NURS 8100 Week 4 Assignment: Policy Models Paper

NURS 8100 Week 4 Assignment: Policy Models Paper

Over the years, healthcare professionals have undertaken many initiatives to address the issues presented by COPD patients who still smoke despite receiving instruction on the dangers of smoking. The educating initiatives have, however, had limited success in helping COPD patients change their behavior. This persistent gap necessitates a comprehensive strategy that includes more extensive legislative measures and individual-level initiatives. Policy models provide a valuable foundation for making policy reforms and tackling complex healthcare issues (Larrue, 2021). In this situation, it is essential to push for adopting mandatory education regulations in healthcare institutions.

Adopting suitable policy models can mold the policy debate, rally support, and promote significant change. Choosing an appropriate policy model can help navigate the intricate policymaking process and ensure advocacy efforts align with COPD patients’ unique requirements. The planned comprehensive strategy for addressing the underlying causes of this habit should promote long-term behavior change. The Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) provides a thorough method for comprehending and influencing policymaking (Cisneros, 2021). Therefore, this study aims to investigate the significance of required education statutes, consider how they can affect COPD patients who quit smoking, and explain how to apply the ACF policy model to further this advocacy agenda.

The Advocacy Coalition Framework

Examining the ACF’s critical components and applying them to this advocacy priority makes its suitability evident. The ACF recognizes how intricate policymaking is and how coalitions of stakeholders with different ideas, values, and interests impact it. It shows how important cooperation and shared goals are for coalitions to influence policy (Guo, 2022). This matches the COPD patient smoking cessation challenge. Advocates can connect with patient advocacy groups, healthcare providers, public health organizations, and lawmakers by seeking common ground and policy-focused learning. For instance, healthcare professionals may form an advocacy group that promotes evidence-based smoking cessation and make COPD education mandatory. These professionals can collaborate with public health groups emphasizing preventive measures and laws to reduce smoking-related ailments. This framework helps advocates understand key players’ goals, create evidence-based policy recommendations that meet COPD patients’ needs, and influence decision-makers through presentations, evidence-based arguments, and strategic policy agenda-setting. Ultimately, the ACF is useful for promoting the advocacy goal of enacting laws requiring education programs for COPD patients who continue to smoke.

Identifying Key Advocacy Coalitions

Identifying and understanding major advocacy alliances for COPD smoking cessation is crucial. Healthcare providers, public health organizations, patient advocacy groups, and others may form coalitions. North Carolina has multiple COPD smoking cessation advocacy coalitions. In 2023, the American Lung Association raised tobacco prevention and cessation funding. The NCRCS works with pulmonologists and primary care physicians to promote smoking cessation and COPD education. Since its founding, the North Carolina Alliance for Health (NCAH) has supported comprehensive smoking cessation programs and evidence-based tobacco control legislation (Vetter, 2022). By working with policymakers, NCAH has helped pass smoking cessation laws and policies for COPD patients. These alliances demonstrate the importance of identifying and partnering with essential advocacy groups to shape policy and drive effective education for smoking COPD patients.

Policy Analysis

Policy analysis is an integral part of the framework. It allows those advocating to examine policies already in place, point out gaps and hindrances, and collect evidence to support their course. Besides, the analysis offers insight into the effectiveness of the policies and highlights the possible challenges. Evidence of the beneficial effects of education interventions on smoking cessation rates and COPD outcomes can be found in research studies conducted by reputable organizations like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC), 2022). Advocates can create a thorough policy proposal highlighting the significance of required education as a critical element of successful smoking cessation programs for COPD patients by examining data and highlighting implementation issues. Policy analysis aids advocacy efforts to enhance the educational policies for this demographic by bolstering the evidence foundation.

Policy Proposal

A thorough policy proposal can be created to support mandatory education in healthcare systems for COPD patients who smoke based on the policy analysis and engagement with advocacy organizations. The proposal should stress the possible advantages of education, such as better disease management, higher motivation to stop smoking, and enhanced patient knowledge. Advocates can make a solid economic case by presenting cost-effectiveness studies illustrating the long-term savings of reducing COPD exacerbations through education (Mosher et al., 2022). The plan can also take inspiration from instances in other jurisdictions where mandatory education laws have been implemented and had beneficial results. For instance, showing the positive effects of comparable policies on smoking rates and health outcomes among COPD patients in places like Massachusetts and California offers verifiable proof of the policy’s success.

Mobilizing Support

Strategic contact with important decision-makers is necessary to mobilize support for the policy idea. Advocates must focus on decision-makers, healthcare executives, and significant stakeholders who can change policies (Raimi, 2020). In in-person meetings, advocates can demonstrate the importance of treating the issue with data from research studies, policy analyses, and testimonies from medical professionals and COPD patients. They can highlight how the proposed policy is consistent with the goals of the decision-makers, such as lowering healthcare costs, enhancing patient outcomes, and advancing public health. Decision-makers can be provided with written summaries highlighting mandatory education’s benefits and supporting data. Furthermore, media outreach initiatives, such as press releases and interviews, can raise public knowledge and support for the policy, further persuading decision-makers to take the proposed education mandate into account and accept it.

Monitoring and Adaptation

Effective lobbying is based on ongoing evaluation and adaptation, according to the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF). Advocates must carefully track the results of their advocacy campaigns, keeping up with political developments and new research on managing COPD and quitting smoking. As a result, they can improve their argument’s power and lobbying tactics’ efficiency. Monitoring enables activists to gauge the success of their advocacy work, pinpoint problem areas, and adapt to new difficulties (Van den Bulck, 2019). Advocates can modify their approaches by evaluating the results of their efforts and remaining flexible to shifting conditions. This entails responding to counterarguments and worries expressed by opposing coalitions, improving messaging to deal with objections, and using evidence-based research studies and success stories to show the beneficial effects of compulsory schooling. To ensure the relevance and legitimacy of their suggestions, advocates can include new research findings and stay current on changing policies. This flexibility enables them to improve their lobbying strategy, embrace fresh chances, and pressure lawmakers to modify the legislation.

Conclusion

A comprehensive strategy combining legislative and individual-level interventions is required to address smoking cessation in COPD patients. Policy frameworks like the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) provide a solid platform for advocating policy changes and tackling complicated healthcare concerns. Advocates can get support and push substantial policy changes by involving key stakeholders such as healthcare professionals, patient advocacy groups, and public health organizations. North Carolina examples, such as the American Lung Association, NCRCS, and NCAH, highlight the necessity of finding and collaborating with major advocacy groups to impact legislation and drive effective education for smoking COPD patients.

Policy analysis is essential for assessing existing policies and obtaining information to support lobbying activities. Creating a coherent policy proposal, gaining decision-makers’ support, and accepting ongoing monitoring and modification are all critical elements in achieving policy change. Finally, advocates can encourage long-term behavior change, enhance disease management, and lessen the burden of smoking-related disorders in this vulnerable population by lobbying for compulsory education in healthcare systems for COPD patients.

References

American Lung Association. (2023). State of tobacco control > North Carolina. Www.lung.org. https://www.lung.org/research/sotc/state-grades/north-carolina

Centers for Disease Prevention and Control (CDC). (2022, May 3). Smoking cessation—the role of healthcare professionals and health systems. Www.cdc.gov. Accessed 21^st June 2023 from https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/sgr/2020-smoking-cessation/fact-sheets/healthcare-professionals-health-systems/index.html

Cisneros, P. (2021). The advocacy coalition framework research program: An overview. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.013.212

Guo, W. (2022). Policy beliefs, policy learning, and risk perception: Exploring the formation of local creative placemaking‐catalyzed policy network. Review of Policy Research, 40(1), 153–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12508

Larrue, P. (2021). The design and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policies: A new systemic policy approach to address societal challenges. Www.oecd-Ilibrary.org. https://doi.org/10.1787/3f6c76a4-en

Mosher, C. L., Nanna, M. G., Jawitz, O. K., Raman, V., Farrow, N. E., Aleem, S., Casaburi, R., MacIntyre, N. R., Palmer, S. M., & Myers, E. R. (2022). Cost-effectiveness of pulmonary rehabilitation among US adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. JAMA Network Open, 5(6), e2218189. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.18189

Pierce, J. J., Giordono, L. S., Peterson, H. L., & Hicks, K. C. (2019). Common approaches for studying advocacy: Review of methods and model practices of the advocacy coalition framework. The Social Science Journal. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.soscij.2019.06.005

Raimi, M. O. (2020, June 9). A critical review of health impact assessment: Towards strengthening the knowledge of decision-makers understand sustainable development goals in the twenty-first century: Necessity today; essentiality tomorrow. Papers.ssrn.com. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3628738

Van den Bulck, H. (2019). Analyzing policy-making I: Stakeholder and advocacy coalition framework analysis. The Palgrave Handbook of Methods for Media Policy Research, 451–469. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-16065-4_26

Vetter, B. (2022). Happy 20th anniversary – NC Alliance for Health. You’re the Cure. https://www.yourethecure.org/nc_alliance_for_health

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

 

WEEK FOUR ASSIGNMENT
Policy models provide the framework for moving policy forward. However, not all policy models will be effective for all priorities. Therefore, it is important to appraise policy models with the specific advocacy priority in mind.
For this Assignment, you will choose from four policymaking frameworks, the one that best fits your advocacy priority. You will construct a written response, with evidence, explaining the selected framework, providing specific detail regarding how it is the best fit and will move the priority forward.
LEARNING RESOURCES
• Dawes, D. E. (2020). The political determinants of health. Johns Hopkins University Press.
o Chapter 4, “How the Game is Played: Successful Employment of the Political Determinants of Health” (pp.78–111)
• Porche, Demetrius J. (2023). Health policy: Applications for nurses and other health professionals (3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning.
o Chapter 9, “Policy Formulation and Implementation” (pp.101-112)
o Chapter 10, “Policy Analysis” (pp.113-140)
Example Exemplars
• Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) (Word document)Download Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) (Word document)

• Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (KSF) (Word document)Download Kingdon’s Multiple Streams Framework (KSF) (Word document)
• Narrative Policy Framework (NPF) (Word document)
The following media resources address the contextual factors impacting the answer to the following question, “How did we get here?” regarding the current state of healthcare in the U.S.
Please select at least two from the following to view.
• CNBC. (2018, December 26). Why medical bills in the U.S. are so expensiveLinks to an external site. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NvnOUcG-ZI
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 15 minutes.
• FRONTLINE PBS. (2021, May 18). The healthcare divide Links to an external site.(full documentary): FRONTLINELinks to an external site. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVvEkeH4O8o
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 53 minutes.
• IntelligenceSquared Debates. (2017, October 6). The U.S. health care system is terminally brokenLinks to an external site. [Video]. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0JFn7rVHdg
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 95 minutes.
• PBS NewsHour. (2021). Health care: America vs. the WorldLinks to an external site.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BytzrjEfyfA
Note: The approximate length of this media piece is 56 minutes.
• THE ASSIGNMENT: (2 PAGES): DUE ON SUNDAY
• Submit a 2-page written response detailing your selection of one policymaking framework that best supports your priority—particularly, getting your priority on the agenda.
• In your response, explain why the framework best describes how you might proceed in effectively moving your advocacy priority forward in the policymaking process.
• Support your response with evidence.
• Reminder: The College of Nursing requires that all papers submitted include a title page, introduction, summary, and references. The Walden Writing Center Sample Paper provides an example of those required elements (available at https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/templates/general#s-lg-box-20293632Links to an external site.). All papers submitted must use this formatting.
PLEASE USE HEADINGS FOR EACH TOPIC. DETAILS AND EXAMPLES
CriteriaRatingsPts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSelect one policy model that best fits your priority, particularly getting your priority on the agenda.
40 to >35.0 pts
Excellent
The response comprehensively and clearly explains the policy model selected. … The response clearly indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda. 35 to >31.0 pts
Good
The response clearly explains the policy model selected. … The response indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda. 31 to >27.0 pts
Fair
The response vaguely explains the policy model selected. … The response vaguely indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda. 27 to >0 pts
Poor
The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not explain the policy model selected, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately or vaguely indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda, or it is missing.
40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport the selection of the policy model and explain how the model will help move the advocacy priority forward.
45 to >40.0 pts
Excellent
The response comprehensively and clearly supports the policy model selected. … The response is persuasive and includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the selection. 40 to >35.0 pts
Good
The response clearly supports the policy model selected. … The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the selection. 35 to >31.0 pts
Fair
The response inaccurately or vaguely supports the policy model selected. … The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the selection. 31 to >0 pts
Poor
The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the policy model selected, or it is missing. … The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support reflection, or it is selection.
45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. … A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 3 to >0 pts

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Poor
Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. … No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.
5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains 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, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.
5 to >4.0 pts
Excellent
Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts
Good
Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts
Fair
Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3 to >0 pts
Poor
Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.
5 pts
Total Points: 100

NURS_8100_Week4_Assignment_Rubric

NURS_8100_Week4_Assignment_Rubric
Criteria	Ratings	Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSelect one policy model that best fits your priority, particularly getting your priority on the agenda.	40 to >35.0 pts Excellent The response comprehensively and clearly explains the policy model selected. … The response clearly indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda. 35 to >31.0 pts Good The response clearly explains the policy model selected. … The response indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda. 31 to >27.0 pts Fair The response vaguely explains the policy model selected. … The response vaguely indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda. 27 to >0 pts Poor The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not explain the policy model selected, or it is missing. … The response inaccurately or vaguely indicates how the policy model will get the priority on the agenda, or it is missing.	40 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeSupport the selection of the policy model and explain how the model will help move the advocacy priority forward.	45 to >40.0 pts Excellent The response comprehensively and clearly supports the policy model selected. … The response is persuasive and includes relevant, specific, and appropriate examples that fully support the selection. 40 to >35.0 pts Good The response clearly supports the policy model selected. … The response includes relevant, specific, and accurate examples that support the selection. 35 to >31.0 pts Fair The response inaccurately or vaguely supports the policy model selected. … The response includes inaccurate and irrelevant examples that may support the selection. 31 to >0 pts Poor The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support the policy model selected, or it is missing. … The response includes inaccurate and vague examples that do not support reflection, or it is selection.	45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—Paragraph Development and Organization: Paragraphs make clear points that support well-developed ideas, flow logically, and demonstrate continuity of ideas. Sentences are carefully focused—neither long and rambling nor short and lacking substance. A clear and comprehensive purpose statement and introduction is provided which delineates all required criteria.	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity. … A clear and comprehensive purpose statement, introduction, and conclusion is provided which delineates all required criteria. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 80% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is stated, yet is brief and not descriptive. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity 60%–79% of the time. … Purpose, introduction, and conclusion of the assignment is vague or off topic. 3 to >0 pts Poor Paragraphs and sentences follow writing standards for flow, continuity, and clarity < 60% of the time. … No purpose statement, introduction, or conclusion was provided.	5 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeWritten Expression and Formatting—English writing standards: Correct grammar, mechanics, and proper punctuation	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Uses correct grammar, spelling, and punctuation with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Contains a few (1 or 2) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Contains several (3 or 4) grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. 3 to >0 pts Poor Contains 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, margins, indentations, page numbers, parenthetical/in-text citations, and reference list.	5 to >4.0 pts Excellent Uses correct APA format with no errors. 4 to >3.5 pts Good Contains a few (1 or 2) APA format errors. 3.5 to >3.0 pts Fair Contains several (3 or 4) APA format errors. 3 to >0 pts Poor Contains many (≥ 5) APA format errors.	5 pts
Total Points: 100