Respond to this post with a positive response :

Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence or research.

Share an insight from having read your colleagues’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives.

Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library.

Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research.

Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings.

Expand on your colleagues’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence.

Use at least 3 references

                                   The Stigma of Mental Illness

As a society, how do we view mental illness? Often with disdain, discomfort, or fear. Often we ridicule people with mental health disorders.  Our culture fosters negative views of mental illness by using terms such as “crazy”, “nuts”, “psycho”, and the media perpetuates these concepts by depicting people with mental illness as scary, silly, stupid, or defective.

The policy issue that most affects my professional, as well as, personal life is Disability.  I am a psychiatric nurse who also happens to have a mental health issues. Mental illness discrimination and access to healthcare are protections meant to be provided under the law. According to the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), it is illegal to revoke licensure or otherwise prevent a healthcare provider from working due to mental disorders. The conditions included are illnesses such as depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Another form of discrimination the ADA protects is “employment tests or other selection criteria that screen out or tend to screen out an individual with a disability or a class of individuals with disabilities” (Samuel, L, 2017). However, professional licensing boards still actively engage in discriminatory actions every single day. “Boards’ hands are often tied in terms of what state legislatures will let them do” (Dyrbye, 2017). According, to Dyrbye, at the state level, the quandary is between protecting the public from impaired healthcare workers and the provider’s right to make a living. New studies have shown that nearly 40% of physicians and an even higher percentage of nurses reported that they would be reluctant to seek formal medical care for treatment of a mental health condition because of concerns about repercussions to their licensure.

In the Kingdon’s Model the problem is having special protections under the American Disabilities Act (ADA) to prevent increased discrimination for licensed professional healthcare workers suffering from mental illness who are far more susceptible to bias related to the nature of their professions as providers of patient care.

A policy stream can easily be defined as a think tank.  The primary objective is to collaborate to refine the problem to best address the proposed policy.  In the case of disabilities related to mental illness in healthcare professionals this may be difficult because it is a narrowly defined subset of both the mentally ill and the disabled populations.  However, because the subset can pull from two communities for support it may be easier gain support.  Ultimately, the goal is to put policy into law that forces all healthcare licensure boards and healthcare employers from gathering mental health information and that employers will face serious penalties for discrimination and/or wrongful termination.  The burden of proof is then on the employer rather than the employee to prove rational for separation.

Engaging members from all facets of the healthcare community, as well as, the American Psychiatric Association (ADA) to serve as experts is paramount in generating political support.  Having political connections foster influence from organizations such as NAMI, MHA, Congressman LaHood from IL, Representative Tim Murphy from PA, Linda Rosenberg, CEO of the National Council for Behavioral Health, Executive Director of Mental Illness Policy Org DJ Jaffe, ANA, AMA, and EEOC.  Finally, identifying successful lobbyists to push policy forward is fundamentally crucial if any bill is to become law. Eliciting the support of a successful lobbyist can help to identify windows of opportunity and to approach legislators at the right time and under the best circumstance to have a bill well received.

Reference

Dyrbye, L., West C., Synsky, C., goders, L., Satele, D., Shanafelt, T. (2017). Medical Licensure    Questions and Physician Reluctance to Seek Care for Mental Health Conditions. Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 92, 10, p1463-1604, e133-e153. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2017.06.020

 

Farmer, J., (2011, May 16). Disclosing a Mental Health Problem to an Employer. The Guardian. Retrieved by https://www.theguardian.com/careers/careers-blog/mental-health-at-work

John Kingdon, Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Politics, 2nd ed. (New York: Harper Collins, 1995). p. 19.

Samuel, L; (2017, October 16). Stat. Doctors Fear Mental Health Disclosure Could Jeopardize Their Licenses. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2017/10/16/doctors-mental-health-licenses/

Public health evokes different images for different people and it can mean different things in different contexts. This week we are discussing some of the common perceptions of public health in the United States. Please discuss the following questions. Remember to support your answers by proper citation and referencing using APA format: (300 words)

1) To what extent has public health contributed to improvement in health status and quality of life over history?

2) What historical phenomena are most responsible for the development of public health responses?

3) In your opinion, which features of public health make it different from other fields? Which features are most unique and distinctive? Why?

Essentials of Public Health Third Edition

      Publisher:  Jones and Bartlett

      Author:      Bernard J. Turnock

      ISBN: 9781284321562 

 Describe a survey, instrument, or tool that you plan to use in your   project. Describe the tool in terms of name, number of items, how it   is answered (Likert scale, yes/no, open answers, etc.), and the total   score. Describe the level of measurement for this instrument. Support   with references. 1 page, APA.

Project Topic:  Use of Advanced Practice Providers in triage in improving waiting times in Emergency departments. 

How do you think you could lobby the pharmaceutical companies to participate in a comprehensive healthcare program that includes prescriptions, with or without a co-pay tier? . Currently, the pharmaceutical industry is largely based on volume, and pharmaceutical companies are incentivized to sell as many pills as possible, at the highest price.  This is primarily due to the cost associated with research and development.  Once a drug is FDA approved, the patent lasts for approximately 13 years.  This means the pharmaceutical company only has a short time to recover research and development expenses and turn a profit before anyone in the industry can manufacture the same drug in generic form. It just seems to me there is no incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to participate in any healthcare program that will have a negative fiscal impact on their bottom line.

References

Drug Patents and Generic Pharmaceutical Drugs. Retrieved from www.news-medical.net/health/Drug-Patents-and-Generics.aspx

 

Milstead,  J. A. & Short, N. M.  (2019). Health policy and politics: A nurse’s guide (6th ed.).  Burlington, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

 

Thorton, Grant. (2017). Health Care and Life Sciences; Affordable Care Act – Pharmaceuticals. Retrieved from /www.grantthornton.com/library/articles/health-care/2017/affordable-care-act-impact-pharmaceuticals.aspx

Please cite references in the answer of the question

Hi, i need the table i uploaded to be filled

Health Promotion Program, Part B2: Evidence-based Literature SearchYou will be expected to search for the highest level of evidence for your health promotion project. Please listen to the lecture on searching the evidence, use the services of the research librarian, and pull from the knowledge gained in NUR 39000 Nursing Research to complete this assignment. The Purdue Owl website is a great resource for you when citing your references in APA style.  

Self- Assessment of Learning Styles.pdf          .
JBI-Levels-of-Evidence(1).pdf

Library Resources: The reference librarian for the School of Nursing has created a very helpful website of library resources for this course. Click on the link below to accept this website:NUR 39400 Library Resource Guide

 https://mycourses.purdue.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-12421733-dt-content-rid-93949047_1/courses/pnw_45033.201920/JBI-Levels-of-Evidence%281%29.pdf

New JBI Levels of Evidence

Developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute Levels of Evidence and Grades of Recommendation Working Party October 2013

PLEASE NOTE: These levels are intended to be used alongside the supporting document outlining their use. Using Levels of Evidence does not preclude the need for careful reading, critical appraisal and clinical reasoning when applying evidence.

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR EFFECTIVENESS

Level 1 – Experimental Designs

Level 1.a – Systematic review of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)

Level 1.b – Systematic review of RCTs and other study designs

Level 1.c – RCT

Level 1.d – Pseudo-RCTs

Level 2 – Quasi-experimental Designs

Level 2.a – Systematic review of quasi-experimental studies

Level 2.b – Systematic review of quasi-experimental and other lower study designs

Level 2.c – Quasi-experimental prospectively controlled study

Level 2.d – Pre-test – post-test or historic/retrospective control group study

Level 3 – Observational – Analytic Designs

Level 3.a – Systematic review of comparable cohort studies

Level 3.b – Systematic review of comparable cohort and other lower study designs

Level 3.c – Cohort study with control group

Level 3.d – Case – controlled study

Level 3.e – Observational study without a control group

Page | 2

Level 4 – Observational –Descriptive Studies

Level 4.a – Systematic review of descriptive studies

Level 4.b – Cross-sectional study

Level 4.c – Case series

Level 4.d – Case study

Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research

Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion

Level 5.b – Expert consensus

Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion

Page | 3

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR DIAGNOSIS

Level 1 – Studies of Test Accuracy among consecutive patients

Level 1.a – Systematic review of studies of test accuracy among consecutive patients

Level 1.b – Study of test accuracy among consecutive patients

Level 2 – Studies of Test Accuracy among non-consecutive patients

Level 2.a – Systematic review of studies of test accuracy among non-consecutive patients

Level 2.b – Study of test accuracy among non-consecutive patients

Level 3 – Diagnostic Case control studies

Level 3.a – Systematic review of diagnostic case control studies

Level 3.b – Diagnostic case-control study

Level 4 – Diagnostic yield studies

Level 4.a – Systematic review of diagnostic yield studies

Level 4.b – Individual diagnostic yield study

Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research

Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion

Level 5.b – Expert consensus

Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion

Page | 4

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR PROGNOSIS

Level 1 – Inception Cohort Studies

Level 1.a – Systematic review of inception cohort studies

Level 1.b – Inception cohort study

Level 2 – Studies of All or none

Level 2.a – Systematic review of all or none studies

Level 2.b – All or none studies

Level 3 – Cohort studies

Level 3.a – Systematic review of cohort studies (or control arm of RCT)

Level 3.b – Cohort study (or control arm of RCT)

Level 4 – Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled studies

Level 4.a – Systematic review of Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled studies

Level 4.b – Individual Case series/Case Controlled/ Historically Controlled study

Level 5 – Expert Opinion and Bench Research

Level 5.a – Systematic review of expert opinion

Level 5.b – Expert consensus

Level 5.c – Bench research/ single expert opinion

Page | 5

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR ECONOMIC EVALUATIONS

Levels

1. Decision model with assumptions and variables informed by systematic review and tailored to fit the decision making context.

2. Systematic review of economic evaluations conducted in a setting similar to the decision makers.

3. Synthesis/review of economic evaluations undertaken in a setting similar to that in which the decision is to be made and which are of high quality (comprehensive and credible measurement of costs and health outcomes, sufficient time period covered, discounting, and sensitivity testing).

4. Economic evaluation of high quality (comprehensive and credible measurement of costs and health outcomes, sufficient time period covered, discounting and sensitivity testing) and conducted in setting similar to the decision making context.

5. Synthesis / review of economic evaluations of moderate and/or poor quality (insufficient coverage of costs and health effects, no discounting, no sensitivity testing, time period covered insufficient).

6. Single economic evaluation of moderate or poor quality (see directly above level 5 description of studies). 7. Expert opinion on incremental cost effectives of intervention and comparator.

Page | 6

LEVELS OF EVIDENCE FOR MEANINGFULNESS

1. Qualitative or mixed-methods systematic review

2. Qualitative or mixed-methods synthesis

3. Single qualitative study

4. Systematic review of expert opinion

5. Expert opinion