Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services

Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Discipline: Medicine and Health Type of service: Article Review Spacing: Double spacing Paper format: APA Number of pages: 18 pages Number of sources: 10 sources Paper detalis: REVISION I have attached everything the author needs to make this paper a success, including but not limited to, syllabus and grading criteria. It is imperative the writer follows each specific instruction since the school is very picky and can denied the paper for any reason that was mandated but not followed in the paper. The form attached RLRA 2, is my hypothesis proposal along with 10 article references. If the author wishes, he/she can also add sources that he/she deemed relevant provided they follow the criteria set forth by the school regarding sources, the article review must compare minimum 10 articles. The writer has to compare and contrast the articles’ methods, results, and discussions. When in doubt refer to the syllabus and “guide to authors” forms uploaded. I prefer the writer takes it’s time if the instructions are followed to perfection. Any questions please dont hesitate to reach out. Thank You. Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services revision_instructions.docx guide_to_authors__spring_2018.pdf rlra_final_paper_rubric.pdf syllabus___research___literature_review__analysis___summer_2019.pdf reasons_why_rlra_papers_fail.pdf Revision Instructions One of the primary sources “Leadbetter et al” was not cited, i dont know if it was not included in the paper or the author forgot to cite it. The results states there were 5 articles compared but Leadbetter is missing. Page 2= Under Conclusion -“can serve as a superior alternative to traditional autopsies for a while a post-in a neonate or fetus”, if you can change “for a while” and don’t understand what is meant by a “post-in a neonate or fetus”, if you can please word it differently. Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Page 3= Introduction , first paragraph -Starting from “It remains” and the rest of the paragraph should be worded differently to avoid phrases like “at all time devastating” , “a post is a source of this info” and “prior decisions during the last legs of the deceased”. I felt this paragraph was not written clearly. Page 5= figure quoting 88 percent to 96 percent in still births against…” if you can please include from what article it was obtained. Page 14= under subheading “acceptability of virtual autopsy” -if you can change the wording on “positively concerning singleton”, fix non-moslem mother, and clarify “earlier gestation at delivery or TOP, and a maternal” -Under the same section: the statistic of ” thirty three fetuses and the one that follows beneath of “scores greater than 80” have no citation. Also words like “infected or defected” if you can please change or clarify what is meant by that. Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Page 14 under “discussion” -first sentenced “cash earlier stated” dont know what is meant by that. -I believe the writer explained my limitations in conducting this review instead of explaining the limitations and weaknesses of the studies examined under results. -also under discussion pg 14-15, the facts regarding hepatic iron and free air detection= no citation. Page 16= top of page if the author can explain what T1 and T2 means. Page 16= under subheading ” the results of this study confirm the research hypothesis” -if you can change/clarify what is meant by “showed the rite of an autopsy” Overall, minor details of spelling/grammar like in pg. 2 article instead of author, pg. 5 paediatry and supperior in the pages heading. If you can please just look over the paper in case there are others i did not catch. 1-Under data search heading: This is a bit vague. the search for articles would have to be fully replicable in case the committee wants to go search for the articles– describe the search and so, anyone else would be able to go through your steps and come up with exactly the same articles that you ended up with. if you really have to mention all the databases to capture all the searches, then that’s fine. This just matters a bit more because I only have 5 papers in my results, the committee will have to be very convinced that I have found all of the papers related to my hypothesis. If you have found more that is relevant please feel free to include them The sentence that include the general terms search, It would be better to give the string (with MeSH terms, etc.) that you used in pubmed. Or if you had several strings, use that. 2-Under inclusion/exclusion criteria: In general, dates should be a sharp cutoff. Saying things like “a high chance” makes your choice to include something sound subjective. 3-Under data validity: did you actually exclude any of the studies based on these criteria? If not, leave this out. 4- The data analysis section is not required, you can take it out 5-Under Results: for the two comparison studies, I would avoid describing two studies together like this. Do them one at a time. That way you can make sure that you give a full description for each study.You should say more about the study design. Did they do both perform virtual and traditional autopsy on all 400? Were there any comparison groups? How were the subjects selected? Also get rid of the table, your results all need to be explained in standard sentences in paragraphs. 6-Under Agreement between Traditional Autopsy and Virtual Autopsy Results: when talking about 58 to 60 percent..This is a good example of a section of results that has numerical results (the percent agreement) but no measure of statistical significance. One might find a p value, or confidence intervals, or even a kappa test. If nothing is reported, then you should also say that the authors reported no measure of statistical significance. 7-At the end of the same paragraph, where PM-MRI is better…see if you can find numerical results (along with measures of statistical significance). So when you say PM-MRI is superior in hepatic iron overload, give the numeric value (e.g. percent correct) for PM-MRI and for the comparison, and then a measure of statistical significance, to further support the idea that is better. 8- For the results section: To summarize, what you need to do in the results, is focus just on one study at a time. Introduce the study. Then describe its design – the subjects, number, comparison groups, recruitment, and what was done to all subjects. Then describe the results, including bother the numerical result and measures of statistical significance. Then move on to the next study and do the same thing…Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more

Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services

Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services ORDER NOW FOR CUSTOMIZED AND ORIGINAL ESSAY PAPERS ON Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Discipline: Medicine and Health Type of service: Article Review Spacing: Double spacing Paper format: APA Number of pages: 18 pages Number of sources: 10 sources Paper detalis: REVISION I have attached everything the author needs to make this paper a success, including but not limited to, syllabus and grading criteria. It is imperative the writer follows each specific instruction since the school is very picky and can denied the paper for any reason that was mandated but not followed in the paper. The form attached RLRA 2, is my hypothesis proposal along with 10 article references. If the author wishes, he/she can also add sources that he/she deemed relevant provided they follow the criteria set forth by the school regarding sources, the article review must compare minimum 10 articles. The writer has to compare and contrast the articles’ methods, results, and discussions. When in doubt refer to the syllabus and “guide to authors” forms uploaded. I prefer the writer takes it’s time if the instructions are followed to perfection. Any questions please dont hesitate to reach out. Thank You. Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services revision_instructions.docx guide_to_authors__spring_2018.pdf rlra_final_paper_rubric.pdf syllabus___research___literature_review__analysis___summer_2019.pdf reasons_why_rlra_papers_fail.pdf Revision Instructions One of the primary sources “Leadbetter et al” was not cited, i dont know if it was not included in the paper or the author forgot to cite it. The results states there were 5 articles compared but Leadbetter is missing. Page 2= Under Conclusion -“can serve as a superior alternative to traditional autopsies for a while a post-in a neonate or fetus”, if you can change “for a while” and don’t understand what is meant by a “post-in a neonate or fetus”, if you can please word it differently. Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Page 3= Introduction , first paragraph -Starting from “It remains” and the rest of the paragraph should be worded differently to avoid phrases like “at all time devastating” , “a post is a source of this info” and “prior decisions during the last legs of the deceased”. I felt this paragraph was not written clearly. Page 5= figure quoting 88 percent to 96 percent in still births against…” if you can please include from what article it was obtained. Page 14= under subheading “acceptability of virtual autopsy” -if you can change the wording on “positively concerning singleton”, fix non-moslem mother, and clarify “earlier gestation at delivery or TOP, and a maternal” -Under the same section: the statistic of ” thirty three fetuses and the one that follows beneath of “scores greater than 80” have no citation. Also words like “infected or defected” if you can please change or clarify what is meant by that. Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Page 14 under “discussion” -first sentenced “cash earlier stated” dont know what is meant by that. -I believe the writer explained my limitations in conducting this review instead of explaining the limitations and weaknesses of the studies examined under results. -also under discussion pg 14-15, the facts regarding hepatic iron and free air detection= no citation. Page 16= top of page if the author can explain what T1 and T2 means. Page 16= under subheading ” the results of this study confirm the research hypothesis” -if you can change/clarify what is meant by “showed the rite of an autopsy” Overall, minor details of spelling/grammar like in pg. 2 article instead of author, pg. 5 paediatry and supperior in the pages heading. If you can please just look over the paper in case there are others i did not catch. 1-Under data search heading: This is a bit vague. the search for articles would have to be fully replicable in case the committee wants to go search for the articles– describe the search and so, anyone else would be able to go through your steps and come up with exactly the same articles that you ended up with. if you really have to mention all the databases to capture all the searches, then that’s fine. This just matters a bit more because I only have 5 papers in my results, the committee will have to be very convinced that I have found all of the papers related to my hypothesis. If you have found more that is relevant please feel free to include them The sentence that include the general terms search, It would be better to give the string (with MeSH terms, etc.) that you used in pubmed. Or if you had several strings, use that. 2-Under inclusion/exclusion criteria: In general, dates should be a sharp cutoff. Saying things like “a high chance” makes your choice to include something sound subjective. 3-Under data validity: did you actually exclude any of the studies based on these criteria? If not, leave this out. 4- The data analysis section is not required, you can take it out 5-Under Results: for the two comparison studies, I would avoid describing two studies together like this. Do them one at a time. That way you can make sure that you give a full description for each study.You should say more about the study design. Did they do both perform virtual and traditional autopsy on all 400? Were there any comparison groups? How were the subjects selected? Also get rid of the table, your results all need to be explained in standard sentences in paragraphs. 6-Under Agreement between Traditional Autopsy and Virtual Autopsy Results: when talking about 58 to 60 percent..This is a good example of a section of results that has numerical results (the percent agreement) but no measure of statistical significance. One might find a p value, or confidence intervals, or even a kappa test. If nothing is reported, then you should also say that the authors reported no measure of statistical significance. 7-At the end of the same paragraph, where PM-MRI is better…see if you can find numerical results (along with measures of statistical significance). So when you say PM-MRI is superior in hepatic iron overload, give the numeric value (e.g. percent correct) for PM-MRI and for the comparison, and then a measure of statistical significance, to further support the idea that is better. 8- For the results section: To summarize, what you need to do in the results, is focus just on one study at a time. Introduce the study. Then describe its design – the subjects, number, comparison groups, recruitment, and what was done to all subjects. Then describe the results, including bother the numerical result and measures of statistical significance. Then move on to the next study and do the same thing…Discussion: Managing in Health & Human Services Get a 10 % discount on an order above $ 100 Use the following coupon code : NURSING10

Read more
Enjoy affordable prices and lifetime discounts
Use a coupon FIRST15 and enjoy expert help with any task at the most affordable price.
Order Now Order in Chat

Start off on the right foot this semester. Get expert-written solutions at a 20% discount