PHE4200 Capstone In Public Health Discussion

December 30, 2022

PHE4200 Capstone In Public Health Discussion

Order Number	636738393092
Type of Project	ESSAY
Writer Level	PHD VERIFIED
Format	APA
Academic Sources	10
Page Count	3-12 PAGES

Instructions/Descriptions

PHE4200 Capstone In Public Health Discussion

Week 8 DiscussionDiscussion Topic Task: Reply to this topic Due December 15 at 11:59 PM

Stakeholders
Supporting Lecture:
Review the following lecture:

Who Are the Stakeholders?
The discussion assignment provides a forum for discussing relevant topics for this week on the basis of the course competencies covered. For this assignment, make sure you post your initial response to the Discussion Area by the due date assigned.

To support your work, use your course and text readings and also use outside sources. As in all assignments, cite your sources in your work and provide references for the citations in APA format.

Start reviewing and responding to the postings of your classmates as early in the week as possible. Respond to at least two of your classmates. Participate in the discussion by asking a question, providing a statement of clarification, providing a point of view with a rationale, challenging an aspect of the discussion, or indicating a relationship between two or more lines of reasoning in the discussion. Complete your participation for this assignment by the end of the week.

Using your text and South University library resources, answer the following questions:

Who are the stakeholders in the health concern or problem you have chosen?
How do you go about choosing stakeholders?
What is the importance of stakeholders in the success of public health programs?

PHE4200 Capstone In Public Health Discussion

Grading Rubric

PHE4200 Capstone In Public Health Discussion

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The context and relevance of the issue, as well as a clear description of the study aim, are presented. The history of searches is discussed.

Methodology

58-53 points

With titles for each slide as well as bulleted sections to group relevant information as required, the content is well-organized. Excellent use of typeface, color, images, effects, and so on to improve readability and presenting content. The minimum length criterion of 10 slides/pages is reached.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/information is required for the context and importance, otherwise the study detail will be unclear. There is no search history information supplied.

83-76 points

There is a review of important theoretical literature, however there is limited integration of research into problem-related ideas. The review is just partly focused and arranged. There is research that both supports and opposes. A summary of the material given is provided. The conclusion may or may not include a biblical integration.

52-49 points

The content is somewhat ordered, but there is no discernible organization. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on may sometimes distract from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The context and/or importance are lacking. There is no search history information supplied.

75-1 points

There has been an examination of relevant theoretical literature, but still no research concerning problem-related concepts has been synthesized. The review is just somewhat focused and organized. The provided overview of content does not include any supporting or opposing research. The conclusion has no scriptural references.

48-1 points

There is no logical or apparent organizational structure. There is no discernible logical sequence. The use of typeface, color, graphics, effects, and so on often detracts from the presenting substance. It is possible that the length criteria will not be reached.