Discussion response: Please respond to this discussion post... | Nursing

Clinical Requirement:

Please respond to this discussion post following the instructions and rubric below Post:  Childhood Obesity and Prediabetes Among Hispanic Children Epidemiologic Description of the Health Problem (Person, Place, and Time) Obesity and prediabetes are significant and increasing societal health issues in the United States among children. Hispanic children are one of the most vulnerable groups whose obesity and metabolic conditions disproportionately affect them. Person: According to the nationwide statistics, Hispanic children aged 6-17 have a much higher prevalence of obesity than non-Hispanic White children, and they are at a high risk of prediabetes and early type 2 diabetes development (Zhang et al., 2024). Vulnerability in this population is further determined by social determinants that include inaccessibility to nutritional healthy foods, low opportunities of physical activities, and increased poverty levels. Place: Obesity in Hispanic children is also most common in urban, low-income neighborhoods, where the environment factors in the form of food deserts, lack of safe play areas, and the proximity of fast-food restaurants are playing a role in exposing children to increased risk of disease. Time: National data on surveillance of obesity in children and prediabetes indicate that both prevalence rates have been increasing steadily over the last 20 years, with a further faster growth since 2010. Such patterns of time highlight the persistence of the epidemic. The interpretation of these person-place-time features is in line with the descriptive epidemiology principles that are applied to map disease trends and new health risks. Sampling Methods for Primary Data Collection In order to investigate the problem of childhood obesity and prediabetes in this age group, various sampling mechanisms might be used. The stratified random sampling would be used to have sufficient representation of children at different age groups, gender, and socioeconomic strata. This method allows making estimates of prevalence more accurate and permits any comparison of subgroups that are meaningful (Makwana et al., 2023). Population-based studies would be cost-effective and feasible using cluster sampling, which is the choice of schools, community centers, or pediatric clinics in Hispanic neighborhoods with the majority Hispanic population. It comes in handy especially when people are willingly concentrated together as is the case in focused urban community. Lastly, convenience sampling may be applied during community health fairs or school events to get preliminary or exploratory information, but would restrict generalization. Sampling method also influences the identification of cases directly in that random or stratified sampling methods enhance the likelihood of picking real cases of obesity and prediabetes whereas convenience sampling is likely to create a selection bias and under or overestimate the prevalence of an illness. Secondary Data Sources for Studying This Population The investigation will be supported by two major sources of secondary data. To begin with, the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) offers quality both in biometric and laboratory information that can be used to determine both obesity and prediabetes among children in the U.S. (Belay et al., 2024). The sampling procedures of the survey are so strict that it makes it a perfect tool in epidemiologic studies. Second, CDC Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) and Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS) provides data regarding the behavior control system and demographics regarding dietary habits, physical activity, and weight status (CDC, 2025). Such datasets can be useful to put risk behavior trends into perspective and determine determinants that relate to the distribution of disease. Epidemiologic data retrieval and analysis is also advised based on such forms of data. Influence on Case Identification and Diagnostic Criteria The primary and secondary data will help complete the case identification and increase the validity of the diagnostic criteria. Primary data collection will provide the opportunity to measure BMI, HbA1c, and fasting glucose directly, which will guarantee an accurate diagnostic characterisation of obesity and prediabetes. Secondary data, particularly NHANES, uses standardized clinical measurements, which enhances comparability of various studies (National Academies of Sciences et al., 2024). Nonetheless, behavioral surveillance data is based on self-reported data that can underreport weight-related variables. Accordingly, the combination of various sources of data will provide a more complete epidemiologic image and enhance the quality of case definitions, diagnostic criteria, and interpretations by the public health. References Belay, B., Kraus, E. M., Porter, R., Pierce, S. L., Kompaniyets, L., Lundeen, E. A., ... & Goodman, A. B. (2024). Examination of prediabetes and diabetes testing among US pediatric patients with overweight or obesity using an electronic health record. Childhood Obesity, 20(2), 96-106. https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/chi.2022.0209Links to an external site. (2025, January 14). Data summary & trends report for dietary, physical activity, and sleep behaviors. Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System (YRBSS). https://www.cdc.gov/yrbs/dstr/dietary-physical-sleep-behaviors.htmlLinks to an external site. Makwana, D., Engineer, P., Dabhi, A., & Chudasama, H. (2023). Sampling methods in research: A review. International Journal of Trend in Scientific Research and Development, 7(3), 762-768. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Priti-Engineer/publication/371985656_Sampling_Methods_in_Research_A_Review/links/64b0c631b9ed6874a51854a7/Sampling-Methods-in-Research-A-Review.pdfLinks to an external site. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2024). NHANES Data Analysis Methodology. In the role of seafood consumption in child growth and development. National Academies Press (US). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/n/nap27623/appE/Links to an external site. Zhang, C., Zhang, H., & Zhang, B. (2024). Prevalence trends and racial-ethnic disparities of diabetes and prediabetes among children and adolescents in the United States from 2019 to 2021. Preventive Medicine Reports, 41, 102688. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335524001037Links to an external site. Instructions: Ask a probing question, substantiated with additional background information, evidence, or research. Share an insight from having read your classmates’ postings, synthesizing the information to provide new perspectives. Offer and support an alternative perspective using readings from the classroom or from your own research in the Walden Library. Validate an idea with your own experience and additional research. Make a suggestion based on additional evidence drawn from readings or after synthesizing multiple postings. Expand on your classmates’ postings by providing additional insights or contrasting perspectives based on readings and evidence. Note: Your responses to classmates should be substantial (250 words minimum), supported with scholarly evidence from your research and/or the Learning Resources, and properly cited using APA Style. Personal anecdotes are acceptable as part of a meaningful response, but cannot stand alone as a response. Your responses should enrich the initial post by supporting and/or offering a fresh viewpoint, and be constructive, thereby enhancing the learning experience for all students. Rubric: CONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: First Response (20 possible points) 20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides rich and relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • First response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • There is a lack of support from relevant scholarly research/evidence. • Posts on same day. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCONTRIBUTION TO THE DISCUSSION: Second Response (20 possible points) 20 to >19.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion response: • Significantly contributes to the quality of the discussion/interaction and thinking and learning. • Provides relevant examples and thought-provoking ideas that demonstrates new perspectives, and extensive synthesis of ideas supported by the literature. • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 19 to >15.0 ptsGoodDiscussion response: • Contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides relevant examples and/or thought-provoking ideas • Second response is supported by 2 or more relevant examples and research/evidence from a variety of scholarly sources including course and outside readings. • Scholarly sources are correctly cited and formatted. • Posts on separate day. 15 to >12.0 ptsFairDiscussion response: • Minimally contributes to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Provides few examples to support thoughts. • Information provided lacks evidence of critical thinking or synthesis of ideas. • Minimal scholarly sources provided to support post. • Posts on separate day. 12 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion response: • Does not contribute to the quality of the interaction/discussion and learning. • Lacks relevant examples or ideas. • No sources provided. • Posts on same day. 20 pts This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQUALITY OF WRITING (10 possible points) 10 to >9.0 ptsExcellentDiscussion postings and responses exceed doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear, concise, and appropriate to doctoral level writing. • Make few if any errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are positive, courteous, and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 9 to >8.0 ptsGoodDiscussion postings and responses meet doctoral level writing expectations: • Use Standard Academic English that is clear and appropriate to doctoral level writing • Makes a few errors in spelling, grammar, that does not affect clear communication. • Uses correct APA 7 format as closely as possible given the constraints of the online platform. • Are courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, constructive feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 8 to >6.0 ptsFairDiscussion postings and responses are somewhat below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Numerous errors in APA 7 format • May be less than courteous and respectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 6 to >0 ptsPoorDiscussion postings and responses are well below doctoral level writing expectations: • Posts contains multiple spelling, grammar, and/or punctuation deviations from Standard Academic English that affect clear communication. • Uses incorrect APA 7 format • Are discourteous and disrespectful when offering suggestions, feedback, or opposing viewpoints. 10 pts Total Points: 100