mental health perceptions and how they correlate with health risk conditions, functional capacity, social support, and socioeconomic status (CDC,2018). Furthermore, HRQOL on the community level includes resources available, conditions, policies, and practices that govern the populations’ perceptions of health and functional status. The CDC also lists multiple measures for health-related quality of life, such as the Healthy Days Core Module, Activity Limitations Module, and Healthy Days Symptoms, which are questions assessing a person’s perceptions and current physical and mental health (CDC, 2018)
HRQOL is a multidimensional concept that includes many components such as an individual’s physical, and psychological health, perception of independence, social relationships, and environmental factors that are important to that individual (Lin et al., 2013). Furthermore, Lin et al. (2018) state that criticisms of HRQOL measures stem from a lack of conceptual clarity and measurement feasibility. HRQOL measures can be adequately measured if these measures are both specific such as measuring specific disease (heart disease, cancer), and complement more generic measures assessing someone’s overall physical, mental, and social health.
References:
CDC. (2018). Health-related quality of life : Methods and measures. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://www.cdc.gov/hrqol/methods.htm
Lin, X., Lin, I., Fan, S. (2013). Methodological issues in measuring health-related quality of life. Tzu Chi medical journal 25(1), 8-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tcmj.2012.09.002
Epidemiology and Public Health Week 08 Discussion
Following their implementation, quality of life (QOL) measures metamorphosed and became integral to health outcomes and the associated appraisals. It availed a meaningful avenue to assess the effects of healthcare when the cure was not possible, particularly for populations with chronic ailments (Zucoloto & Martinez, 2019). In the past, multiple instruments were created purporting to measure QOL, but they measured causal indicators instead. The ideal scale currently comprises a 16-item instrument that evaluates five conceptual domains of life, including personal development and fulfillment. Others entail physical well-being, recreation, community and civic practices, and social relationship with others. Later, another domain was added independence, after incorporating what perceptions individuals with chronic conditions harbored about quality of life following descriptive research (Zucoloto & Martinez, 2019). Thus, to gain more insights into QOL measures, the text argues that the approach cannot be applied to adequately measure health-related quality of life, drawing illustrations from physical wellbeing.
In a clinical setting, the underpinning justification for using QOL measures borders on the need to ensure that treatment interventions and evacuations are directed toward patients. Unfortunately, this is often not the case because caregivers and healthcare facilities focus on ailments. In this view, quality of life, including physical wellbeing, cannot be the only avenue to assess patient-centered outcomes. Alternatively, there is the need to incorporate other factors to evaluate the outcomes, such as psychological wellbeing, social interaction and support, and measures of disability (Bourdel et al., 2019). Instead of being an adjunct to assessing outcomes linked to ailments, QOL measures focus on being a substitute, which is not ideal. For instance, rheumatologists fail to treat rheumatoid arthritis using antirheumatic medications based on the quality-of-life scores. In this case, health-related quality of life is not adequately measured when the primary emphasis is solely on physical wellbeing.
Another proof that QOL measures are inadequate to measure health-related quality of life is that they are less effective and accurate. Since the approach is broad and multidimensional and comprises 16-items, it tends to be less responsive, unlike methods specific to patient outcomes (Zucoloto & Martinez, 2019). For instance, emphasizing the physical wellness of individuals majorly means that other aspects, such as conditions leading to anxiety and depression, are neglected. In this regard, one may suppose that the approach is a highly individual concept. The quality-of-life measure does not capture all characteristics of life that are critical to the survival of a patient. However, the only merit to the method is that systems in which individuals may postulate at least some of the features may probably come closest (Zucoloto & Martinez, 2019). Thereupon, the realization behind some of the shortcomings of QOL measures should be an eye-opener to expand the model to incorporate all aspects of quality of life.
From a personal perspective, the inadequacy to measure health-related quality of life based solely on physical wellness results in various ethical concerns. As a concept, the main idea behind the quality of life entails that health problems can be revealed, including those at the periphery of the usual remit of medical care. For example, focusing on a particular aspect breeds the expectation that clinicians may influence it; otherwise, what would be the objective behind assessing it? The downside to this attitude is that in situations where caregivers cannot control outcomes; the process measurement may seem to harm patients. Another ethical concern is that some pressure groups may oppose the clinical measurement of quality of life, citing ‘overmedicalization.” Thus, QOL measurements need to integrate all aspects into practice, including social support and relationships.
Background
Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is a valuable indicator of overall health because it captures an individual’s perception of physical and mental health status and the impact on their quality of life (Yin et al., 2016). Furthermore, Yin et al. (2016) explains that HRQoL is assessed through multiple indicators of self-perceived health status and physical and emotional functioning. These measures “provide a comprehensive assessment of the burden of preventable diseases, injuries, and disabilities “(p.2).
Data and Research
Chetty et al. (2016) explain a known correlation between higher income, longevity, and perceived quality of life and wanted to look into the causes of the variations. Why do lower-income populations have a reported perceived lesser quality of life? Researchers found significant differences related to health behaviors, access to health care, health literacy, workplace hazards or environments, income, and stress levels. Education seems to play a significant role in outcomes.
Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life
Gulis and Fujino (2015) discuss how micro and macro environments influence our perception of our quality of life. Everyone’s lives are influenced by political, environmental, social, cultural, educational, and coping factors. Health impact assessments (HIAs) are a way to measure how one evaluates the quality of their life. It is difficult to clearly state that an HIA can adequately measure one’s quality of life because so much of it is subjective and situational. HIAs add value to Epidemiology and attempts to quantify the impact that all of these influences have on our lives. The information indicates trends and adds value to epidemiology and population health. However, HRQoLs are a matter of perception and ultimately subjective.
Despite how the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is defined, it involves more than physical and mental health-it gives individuals a sense of well-being (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC], 2018). According to the World Health Organization (WHO) (2012), “quality of life is related to humans’ perception of their position in life in the context of the culture and value systems in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns.” Jongen (2017) suggested that HRQoL is a patient-reported outcome that comprises a comprehensive subjective measure of the patient’s health status (p. 585). The concept of quality of life is essential in healthcare, especially when dealing with new diagnoses and treatments. This concept can be challenging to understand and measure because it can mean something different to various patients, affecting the provider’s prioritization of patients’ quality of life. Quality of life is personal, making it difficult to assess (Haraldstad et al., 2019, p. 2642). As stated by Buiting & Olthuis (2020), the reason for including quality of life measures in healthcare was the emerging necessity to consider people as “integrated and active beings, not just as biological organisms” (p. 1).
However, studies have proven that quality of life can be measured if the right tools are utilized. Polinder et al. (2010) revealed a wide variety in the use of HRQL instruments, study populations, and assessment time points used in studies measuring HRQL of general injury populations. This study demonstrated that disability, for example, which has been increasing in population’s health as result of injuries, can be measured by employing “functional instruments or generic or disease-specific HRQL measures, where disability represents the gap between measured and perfect HRQL” (p. 1.). Polinder et al. (2010) found that to learn the difference between groups affected by diseases and groups with good health, it is necessary to measure HRQL, for example, injuries’ consequences.
Kurtzke’s study suggested another example of an HRQL measure commonly used to determine MS-related disability, i.e., the Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS), scoring based on neurological examination and ambulation/mobility status. Overall, HRQL can be adequately measured despite being subjective (WHO, 2012), and results are primarily based on the extent of the impact diseases have on individuals (Polinder et al., 2010).
Epidemiology and Public Health Week 08 Discussion
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://essaybasket.com/orders/ordernow
Also, you can place the order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow / www.phdwriters.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!
PLACE THE ORDER WITH US TODAY AND GET A PERFECT SCORE!!!
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!
Why Work With Us!!
Tired of getting an average grade in all your school assignments, projects, essays, and homework? Try us today for all your academic schoolwork needs. We are among the most trusted and recognized professional writing services in the market.
We provide unique, original and plagiarism-free high quality academic, homework, assignments and essay submissions for all our clients. At our company, we capitalize on producing A+ Grades for all our clients and also ensure that you have smooth academic progress in all your school term and semesters.
High-quality academic submissions, A 100% plagiarism-free submission, Meet even the most urgent deadlines, Provide our services to you at the most competitive rates in the market, Give you free revisions until you meet your desired grades and Provide you with 24/7 customer support service via calls or live chats.
