Discussion: NR 505 Week 6 How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
Discussion: NR 505 Week 6 How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
Reflection on Learning
The knowledge of the history of research ethics has transformed my understanding of biomedical research. I think it has enabled me to identify more possible ethical concerns, most notably about human subjects, given the immoral past actions such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study. Concerning a moral system, the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report are elementary because they include such principles as informed consent, the notion of dual loyalties in terms of the “do not harm” precept, and the question of voluntariness. These frameworks provide a basis for today’s scholarly research and have defined how researchers must conduct research to prevent participant indignity, violate their rights, and endanger their well-being. These have provided lessons about the subsequent ethical examination of Biomedical Research and safeguarding the rights of participants, particularly vulnerable persons who might be at the periphery of the exploitation or at higher risk of harm in case proper ethical scrutiny of biomedical research is not done.
Considering the PICOT question and the outlined studies, most authors introduce their research with ethical concerns for human subjects. While reviewing the randomized controlled trials, patient consent and protection were an excellent example of ethical practice. Even though patient education has been said to be integrated into research, there is still some room for improvement, especially in nursing homes. Heng et al. (2020) argue that providing patient education on fall prevention may be insufficient and may reduce patients’ knowledge of engaging in treatment interventions. With this in mind, there is a need to create awareness of research protocols and educational interventions to harmonize with the ethical patient. There would also be enhanced engagement and, therefore, improved outcomes. Consequently, patients ought to better understand their conditions, fortifying the moral frameworks of concerns investigations and enhancing participants’ involvement, improving general cumulative performance in research and clinical premises.
References
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
Discussion: NR 505 Week 6 How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!
Heng, H., Jazayeri, D., Shaw, L., Kiegaldie, D., Hill, A.-M., & Morris, M. E. (2020). Hospital falls prevention with patient education: A scoping review. BMC Geriatrics, 20(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-020-01515-w
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
Good News For Our New customers. We can write this assignment for you and pay after Delivery. Our Top -rated medical writers will comprehensively review instructions , synthesis external evidence sources(Scholarly) and customize a quality assignment for you. We will also attach a copy of plagiarism report alongside and AI report. Feel free to chat Us
Week 6 Discussion
Purpose
Respond to the following prompts:
How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
In looking at the studies you reviewed for your PICOT question, do you feel that today’s researchers adequately protect the rights of human subjects? If not, what additional measures do you recommend?
Due Date
A 5% late penalty will be imposed for discussions posted after the deadline on Wednesday, regardless of the number of days late. NOTHING will be accepted after 11:59pm MT on Sunday (i.e. student will receive an automatic 0 for any portion of the discussion not posted by that time).
NOTE: To receive credit for a week’s discussion, students may begin posting no earlier than the Sunday immediately before each week opens. Unless otherwise specified, access to most weeks begins on Sunday at 12:01 a.m. MT, and that week’s assignments are due by the next Sunday by 11:59 p.m. MT. Week 8 opens at 12:01 a.m. MT Sunday and closes at 11:59 p.m. MT Saturday.
A zero is the lowest score that a student can be assigned.
Faculty may submit any collaborative discussion posting to Turnitin in order to verify originality.
Total Points Possible: 50
Preparing the Assignment
Application of Course Knowledge: The student’s initial post contributes unique perspectives or insights gleaned from personal experience or examples from the healthcare field. The student must accurately and fully discuss the topic for the week in addition to providing personal or professional examples. The student must completely answer the entire initial question. Initial post due by Wednesday at 11:59pm MT. You must include two resources in your initial post: one from your lesson or weekly reading and one from an outside scholarly source.
Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue: The student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue.
Peer Response: The student responds substantively to at least one topic-related post by a student peer. A substantive post adds content or insights or asks a question that will add to the learning experience and/or generate discussion.
A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the other student’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
The peer response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
The peer response must occur before Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
The peer response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
Faculty Response: The student responds substantively to at least one question by course faculty. The faculty question may be directed to the student, to another student, or to the entire class.
A post of “I agree” with a repeat of the faculty’s post does not count as a substantive post. A collection of shallow posts does not equal a substantive post.
The faculty response must occur on a separate day from the initial posting.
Responses to the faculty member must occur by Sunday, 11:59 p.m. MT.
This response does not require a scholarly citation and reference unless the information is paraphrased and/or direct quotes are used, in which APA style standards then apply.
Integration of Evidence: The student post provides support from a minimum of one scholarly in-text citation with a matching reference AND assigned readings OR online lessons, per discussion topic per week. Two resources total and to count must be an in-text citation.
What is a scholarly resource? A scholarly resource is one that comes from a professional, peer-reviewed publication (e.g., journals and government reports such as those from the FDA or CDC).
Contains references for sources cited
Written by a professional or scholar in the field and indicates credentials of the author(s)
Is no more than 5 years old for clinical or research article
What is not considered a scholarly resource?
Newspaper articles and layperson literature (e.g., Readers Digest, Healthy Life Magazine, Food, and Fitness)
Information from Wikipedia or any wiki
Textbooks
Website homepages
The weekly lesson
Articles in healthcare and nursing-oriented trade magazines, such as Nursing Made Incredibly Easy and RNMagazine (Source: What is a scholarly article.docx; Created 06/09 CK/CL Revised: 02/17/11, 09/02/11 nlh/clm)
Can the lesson for the week be used as a scholarly source?
Information from the weekly lesson can be cited in a posting; however, it is not to be the sole source used in the post.
Are resources provided from CU acceptable sources (e.g., the readings for the week)?
Not as a sole source within the post. The textbook and/or assigned (required) articles for the week can be used, but another outside source must be cited for full credit. Textbooks are not considered scholarly sources for the purpose of discussions.
Are websites acceptable as scholarly resources for discussions?
Yes, if they are documents or data cited from credible websites. Credible websites usually end in .gov or .edu; however, some .org sites that belong to professional associations (e.g., American Heart Association, National League for Nursing, American Diabetes Association) are also considered credible websites. Websites ending with .com are not to be used as scholarly resources
Professionalism in Communication: The post presents information in logical, meaningful, and understandable sequence, and is clearly relevant to the discussion topic. Grammar, spelling, and/or punctuation are accurate.
Wednesday Participation Requirement: The student provides a substantive response to the graded discussion question(s) or topic(s), posted by the course faculty (not a response to a peer), by Wednesday, 11:59 p.m. MT of each week.
Total Participation Requirement: The student provides at least three substantive posts (one to the initial question or topic, one to a student peer, and one to a faculty question) on two different days during the week.
Discussion Rubric
Category Points Description
Application of Course Knowledge 15 Answers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week.
Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue With Peers and Faculty 10 Responds to a student peer AND course faculty furthering the dialogue by providing more information and clarification, adding depth to the conversation
Integration of Evidence 15 Assigned readings OR online lesson AND at least one outside scholarly source are included. The scholarly source is:
1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years
Total content points = 40 points
Grammar and Communication 5 Presents information using clear and concise language in an organized manner
Reference Citation 5 References have complete information as required by APA
In-text citations included for all references AND references included for all in-text citation
Total format points = 10 points
Discussion total points = 50 points
**To view the grading criteria/rubric, please click on the 3 dots in the box at the end of the solid gray bar above the discussion board title and then Show Rubric.
ORDER A CUSTOMIZED, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
NR505NP Scholarly Discussion Rubric
| Criteria | Ratings | Pts | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Application of Course KnowledgeAnswers the initial discussion question(s)/topic(s), demonstrating knowledge and understanding of the concepts for the week. |
|
15 pts | |||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Engagement in Meaningful Dialogue With Peers and FacultyThe student responds to a student peer and course faculty to further dialogue. |
|
10 pts | |||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Integration of EvidenceAssigned readings OR online lesson AND at least one outside scholarly source are included. The scholarly source is: 1) evidence-based, 2) scholarly in nature, 3) published within the last 5 years. |
|
15 pts | |||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Grammar and Communication |
|
5 pts | |||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Reference Citation |
|
5 pts | |||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Late Penalty Deductions |
|
0 pts | |||||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Total Participation Responses |
|
0 pts | |||||
| Total Points: 50 | |||||||
Struggling to meet your deadline ?
Get assistance on
Discussion: NR 505 Week 6 How has learning about the history of research ethics impacted your view of biomedical research?
done on time by medical experts. Don’t wait – ORDER NOW!