Learning Resourcesrequired Readings Explained for Students (Easy Guide)

This question focuses on applying theory to practical scenarios.

What This Question Is About

This question relates to learning resourcesrequired readings and requires a structured academic response.

How to Approach This Question

Focus on explaining concepts clearly and supporting them with examples.

Key Explanation

This topic involves learning resourcesrequired readings. A strong answer should include explanation, application, and examples.

Original Question

Learning ResourcesRequired Readings Short, N. M. (2022). Milstead’s health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (7th ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. Chapter 1, “Informing Public Policy: An Important Role for Registered Nurses” (pp. 2-23 only) Chapter 3, “Problem Identification and Agenda Setting: What Rises to a Policymaker’s Attention?” (pp. 57-71) Chapter 10, “Financing Health Care” (pp. 229-239) Chapter 12, “An Insider’s Guide to Engaging in Policy Activities” (pp. 293-301) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (n.d.). Diabetes fact sheetsLinks to an external site.. https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/library/factsheets.html DeMarco, R., & Tufts, K. A. (2014). The mechanics of writing a policy briefLinks to an external site.. Nursing Outlook, 62 (3), 219-224. Kingdon, J.W. (2001). A model of agenda-setting with applications. Law Review M.S.U.-D.C.LLinks to an external site.., 2 (331) Lamb, G., Newhouse, R., Beverly, C., Toney, D. A., Cropley, S., Weaver, C. A., Kurtzman, E., … Peterson, C. (2015). Policy agenda for nurse-led care coordinationLinks to an external site.. Nursing Outlook, 63 (4), 521-530. doi:10.1016/j.outlook.2015.06.003. O’Rourke, N. C., Crawford, S. L., Morris, N. S., & Pulcini, J. (2017). Political efficacy and participation of nurse practitionersLinks to an external site.. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 18 (3), 135-148. OASIS. (n.d.). Evaluate resources: An interactive guideLinks to an external site.. Walden University. https://academics.waldenu.edu/library/evaluate-resources-web Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Enhancing Environmental Health Content in Nursing Practice, Pope, A. M., Snyder, M. A., & Mood, L. H. (Eds.). (n.d.). Nursing health, & environment Links to an external site.: Strengthening the relationship to improve the public’s health. USA.gov. (n.d.). A-Z index of U.S. government departments and agencies Links to an external site.. Retrieved September 20, 2018, from https://www.usa.gov/federal-agencies/a USA.gov. (n.d.). Branches of the US government Links to an external site.. https://www.usa.gov/branches-of-government The White House. (n.d.). The cabinet Links to an external site.. https://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/cabinet Document: APA Course Paper Template (APA 7) (Word document)Links to an external site. Document: Agenda Comparison Grid Template (Word document) Agenda Comparison Grid Assignment Template for Part 1 and Part 2 Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid Use this Agenda Comparison Grid to document information about the population health/healthcare issue you selected and the presidential agendas. By completing this grid, you will develop a more in depth understanding of your selected issue and how you might position it politically based on the presidential agendas. You will use the information in the Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid to complete the remaining Part 2 and Part 3 of your Assignment. Identify the Population Health concern you selected. Describe the Population Health concern you selected. Administration (President Name) Explain how each of the two presidential administrations approached the issue. Identify the allocations of resources that the current and previous presidents dedicated to this issue. Part 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis Using the information you recorded in Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid, complete the following to document information about the population health/healthcare issue you selected Administration Which administrative agency (like HHS, CDC, FDA, OHSA) would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected? Why is this agency the most helpful? How do you think your selected healthcare issue might get on the presidential agenda? How does it stay there? Who would you choose to be the entrepreneur/ champion/sponsor (this can be a celebrity, a legislator, an agency director, or others) of the healthcare issue you selected? An example is Michael J. Fox a champion for In this Assignment, you will analyze recent presidential healthcare agendas. You also will prepare a fact sheet to communicate the importance of a healthcare issue and the impact on this issue of recent or proposed policy. Resources Be sure to review the Learning Resources before completing this activity. To Prepare: Review the agenda priorities of the current/sitting U.S. president and at least one previous presidential administration. Tip: You can locate presidential agenda information by searching Google for your health topic and the president. For example, mental health Obama presidential agenda. Select an issue related to healthcare that was addressed by two U.S. presidential administrations (current and previous). Consider how you would communicate the importance of a healthcare issue to a legislator/policymaker or a member of their staff for inclusion on an agenda. Use your Week 1 Discussion post to help with this assignment. The Assignment: (1- to 2-page Comparison Grid, 1-Page Analysis, and 1-page narrative) with a title page. This is an APA paper. Use 2-3 course resources and at least 2 outside resources. Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid Use the Agenda Comparison Grid Template found in the Learning Resources and complete the Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid based on the current/sitting U.S. president and the previous president, and their agendas related to the population health concern you selected. Be sure to address the following: Identify and provide a brief description of the population health concern you selected. Explain how each of the presidential administrations approached the issue. Identify the allocation of resources that the presidents dedicated to this issue. Part 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis Using the information you recorded in Part 1: Agenda Comparison Grid on the template, complete the Part 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis portion of the template, by addressing the following: Which administrative agency (like HHS, CDC, FDA, OHSA) would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected and why is this agency the most helpful for the issue? How do you think your selected healthcare issue might get on the presidential agenda? How does it stay there? An entrepreneur/champion/sponsor helps to move the issue forward. Who would you choose to be the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor (this can be a celebrity, a legislator, an agency director, or others) of the healthcare issue you selected and why would this person be a good entrepreneur/ champion/sponsor? An example is Michael J. Fox is champion for Parkinson’s disease. Part 3: Fact Sheet Using the information recorded on the template in Parts 1 and 2, develop a 1-page fact sheet that you could use to communicate with a policymaker/legislator or a member of their staff for this healthcare issue. Be sure to address the following: Summarize why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation. Justify the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues. Assignment document should include: Title page Introductory paragraph Agenda comparison grid and analysis Fact sheet Summary/conclusions References Rubric NURS_6050_Module01_Week02_Assignment_Rubric Criteria Ratings Pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 1: Agenda Comparison GridExplain how each of the presidential administrations approached the issue. Identify the allocations of resources that the two presidents dedicated to this issue. 20 to >17.0 ptsExcellentThe response clearly and accurately explains how the presidential administrations approached the issue and identifies the resource allocations dedicated to the issue. 17 to >15.0 ptsGoodThe response accurately explains how the presidential administrations approached the issue and identifies the resource allocations dedicated to the issue. 15 to >13.0 ptsFairThe response is vague or partially inaccurate in its explanation of how the presidential administrations approached the issue, and/or in the identification of the resources allocated to the issue. 13 to >0 ptsPoorThe response is missing or inaccurate in its explanation of how the presidential administrations approached the issue, and/or in the identification of the resources allocated to the issue. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 2: Agenda Comparison Grid Analysis- Address the following:Which administrative agency would most likely be responsible for helping you address the healthcare issue you selected? Why is this agency most helpful?How do you think your selected healthcare issue might get on the agenda? How does it stay there?Who would you choose to be the entrepreneur/ champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue you selected and justify your selection. 25 to >22.0 ptsExcellentThe response clearly and accurately identifies an administrative agency most likely to be responsible for addressing the selected healthcare issue and why that agency is most helpful. …Response clearly and accurately explains how the healthcare issue gets on the agenda and remains there. …The response clearly and accurately identifies and justifies the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue selected. 22 to >19.0 ptsGoodThe response identifies an administrative agency most likely to be responsible for addressing the selected healthcare issue and why that agency is most helpful. …Response clearly and accurately explains how the healthcare issue gets on the agenda and remains there. …Identification and justification of the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue is included. 19 to >17.0 ptsFairThe identification of an administrative agency responsible for addressing the selected healthcare issue is vague or inaccurate and justification is inaccurate or misaligned for why that agency is most helpful. …Explanation of how the healthcare issue gets on the agenda and remains there is vague or inaccurate. …Identification and/or justification of the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue selected is inaccurate or does not align with the healthcare issue. 17 to >0 ptsPoorIdentification of an administrative agency responsible for addressing the selected healthcare issue is missing. …Explanation of how the healthcare issue gets on the agenda and remains there is inaccurate or missing. …Identification and/or justification of the entrepreneur/champion/sponsor of the healthcare issue selected is inaccurate or missing. 25 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomePart 3: Fact SheetBased on your Agenda Comparison Grid for the healthcare issue you selected, develop a 1-2-page narrative that you could use to communicate with a policy- maker/legislator or a member of their staff for this healthcare issue.Summarize why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation.Justify the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues 30 to >26.0 ptsExcellentCreates an accurate and thorough fact sheet. …Using sufficient evidence, the response provides an accurate synthesis of evidence on why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation. …Response accurately justifies the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues. 26 to >23.0 ptsGoodCreates an accurate fact sheet. …Using sufficient evidence, the response provides an accurate summary evidence on why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation. …Response accurately justifies the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues. 23 to >20.0 ptsFairCreates a fact sheet that is partially accurate or incomplete. …Response provides an incomplete or inaccurate summary of evidence on why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation. …Response partially or inaccurately justifies the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues. 20 to >0 ptsPoorCreates a fact sheet that is inaccurate or incomplete. …Response provides an inaccurate summary of evidence or evidence is missing on why this healthcare issue is important and should be included in the agenda for legislation. …Response justifying the role of the nurse in agenda setting for healthcare issues is inaccurate and incomplete or missing. 30 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeResources 10 to >8.0 ptsExcellentResponse includes 3 or more course resources and 2 or more outside sources. 8 to >7.0 ptsGoodResponse includes 2-3 course resources and 2 outside sources. 7 to >6.0 ptsFairResponse includes fewer than 2 course resources and/or fewer than 2 outside resources. 6 to >0 ptsPoorResponse includes 2 or fewer resources. 10 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: ParagraphParagraphs make clear points that support well developed ideas, low logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused–neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. 5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%-79% of the time. 2 to >0 ptsPoorParagraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: English Writing StandardsCorrect grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation. 5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodContains a few (1-2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairContains several (3-4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 2 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥5) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors that interfere with the reader’s understanding. 5 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting: The paper follows correct APA format for title page, headings, font, spacing, indentations, parenthetical/in- text citations, and reference list. 5 to >4.0 ptsExcellentUses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.0 ptsGoodContains a few (1-2) APA format errors. 3 to >2.0 ptsFairContains several (3-4) APA format errors. 2 to >0 ptsPoorContains many (≥5) APA format errors. 5 pts Total Points: 100 My Week 1 discussion post was on Diabetes, I will post it below, but I would like to write on Mental health since my major would be Psych/Mental Health NP. Please use the rubric, aim at the excellent criteria. Also, Parts 1 and 2 are in the grid template, lines did not show. Thanks. Week 1: Discussion Population Health Topic: Diabetes as a Public Health Concern Diabetes, particularly type 2 diabetes, is a critical population health issue that has risen to the presidential agenda level due to its widespread prevalence, significant health and economic burdens, and its disproportionate impact on marginalized communities. As a chronic condition affecting over 38 million Americans (approximately 11.6% of the population), diabetes contributes to severe complications such as heart disease, kidney failure, and lower-limb amputations, making it a leading cause of morbidity and mortality (CDC, 2025). Its significance as a public health priority stems from its preventable nature through lifestyle interventions and its deep ties to social determinants of health (SDOH), which amplify disparities in outcomes. This discussion examines the social determinant most affecting diabetes, compares the approaches of recent U.S. presidents (Trump and Biden), and proposes alternative strategies to address this issue more effectively, emphasizing the role of nurses in agenda-setting. Social Determinant Most Affecting Diabetes Among the social determinants of health, socioeconomic status (SES) is the most significant driver of diabetes prevalence and outcomes. SES encompasses income, education, and employment, which shape access to resources critical for diabetes prevention and management, such as healthy food, safe spaces for physical activity, and healthcare services. Low SES is strongly associated with higher rates of type 2 diabetes and poorer outcomes, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities and low-income populations. For instance, individuals with lower incomes often face barriers to accessing nutritious foods, leading to diets high in processed, calorie-dense foods that increase diabetes risk (Hill-Briggs et al., 2021). Limited education can reduce health literacy, hindering effective self-management of diabetes, such as understanding medication regimens or monitoring blood glucose levels. Additionally, unstable employment may restrict access to health insurance, delaying preventive care and exacerbating complications. The impact of SES is compounded by systemic inequities, such as residential segregation, which concentrates low-income populations in areas with limited healthcare infrastructure and poor environmental conditions (e.g., lack of green spaces or safe walking paths). These factors create a vicious cycle where economic disadvantage drives poor health outcomes, which in turn perpetuate economic hardship. Addressing SES as a root cause of diabetes disparities requires policies that go beyond clinical interventions to tackle upstream factors like poverty, education access, and community resources. Presidential Approaches to Diabetes Donald Trump (2017-2021): The Trump administration’s approach to diabetes was primarily framed within broader healthcare reform efforts, with a focus on market-driven solutions and deregulation rather than targeted public health initiatives for chronic diseases like diabetes. A key action was the attempt to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), which had expanded access to preventive care and insurance coverage for millions, including those with diabetes. The repeal of the ACA’s individual mandate in 2017 weakened its ability to ensure broad coverage, potentially limiting access to diabetes screenings, medications, and management programs for uninsured or underinsured populations (Blumenthal et al., 2020). The administration also prioritized reducing prescription drug costs, issuing executive orders to lower insulin prices, such as the 2020 order allowing community health centers to provide insulin at reduced costs. However, these efforts were limited in scope and implementation, with minimal impact on systemic issues like SDOH. Trump’s policies did not explicitly address diabetes through a public health lens or focus on SDOH. Instead, his administration emphasized individual responsibility and private-sector solutions, which often failed to reach vulnerable populations most affected by diabetes. The lack of investment in community-based prevention programs or policies targeting SES disparities meant that diabetes prevalence continued to rise, particularly among low-income and minority groups. Joe Biden (2021-2025): The Biden administration took a more proactive stance on diabetes by strengthening the ACA and addressing SDOH as part of a broader health equity agenda. Through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 and the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, Biden expanded ACA subsidies, increasing access to insurance for low-income individuals, which improved affordability of diabetes care, including screenings and medications (Artiga & Hinton, 2018). The Inflation Reduction Act also capped insulin costs at $35 per month for Medicare beneficiaries, a significant step given the high cost of insulin for diabetes management. Additionally, the administration invested in community health programs, such as the CDC’s Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health (REACH) program, which targets chronic disease disparities, including diabetes, in underserved communities by addressing SDOH like food insecurity and access to physical activity (CDC, 2024). Biden’s approach emphasized health equity, with initiatives like the CDC’s declaration of racism as a public health threat in 2021, which indirectly supported efforts to address systemic factors contributing to diabetes disparities. However, while these policies expanded access to care, they did not fully address upstream SDOH like income inequality or education disparities, which require long-term, cross-sectoral interventions beyond healthcare financing. What I Would Do Differently To address diabetes more effectively, I would propose a comprehensive, multi-sectoral strategy that prioritizes SES as the primary social determinant while leveraging nurse-led care coordination and community partnerships. My approach would differ from past administrations in the following ways: Invest in Upstream Interventions Targeting SES: Unlike the Trump administration’s focus on market-based solutions or Biden’s emphasis on healthcare access, I would advocate for policies that directly address income inequality and education disparities. This could include expanding tax credits for low-income families to improve financial stability, which would enable better access to healthy foods and healthcare services. Additionally, I would support federal funding for community-based education programs focused on health literacy, empowering individuals to manage diabetes effectively. These programs could be delivered through schools, workplaces, and community centers, targeting high-risk populations. Strengthen Nurse-Led Care Coordination: Nurses are uniquely positioned to bridge clinical care and community health, making them critical in agenda-setting for diabetes (Lamb et al., 2015). I would establish a national initiative for nurse-led care coordination teams, embedded in community health centers, to provide holistic diabetes management. These teams would assess patients’ SDOH, connect them to social services (e.g., food assistance programs, housing support), and deliver tailored education on diabetes self-management. Unlike Biden’s broader health equity focus, this targeted approach would ensure direct support for diabetes patients while addressing SES barriers. Expand Community-Based Prevention Programs: Building on the CDC’s REACH program, I would allocate significant federal funding to scale up community-driven prevention initiatives that address environmental and social factors, such as improving walkability in low-income neighborhoods and subsidizing healthy food options in food deserts. Trump’s limited focus on prevention missed opportunities to reduce diabetes incidence, while Biden’s efforts, though promising, were underfunded relative to the scale of the problem. My approach would prioritize sustainable, community-led solutions with measurable outcomes. Advocate for Policy Integration Across Sectors: Diabetes cannot be addressed through healthcare alone; it requires collaboration across housing, education, transportation, and economic sectors. I would establish a federal task force, including nurse leaders, to develop interagency policies that integrate SDOH into diabetes prevention and management. For example, partnering with the Department of Housing and Urban Development could improve housing stability, reducing stress-related diabetes complications. This cross-sectoral approach would address gaps in both Trump’s and Biden’s strategies, which largely confined diabetes efforts to healthcare policy. Engage Nurses in Policy Advocacy: Nurses, as trusted healthcare professionals, have significant political efficacy to influence policymakers (O’Rourke et al., 2017). I would create a national training program to enhance nurses’ advocacy skills, enabling them to engage with legislators and push for diabetes-related policies. This would ensure that diabetes remains a priority on the presidential agenda, addressing the shortcomings of past administrations where nurse involvement in policy-setting was underutilized. Role of Nurses in Agenda-Setting Nurses play a pivotal role in agenda-setting for healthcare issues like diabetes by leveraging their expertise, community connections, and advocacy skills. As frontline providers, nurses witness the impact of SDOH on patients’ lives and can translate these insights into compelling policy briefs and fact sheets to influence policymakers (DeMarco & Tufts, 2014). By participating in professional organizations, testifying at congressional hearings, and collaborating with community stakeholders, nurses can elevate diabetes as a national priority. Their role in care coordination also positions them to advocate for policies that address SES, ensuring that solutions are practical and patient-centered. Conclusion Diabetes is a pressing public health issue driven by socioeconomic status, which shapes access to resources critical for prevention and management. The Trump administration’s market-driven approach failed to address SDOH, while Biden’s focus on health equity and affordability made strides but fell short on upstream interventions. My proposed strategy emphasizes SES-focused policies, nurse-led care coordination, community-based prevention, cross-sectoral collaboration, and nurse advocacy to create a more equitable and effective response to diabetes. By centering nurses in agenda-setting and policy implementation, we can ensure that diabetes remains a priority and that solutions address the root causes of disparities. References Blumenthal, D., Fowler, E. J., Abrams, M., & Collins, S. R. (2020). COVID-19—Implications for the health care system. New England Journal of Medicine, 383(15), 1483-1488. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMsb2021088Links to an external site. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). (2024). Social determinants of health. https://www.cdc.govLinks to an external site. DeMarco, R., & Tufts, K. A. (2014). The mechanics of writing a policy brief. Nursing Outlook, 62(3), 219-224. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2014.04.002Links to an external site. Links to an external site.Hill-Briggs, F., Adler, N. E., Berkowitz, S. A., Chin, M. H., Gary-Webb, T. L., Navas-Acien, A., Thornton, P. L., & Haire-Joshu, D. (2021). Social determinants of health and diabetes: A scientific review. Diabetes Care, 44(1), 258-279. https://doi.org/10.2337/dci20-0053 Lamb, G., Newhouse, R., Beverly, C., Toney, D. A., Cropley, S., Weaver, C. A., … Peterson, C. (2015). Policy agenda for nurse-led care coordination. Nursing Outlook, 63(4), 521-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.outlook.2015.06.003Links to an external site. O’Rourke, N. C., Crawford, S. L., Morris, N. S., & Pulcini, J. (2017). Political efficacy and participation of nurse practitioners. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 18(3), 135-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/1527154417728514

******CLICK ORDER NOW BELOW AND OUR WRITERS WILL WRITE AN ANSWER TO THIS ASSIGNMENT OR ANY OTHER ASSIGNMENT, DISCUSSION, ESSAY, HOMEWORK OR QUESTION YOU MAY HAVE. OUR PAPERS ARE PLAGIARISM FREE*******."