Assignment Prompt & Instructions
**Care Dilemma Case Study**
**files (2)**
– ## Module2Assignment.docx
– ## Module2Assignment-RUBRIC.docx
**## Module2Assignment.docx**
**Assignment Description:**
**Advocacy Essay: Care Dilemma Case Study**
Write a 2500-word essay addressing the care dilemma case study. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. This should be an advocacy essay focused on local policymakers. Support your ideas with at l
**east FOUR (4) sources in your essay.** Make sure to reference the citations in APA style for the essay. The cover page and reference page do not count toward the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.
· In a small community outside of a large metropolitan area, there is a free clinic that provides care to the working poor, which is primarily Hispanic. Thirty-five percent of the population have diabetes and are prescribed oral medications. Patients have their blood glucose checked at their monthly appointments. Half of the patients miss their monthly appointments as they cannot leave their jobs to go to the clinic.
· Identify the care dilemma experienced by this population and how the factors of the social determinants of health are impacting their ability to receive care, access medical devices, and promote a healthy lifestyle.
· Describe a viable solution to this care dilemma.
· Describe a health policy and why it should be supported with evidence-based rationale.
**The following specifications are required for this assignment:**
·
**Length**: 2500 words
·
**Structure**: Include a title page and reference slide in APA style. These do not count toward the minimal word slide count for this assignment.
·
**References**: Use the appropriate APA citations and references on each slide for all resources utilized. Include at least
**FOUR (4)** scholarly sources to support your claims.
· Review the rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
**References:** Use the appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions.
**Scholarly sources to support your claims. PEER REVIEW ARTICLES ONLY.** Scholarly articles
**from**
**2021 to 2026 only. (Within the last five years) Please review your spelling and the rubric.** **Please use North American peer-reviewed journals ONLY.DO NOT use any European Journal.**
Required Resources
Porche, D. J. (2023).
_Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals_(3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN. Read chapter 6.
**## Module2Assignment-RUBRIC.docx**
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
points
21
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**## Module2Assignment-RUBRIC.docx**
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
points
21
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**## Module2Assignment.docx**
**Assignment Description:**
**Advocacy Essay: Care Dilemma Case Study**
Write a 2500-word essay addressing the care dilemma case study. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. This should be an advocacy essay focused on local policymakers. Support your ideas with at l
**east FOUR (4) sources in your essay.** Make sure to reference the citations in APA style for the essay. The cover page and reference page do not count toward the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.
· In a small community outside of a large metropolitan area, there is a free clinic that provides care to the working poor, which is primarily Hispanic. Thirty-five percent of the population have diabetes and are prescribed oral medications. Patients have their blood glucose checked at their monthly appointments. Half of the patients miss their monthly appointments as they cannot leave their jobs to go to the clinic.
· Identify the care dilemma experienced by this population and how the factors of the social determinants of health are impacting their ability to receive care, access medical devices, and promote a healthy lifestyle.
· Describe a viable solution to this care dilemma.
· Describe a health policy and why it should be supported with evidence-based rationale.
**The following specifications are required for this assignment:**
·
**Length**: 2500 words
·
**Structure**: Include a title page and reference slide in APA style. These do not count toward the minimal word slide count for this assignment.
·
**References**: Use the appropriate APA citations and references on each slide for all resources utilized. Include at least
**FOUR (4)** scholarly sources to support your claims.
· Review the rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
**References:** Use the appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions.
**Scholarly sources to support your claims. PEER REVIEW ARTICLES ONLY.** Scholarly articles
**from**
**2021 to 2026 only. (Within the last five years) Please review your spelling and the rubric.** **Please use North American peer-reviewed journals ONLY.DO NOT use any European Journal.**
Required Resources
Porche, D. J. (2023).
_Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals_(3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN. Read chapter 6.
**## Module2Assignment-RUBRIC.docx**
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
points
21
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**## Module2Assignment.docx**
**Assignment Description:**
**Advocacy Essay: Care Dilemma Case Study**
Write a 2500-word essay addressing the care dilemma case study. Be sure to completely answer all the questions for each bullet point. Separate each section in your paper with a clear heading that allows your professor to know which bullet you are addressing in that section of your paper. This should be an advocacy essay focused on local policymakers. Support your ideas with at l
**east FOUR (4) sources in your essay.** Make sure to reference the citations in APA style for the essay. The cover page and reference page do not count toward the minimum word amount. Review the rubric criteria for this assignment.
· In a small community outside of a large metropolitan area, there is a free clinic that provides care to the working poor, which is primarily Hispanic. Thirty-five percent of the population have diabetes and are prescribed oral medications. Patients have their blood glucose checked at their monthly appointments. Half of the patients miss their monthly appointments as they cannot leave their jobs to go to the clinic.
· Identify the care dilemma experienced by this population and how the factors of the social determinants of health are impacting their ability to receive care, access medical devices, and promote a healthy lifestyle.
· Describe a viable solution to this care dilemma.
· Describe a health policy and why it should be supported with evidence-based rationale.
**The following specifications are required for this assignment:**
·
**Length**: 2500 words
·
**Structure**: Include a title page and reference slide in APA style. These do not count toward the minimal word slide count for this assignment.
·
**References**: Use the appropriate APA citations and references on each slide for all resources utilized. Include at least
**FOUR (4)** scholarly sources to support your claims.
· Review the rubric and the specifications below to ensure that your response aligns with all assignment expectations.
**References:** Use the appropriate APA style in-text citations and references for all resources utilized to answer the questions.
**Scholarly sources to support your claims. PEER REVIEW ARTICLES ONLY.** Scholarly articles
**from**
**2021 to 2026 only. (Within the last five years) Please review your spelling and the rubric.** **Please use North American peer-reviewed journals ONLY.DO NOT use any European Journal.**
Required Resources
Porche, D. J. (2023).
_Health policy: Applications for nurses and other healthcare professionals_(3rd ed.). Jones & Bartlett Learning. ISBN. Read chapter 6.
**## Module2Assignment-RUBRIC.docx**
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1
Course: DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Content Weight:
30
%
/ 30
0
points
Topic is inappropri
–
ate to assignment,
inaccurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts, unclear and
difficult to under
–
stand; does not ad
–
dress many assign
–
ment requirements.
Information has
weak or no connec
–
tion to the assign
–
ment topic.
points
21
Topic is mostly cov
–
ered and appropri
–
ate to assignment,
but does not ade
–
quately demonstrate
accurate under
–
standing of con
–
cepts; mostly clear
and understandable;
lacks some of the
requirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion and/or provides
little detail;
Information relates
to the main topic,
but few details
and/or examples are
given.
points
24
Topic is covered
completely and ap
–
propriate to assign
–
ment; overview of
key concept dimen
–
sions is evident;
clear and under
–
standable; ad
–
dresses all of the re
–
quirements of the
assignment descrip
–
tion, with adequate
attention to detail.
30
points
In-depth coverage
of topic; outstand
–
ing clarity and ex
–
planation of con
–
cepts demonstrated
in information pre
–
sented; approaches
assignment with
depth and breadth,
without redundancy,
using clear and fo
–
cused details.
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Organization<br>Weight: 25% | 0 points<br>Organization is confusing and interferes with reader’s ability to follow ideas.<br>Weak or no introduction of topic or purpose is unclear, weak, or missing. Conclusion lacks a summary of topic, or is missing or irrelevant. | 17.5 points<br>Ideas are sometimes disorganized or irrelevant; Flow is sometimes choppy; somewhat clear organization. Basic introduction that states topic but is presented in an uninteresting way. Conclusion contains basic summary of topic without final concluding ideas, may inappropriately introduces new information. | 20 points<br>Structures ideas in a coherent, organized order that has good flow and an obvious framework.<br>Proficient introduction that is interesting and states topic. Conclusion contains good summary of topic with credible concluding ideas and introduces no new information. | 25 points<br>Exceptionally clear, logical, mature, and thorough organization permitting smooth flow of ideas; Introduction that grabs interest of reader and states topic in clear, unambiguous terms.<br>Excellent concluding summary with succinct and precise ideas that impact reader. | / 25 |
| Logic/Argument<br>Weight: 15% | 0 points<br>Demonstrates little logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within assignment; Many claims are weak or illogical. | 10.5 points<br>Lacks some logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment; Some claims are weak. | 12 points<br>Uses solid logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | 15 points<br>Provides exemplary logical reasoning for the claims and thoughts within the assignment. | / 15 |
| | | | | | |
| — | — | — | — | — | — |
| Support Weight:<br>20% | 0 points<br>Lacks support; Uses poor sources for references; Citations lack credibility, relevance, or academic quality or are not current; Does not meet the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>APA format and style are not evident. | 14 points<br>Provides weak support or not enough support; Citations are not consistently credible, current, relevant or academic; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description Missing APA elements; in-text citations, where necessary, are used but formatted inaccurately and not referenced. | 16 points<br>Provides sufficient support with credible, current, relevant academic citations; Meets the minimum number of required citations in assignment description. ; In-text citations and a reference page are present with few format errors. Mechanics of writing are reflective of APA style. | 20 points<br>Provides very strong support from credible, current, relevant, academic citations; Meets or exceeds the minimum number of required citations in assignment description.<br>Accurate citations and references are presented. No APA errors are evident. | / 20 |
Total
/ 100
Quality of
Written
Communication
Weight: 10%
/ 10
0
points
Style and voice inap
–
propriate or do not
address given audi
–
ence, purpose, etc.
Word choice is ex
–
cessively redundant,
clichéd, and unspe
–
cific. Inconsistent
grammar, spelling,
punctuation, and
paragraphing.
Surface errors are
pervasive enough
that they impede
communication of
meaning.
points
7
Style and voice are
somewhat appropri
–
ate to given audi
–
ence and purpose.
Word choice is of
–
ten unspecific,
generic, redundant,
and clichéd.
Repetitive mechani
–
cal errors distract
the reader.
Inconsistencies in
language, sentence
structure, and/or
word choice are
present.
8
points
Style and voice are
appropriate to the
given audience and
purpose. Word
choice is specific
and purposeful, and
somewhat varied
throughout. Minimal
mechanical or typo
–
graphical errors are
present, but are not
overly distracting to
the reader. Correct
sentence structure
and audience-appro
–
priate language are
used.
points
10
Style and voice are
not only appropriate
to the given audi
–
ence and purpose,
but also show origi
–
nality and creativity.
Word choice is spe
–
cific, purposeful, dy
–
namic and varied.
Free of mechanical
and typographical
errors. A variety of
sentence structures
and effective figures
of speech are used.
Writer is clearly in
command of stan
–
dard, written, aca
–
demic English.
7/13/26, 8:34 PM Preview Rubric: Graduate Simple Essay Rubric v1 – DNP870 Sect1 Health Policy, Advocacy and Partnerships – Aspen University Classroom
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
Criteria
**Does Not Meet 0%**
**Approaches 70%**
**Meets 80%**
**Exceeds 100%**
**Criterion Score**
1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5
**Overall Score**
**Level 1**
0
points minimum
**Level 2**
70
points minimum
**Level 3**
80
points minimum
**Level 4**
100
points minimum
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
https://classroom.aspen.edu/d2l/le/content/120526/viewContent/6403102/View 1/5
1/5