Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
-
Gradingrubric_Paper11.docxORDER NOW FOR COMPREHENSIVE, PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPERS
Rubric: Paper–Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
Paper: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet Grading Rubric Points Earned Exceeds Expectations Meets Expectations Does Not Meet Expectation Introduction— Explanation of
Issues
4 Each definition and descriptions of the scope, impact, and nursing role related to health literacy are clear, concise, comprehensive including references for each, and fully supported by evidence (4 points) Definition and descriptions of the scope, impact, and nursing role related to health literacy are clear, concise, and partially supported by evidence; understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions.
(3.5 points)
Definition and description of the scope, impact of health literacy and/or nurses’ roles are stated without clarification, description, or clear evidence. (3 points)
Description of the health-related Internet resource (website)
3 Identification of the URL for the website home page is accurate; selection of website is reasonable; description of the website is clear, concise, and includes relevant factual information (3 points). Identification of the URL for the website home page is accurate; selection of website is reasonable; description of the website is concise but some relevant information is omitted or unclear. (2.5 points)
Identification of the URL for the website home page is inaccurate or missing; reasons for selection of website is not mentioned; description of the website is unclear or incomplete. (2 points)
Evaluation of website 9 Evaluation addresses all of the categories and criteria from the NLM tutorial and is supported by specific examples from the website. Critical appraisal of the website is clear, concise, and organized and based on accurate, factual information (9 points). Evaluation addresses most of the categories and criteria from the NLM tutorial. Support for evaluation (factual examples from the website) is not consistently or clearly provided. Appraisal of website is generally clear and accurate and is supported with some accurate, factual information. (7 points).
Evaluation does not address criteria from 2 or more of the categories in the NLM tutorial. Examples from the website to support the evaluation are not included and/or are not accurate or are based on opinion rather than factual information. (5 points) Summary: Strengths, Limitations, Implications, and Conclusions
6 Synthesis of strengths and limitations of the website in
relation to the website’s use by patients is based on the evaluation. Potential areas of concern and/or unintended consequences related to using this website for patient education are clearly described. At least 2 specific recommendations (and rationale) for improvement of the website (including evidence) are included (6 points)
Summary of strengths and limitations of the website in relation to use by patients is based on the evaluation.
Potential areas of concern and/or unintended consequences related to using this website for patient education are identified. One recommendation for improvement of the website is included. Recommendations were provided without evidence. (4.5 points)
Strengths, limitations and areas of concern/ unintended consequences of website use for patient education are incongruent with the website evaluation. No improvements of the website are recommended. (3 points) Writing & APA Format
3 Writing is clear, organized and logical. Uses APA 6th edition and required headings throughout (0-3 APA errors). Uses correct grammar, spelling and punctuation with only 1-3 errors (3 points)
Writing is generally clear and organized. Uses APA 6th edition and some of the required headings (4-7 APA errors). Uses correct grammar, spelling and punctuation with 4-9 errors. (2.5 points)
Writing is unclear and disorganized. Does not meet minimum page number or exceeds maximum page number. Does not use APA 6th edition and/or required headings (more than 8 APA errors). Grammar, spelling and punctuation are distracting to the reader and impair conveyance of ideas (10 or more errors.) (2 points)
Total Points out of 25 possible:
25 25 points 20 points ˂ 19.75 points Adapted with permission from Assessing outcomes and improving achievement: Tips and tools for using rubrics, edited by Terrel L.
Rhodes. Copyright 2010 by the Association of American Colleges and Universities.
-
Paper1_EvaluationofHealthInformationontheInternet.pdf
9/10/2019 Paper 1: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
https://uwmil.instructure.com/courses/216065/assignments/758221?module_item_id=2285320 1/5
Paper 1: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
Due Oct 20 by 11:59pm Points 25 Submitting a file upload Available until Oct 25 at 11:59pm
Submit Assignment
Paper Guidelines: Evaluation of Health Information Resources on the Internet
Before you begin writing the paper, you need to identify an Internet resource (e.g., website) that provides health information for patients and families. This Internet resource can be in your area of practice or interest. Select a website or a set of pages from a website, rather than just one webpage. To locate and select a website: Try using the Google search engine and search for “patient education about [fill in your topic of interest]” or “[topic of interest] patient education.” For example, if your topic of interest is diabetes, you would Google “patient education about diabetes” or “diabetes patient education.”
Do not select a website that is intended for health professionals only—your paper will not be accepted if the website is not intended for patients and families.
If you are using a website that addresses MANY topics or health conditions (e.g. WebMD or American Heart Association), please select one or two focal areas or conditions to focus on when you evaluate “Information Quality,”
Write a paper (minimum 7 pages/maximum 10 pages, not including the cover or reference pages) using the following steps and outline below.
Step 1 Introduction. Be sure to include support from the literature.
Define health literacy. Discuss the importance of health literacy in patient/family management of health and disease and promotion of positive health outcome Discuss the nurse’s role in promoting health literacy. Why must nurses and other health professionals know how to evaluate health-related websites?
Step 2. Health-related Internet Resource. Identify a health-related Internet resource (i.e., website) and explain how and why you selected the resource. Describe your selected resource that can be used to promote patients’ and families’ knowledge about a disease or health condition.
Identify the home page of the website by URL. Describe the reasons for your website selection. Describe the website. Consider such elements as graphics, page layout, navigation menu and ease of navigation, font size (ease of reading), e
Step 3. Evaluation
Provide an evaluation of the website using the four specific categories and criteria described in National (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/webeval/webeval.html) Library of Medicine (NLM) (https://panthers-
9/10/2019 Paper 1: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
https://uwmil.instructure.com/courses/216065/assignments/758221?module_item_id=2285320 2/5
my.sharepoint.com/personal/oh5_uwm_edu/Documents/academy/2019%20Fall/Library%20of%20Medicine%20(NLM)) (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/webeval/webeval.html (https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/webeval/webeval.html) ). And cite the NLM to the paper to support rationale for recommendations.
Be sure to give specific examples for each criterion and include enough information to allow the reader to locate the examples provided. For example, if you are discussing “Provider and Purpose” and the criterion regarding ability to contact the site, you should indicate if you found contact information (email, address, phone number) and where on the site you found this information.
Your focus in this section should be on comparing the website with the NLM criteria and providing factual data from which you can make judgments about the quality of the website. The information you provide in this section should be based on the NLM criteria and should be factual not opinion.
These are the four categories included in the NLM tutorial. To identify the specific criteria to use in evaluating each category, you will need to complete the NLM tutorial. It is highly recommended that you take notes as you complete the tutorial.
Provider and purpose Funding Information quality Privacy
Step 4. Summary
Summarize your descriptions and evaluations as well as consider the concept of health literacy.
Strengths, Limitations, and Implications Based on Evaluation Synthesize the strengths and limitations of the website based on the evaluation and in relation to its use by patients and families. Include your perspective regarding the implications (i.e., potential areas of concern, unintended consequences) of using this website for patient education. This may include issues related to accessibility, literacy level, need for accommodations (related to language, cognitive and/or physical limitations), and patient/family use of the website in unintended ways. Unintended consequences do not always have to be negative, there can be positive findings as well.
Recommendations for Improvement Discuss recommendations and rationale for improvement of the website based on strengths, limitations, and implications. Provide at least two specific examples for improvement of the website based on the evaluation.
You must organize your paper using the headings identified below. Please see https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/16/ (https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/560/16/) for information about APA headings.
Introduction [Level 1 Heading]
9/10/2019 Paper 1: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
https://uwmil.instructure.com/courses/216065/assignments/758221?module_item_id=2285320 3/5
Paper 1: Evaluation of Information on the Internet
Definition of Health Literacy [paragraph 1] Importance of Health Literacy [paragraph 2] Nurse’s Role in Promoting Health Literacy [paragraph 3]
Health-related Internet Resource [Level 1 Heading]
Home Page URL and Reasons for Your Website Selection [paragraph 1] Description of the Website [paragraph 2]
Evaluation of Health-related Internet Resource [Level 1 Heading]
Provider and Purpose [Level 2 Heading] Note: be sure to address all NLM criteria with examples Funding [Level 2 Heading] Note: be sure to address all NLM criteria with examples Information Quality [Level 2 Heading] Note: be sure to address all NLM criteria with examples Privacy [Level 2 Heading] Note: be sure to address all NLM criteria with examples
Summary [Level 1 Heading]
Strengths, Limitations, and Implications Based on Evaluation [Level 2 Heading] Synthesis of strengths and limitations [paragraphs 1, 2] Your perspective regarding the implications [paragraphs 3,4]
Recommendations for Improvement [Level 2 Heading] Discussion and examples [paragraphs 1, 2]
References [APA format]
9/10/2019 Paper 1: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
https://uwmil.instructure.com/courses/216065/assignments/758221?module_item_id=2285320 4/5
Criteria Ratings Pts
4.0 pts
3.0 pts
9.0 pts
Introduction – Explanation of Issues
4.0 pts Exceeds Expectations Each definition and descriptions of the scope, impact, and nursing role related to health literacy are clear, concise, comprehensive including references for each, and fully supported by evidence (4 points)
3.5 pts Meets Expectations Definition and descriptions of the scope, impact, and nursing role related to health literacy are clear, concise, and partially supported by evidence; understanding is not seriously impeded by omissions. (3.5 points)
3.0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Definition and description of the scope, impact of health literacy and/or nurses’ roles are stated without clarification, description, or clear evidence. (3 points)
Description of health- related Internet resource (website)
3.0 pts Exceeds Expectations Identification of the URL for the website home page is accurate; selection of website is reasonable; description of the website is clear, concise, and includes relevant factual information (3 points).
2.5 pts Exceeds Expectations Identification of the URL for the website home page is accurate; selection of website is reasonable; description of the website is concise but some relevant information is omitted or unclear. (2.5 points)
2.0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Identification of the URL for the website home page is inaccurate or missing; reasons for selection of website is not mentioned; description of the website is unclear or incomplete. (2 points)
Evaluation of website
9.0 pts Exceeds Expectations Evaluation addresses all of the categories and criteria from the NLM tutorial and is supported by specific examples from the website. Critical appraisal of the website is clear, concise, and organized and based on accurate, factual information (9 points).
7.0 pts Meets Expectations Evaluation addresses most of the categories and criteria from the NLM tutorial. Support for evaluation (factual examples from the website) is not consistently or clearly provided. Appraisal of website is generally clear and accurate and is supported with some accurate, factual information. (7 points).
5.0 pts Does Not meet Expectations Evaluation does not address criteria from 2 or more of the categories in the NLM tutorial. Examples from the website to support the evaluation are not included and/or are not accurate or are based on opinion rather than factual information. (5 points)
9/10/2019 Paper 1: Evaluation of Health Information on the Internet
https://uwmil.instructure.com/courses/216065/assignments/758221?module_item_id=2285320 5/5
Total Points: 25.0
Criteria Ratings Pts
6.0 pts
3.0 pts
Summary: Strengths, Limitations, Implications, and Conclusions
6.0 pts Exceeds Expectations Synthesis of strengths and limitations of the website in relation to the website’s use by patients is based on the evaluation. Potential areas of concern and/or unintended consequences related to using this website for patient education are clearly described. At least 2 specific recommendations (and rationale) for improvement of the website (including evidence) are included (6 points)
4.5 pts Meets Expectations Summary of strengths and limitations of the website in relation to use by patients is based on the evaluation. Potential areas of concern and/or unintended consequences related to using this website for patient education are identified. One recommendation for improvement of the website is included. Recommendations were provided without evidence. (4.5 points)
3.0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Strengths, limitations and areas of concern/ unintended consequences of website use for patient education are incongruent with the website evaluation. No improvements of the website are recommended. (3 points)
Writing & APA Format
3.0 pts Exceeds Expectations Writing is clear, organized and logical. Uses APA 6th edition and required headings throughout (0-3 APA errors). Uses correct grammar, spelling and punctuation with only 1- 3 errors (3 points)
2.5 pts Meets Expectations Writing is generally clear and organized. Uses APA 6th edition and some of the required headings (4-7 APA errors). Uses correct grammar, spelling and punctuation with 4-9 errors. (2.5 points)
2.0 pts Does Not Meet Expectations Writing is unclear and disorganized. Does not meet minimum page number or exceeds maximum page number. Does not use APA 6th edition and/or required headings (more than 8 APA errors). Grammar, spelling and punctuation are distracting to the reader and impair conveyance of ideas (10 or more errors.) (2 points)