My Blog

Category: Nursing

  • [Solved] Post discussion

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    Read the article [Advanced Practice Nursing Roles, Regulation, Education, and Practice: A Global Study](https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=135619&type=coursefile&fileId=Week+4%2fNSG6998+Advance+Practice+Nursing+Roles%2c+Regulation%2c+Education+and+Pra…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Read the article [Advanced Practice Nursing Roles, Regulation, Education, and Practice: A Global Study](https://myclasses.southuniversity.edu/d2l/common/dialogs/quickLink/quickLink.d2l?ou=135619&type=coursefile&fileId=Week+4%2fNSG6998+Advance+Practice+Nursing+Roles%2c+Regulation%2c+Education+and+Practice.pdf).

    – How does the article connect quality and safety competencies (QSEN) which guide practice.
    – Identify a component of the article that resonates for you.
    – How do the competencies of QSEN define the advance practice role?
    – Discuss specifics of how QSEN changes as you transition from the RN to APRN role and practice.

    Post a minimum **200-word response**. Support thoughts through the use of course textbooks, peer-reviewed articles. Cite sources and provide appropriate references for the citations in APA format.

    – Please make sure to use scholarly references not older than 5 years. Posts/references must be in APA format.
    – Please follow the discussion rubric to make sure all topics/discussions are addressed.

    Plagiarism will result in a failing grade for the assignment and may result in a failing grade for the course.

  • [Solved] DESCRIPTIVE EPIDEMIOLOGY: DATA SOURCES AND DATA COLLECTION

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    Diabetes is a significant public health challenge in the United States, with Table 3.2 identifying Hemoglobin A1C levels, incidence of skin infections, obesity, peripheral neuropathy, and renal insufficiency as key measurable outcomes (Curley, 2024). The population selected for this discussion is Hi…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Diabetes is a significant public health challenge in the United States, with Table 3.2 identifying Hemoglobin A1C levels, incidence of skin infections, obesity, peripheral neuropathy, and renal insufficiency as key measurable outcomes (Curley, 2024). The population selected for this discussion is Hispanic/Latino adults in the United States, a group disproportionately burdened by Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM)..

    – [\
    \
    wk2epiDescriptiveepidemiologydealswithdescribingdiseasepatternsusingthreemajorcategories.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk2epidescriptiveepidemiologydealswithdescribingdiseasepatternsusingthreemajorcategories-docx "wk2epiDescriptiveepidemiologydealswithdescribingdiseasepatternsusingthreemajorcategories.docx")
    – [\
    \
    wk2epidiscrubrics.docx](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/wk2epidiscrubrics-docx "wk2epidiscrubrics.docx")

  • [Solved] Community Health

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    Please see attached. **files (1)** – ## Assign4Instruction.docx **## Assign4Instruction.docx** Create a slide presentation of the health promotion plan you developed in Assessment 1. Complete the following: · Prepare a 12–14 slide PowerPoint presentation with detailed speaker notes that reflects you…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Please see attached.

    **files (1)**

    – ## Assign4Instruction.docx

    **## Assign4Instruction.docx**

    Create a slide presentation of the health promotion plan you developed in Assessment 1.

    Complete the following:

    · Prepare a 12–14 slide PowerPoint presentation with detailed speaker notes that reflects your presentation. This presentation is the implementation of the plan you created in Assessment 1. The speaker notes should be well-organized and submitted as a separate Word document. Be sure to include a transcript of the voice-over (please refer to the PowerPoint resources in the Academic Resources). The transcript must be submitted on a separate Word document.

    · Simulate the face-to-face educational session, addressing the health concern and health goals of your selected community individual or group.

    · Imagine collaborating with the participants in setting goals for the session, evaluating session outcomes, and suggesting possible revisions to improve future sessions.

    The requirements outlined below correspond to the grading criteria in the scoring guide, so be sure to address each point. Read the performance-level descriptions for each criterion in the scoring guide to see how your work will be assessed.

    · Present a health promotion plan tailored for an individual or group within a community.

    · Tailor the presentation to the needs of your chosen community audience.

    · Adhere to scholarly and disciplinary writing standards and APA formatting requirements.

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes and attainment of agreed-upon health goals, anticipating potential input from participants.

    · How do you think participants would react to the session?

    · Which aspects of the session would you change?

    · How might those changes improve future outcomes?

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes in terms of progress made toward Healthy People 2030 objectives and leading health indicators (LHIs).

    · What changes would you recommend to better align the session with Healthy People 2030 objectives and LHIs?

    Scoring Requirements:

    By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and scoring guide criteria:

    · Competency 2: Propose health promotion strategies to improve the health of populations.

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes and attainment of agreed-upon health goals, anticipating potential input from participants.

    · Competency 3: Evaluate health policies, based on their ability to achieve desired outcomes.

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes in terms of progress made toward Healthy People 2030 objectives and LHIs.

    · Competency 5: Apply professional, scholarly communication strategies to lead health promotion and improve population health.

    · Present a health promotion plan tailored for an individual or a group within a community.

    · Organize content with clear purpose/goals and with relevant and evidence-based sources (published within 5 years).

    · Slides are easy to read and error-free. Detailed audio, transcript, and speaker notes are provided. Audio is clear, organized, and professionally presented.

    **## Assign4Instruction.docx**

    Create a slide presentation of the health promotion plan you developed in Assessment 1.

    Complete the following:

    · Prepare a 12–14 slide PowerPoint presentation with detailed speaker notes that reflects your presentation. This presentation is the implementation of the plan you created in Assessment 1. The speaker notes should be well-organized and submitted as a separate Word document. Be sure to include a transcript of the voice-over (please refer to the PowerPoint resources in the Academic Resources). The transcript must be submitted on a separate Word document.

    · Simulate the face-to-face educational session, addressing the health concern and health goals of your selected community individual or group.

    · Imagine collaborating with the participants in setting goals for the session, evaluating session outcomes, and suggesting possible revisions to improve future sessions.

    The requirements outlined below correspond to the grading criteria in the scoring guide, so be sure to address each point. Read the performance-level descriptions for each criterion in the scoring guide to see how your work will be assessed.

    · Present a health promotion plan tailored for an individual or group within a community.

    · Tailor the presentation to the needs of your chosen community audience.

    · Adhere to scholarly and disciplinary writing standards and APA formatting requirements.

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes and attainment of agreed-upon health goals, anticipating potential input from participants.

    · How do you think participants would react to the session?

    · Which aspects of the session would you change?

    · How might those changes improve future outcomes?

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes in terms of progress made toward Healthy People 2030 objectives and leading health indicators (LHIs).

    · What changes would you recommend to better align the session with Healthy People 2030 objectives and LHIs?

    Scoring Requirements:

    By successfully completing this assessment, you will demonstrate your proficiency in the following course competencies and scoring guide criteria:

    · Competency 2: Propose health promotion strategies to improve the health of populations.

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes and attainment of agreed-upon health goals, anticipating potential input from participants.

    · Competency 3: Evaluate health policies, based on their ability to achieve desired outcomes.

    · Evaluate educational session outcomes in terms of progress made toward Healthy People 2030 objectives and LHIs.

    · Competency 5: Apply professional, scholarly communication strategies to lead health promotion and improve population health.

    · Present a health promotion plan tailored for an individual or a group within a community.

    · Organize content with clear purpose/goals and with relevant and evidence-based sources (published within 5 years).

    · Slides are easy to read and error-free. Detailed audio, transcript, and speaker notes are provided. Audio is clear, organized, and professionally presented.

  • [Solved] Question

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – [\ \ IMG_0348.jpeg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/img-0348-jpeg-10507569 "IMG_0348.jpeg")

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – [\
    \
    IMG_0348.jpeg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/img-0348-jpeg-10507569 "IMG_0348.jpeg")

  • [Solved] Lorem, lpsum

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – [\ \ 20260307_170338.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260307-170338-jpg "20260307_170338.jpg") – [\ \ 20260315_011317.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011317-jpg-10517929 "20260315_011317.jpg") – [\ \ 20260315_011358.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-0113…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – [\
    \
    20260307_170338.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260307-170338-jpg "20260307_170338.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011317.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011317-jpg-10517929 "20260315_011317.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011358.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011358-jpg-10517931 "20260315_011358.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011305.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011305-jpg-10517933 "20260315_011305.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011350.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011350-jpg-10517935 "20260315_011350.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011337.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011337-jpg-10517937 "20260315_011337.jpg")
    – [\
    \
    20260315_011407.jpg](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/20260315-011407-jpg-10517939 "20260315_011407.jpg")

  • [Solved] HW help

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    In-depth study guidance and analytical solution covering HW help.

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    Full assignment prompt and step-by-step guidance are included in the downloadable solution file.

  • [Solved] Assigment .Apa seven . All instructions attached.

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (2)** – ## Articles.pdf – LiteratureReview1.docx **## Articles.pdf** References 1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D., Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D., Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumb…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **files (2)**

    – ## Articles.pdf

    – LiteratureReview1.docx

    **## Articles.pdf**

    References

    1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D.,

    Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D.,

    Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumber, P., Rizvi, A., Yadava, D., … Hyacinthe, J. (2025).

    Measurement-based care training curriculum in psychiatry residency programs: Four-year

    implementation experience and future directions. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience,

    22(4–6), 20–26.

    2. Aldis, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lanca, M., Zona, K., Lam, J. A., Asfour,

    J., Meltzer, J. C., Leff, H. S., Fulwiler, C., Wang, P., & Progovac, A. M. (2024).

    Determinants of remote measurement-based care uptake in a safety-net outpatient

    psychiatry department. Learning Health Systems, 8(S1), e10416.

    3. Askari, N., Gupta, R., Hussain-Shamsy, N., Barker, L. C., Champagne, T., Lam, R. W.,

    Bishop, K., Pirmohamed, J., Michalowska, M., Shah, V., Katzman, H., Jalan, A.,

    Shanmuganathan, A., Wang, V., & Vigod, S. N. (2025). Electronic measurement-based

    care for perinatal depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 25(1), 437.

    4. Azizian Kia, S., Wittkampf, L., van Lankeren, J., & Janse, P. (2025). Motives of

    therapists for using routine outcome monitoring. Administration and Policy in Mental

    Health, 52(1), 159–170.

    5. Barkham, M., Broglia, E., & The SCORE Consortium. (2024). Routine outcome

    monitoring and feedback in university mental health services. Counselling and

    Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 459–471.

    6. Bear, H. A., Dalzell, K., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Wolpert, M. (2022). Applying behaviour

    change theory to routine outcome monitoring. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

    61(3), 557–578.

    7. Borgnolo, L. J., McKenna, S., Hickie, I. B., Varidel, M., Turner, A., Gorban, C.,

    LaMonica, H. M., Chong, M. K., Capon, W., Dimitropoulos, G., Battisti, R., Whitwell,

    B., Hamilton, B., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025). Engagement with digital mental

    health technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27(3), e67597.

    8. Bugatti, M., Owen, J., Richardson, Z., Rasmussen, W., & Newton, D. (2024). Therapist

    engagement in measurement-based care. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1).

    9. Cheung, B. S., Murphy, J. K., Michalak, E. E., Liu, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Chen, J., &

    Lam, R. W. (2023). Barriers to technology-enhanced MBC for depression. Journal of

    Affective Disorders, 320, 1–6.

    10. Cuperfain, A. B., Hui, K., Berkhout, S. G., Foussias, G., Gratzer, D., Kidd, S. A.,

    Kozloff, N., Kurdyak, P., Linaksita, B., Miranda, D., Soklaridis, S., Voineskos, A. N., &

    Zaheer, J. (2021). Views of measurement-based care in early psychosis. BJPsych Open,

    7(5).

    11. de Beurs, E., Carlier, I., & van Hemert, A. (2022). Patient-reported psychopathology and

    quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1461–1471.

    12. El Hussein, M. T., & Bal, R. (2025). Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

    Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 21(8), 105458.

    13. Gaine, G. S., Nealis, L. J., Zhou, H., Purdon, S. E., & Abba-Aji, A. (2021). Inpatient

    recovery trajectories using ROM. Psychiatry Research, 302, 114000.

    14. Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10. Behaviour

    Change, 38(4), 221–234.

    15. He, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, P., Huang, X., Yu, M., Murphy, J., Michalak, E.,

    Liu, J., Yang, T., Yang, X., Fang, Y., Lam, R., & Chen, J. (2024). Standard vs enhanced

    MBC for depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1465–1473.

    16. Helldin, L., Mohn, C., Olsson-Tall, M., van Dijk-Härd, I., & Olsson, A. (2024).

    Measurement-based care in schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 53, 151–157.

    17. Hoenders, R., Bartels, A., Castelein, S., Visser, E., & Booij, S. (2021). Integrative

    outpatient mental health clinic outcomes. European Psychiatry, 64(S1).

    18. Huffman, L. G., Lawrence-Sidebottom, D., Huberty, J., Roots, M., Roots, K., Parikh, A.,

    Guerra, R., & Weiser, J. (2023). Digital MBC for youth anxiety and depression. JMIR

    Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, e46154.

    19. Ibrahim, H. M., & Jha, M. K. (2023). Measurement-based care for depression.

    Psychiatric Annals, 53(9), 395–399.

    20. Jonášová, K., Čevelíček, M., Doležal, P., & Řiháček, T. (2025). In-session use of ROM.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 52(1), 106–122.

    21. Jones, S. B., Ko, H., Gatto, A. J., Kablinger, A. S., Sharp, H. D., Cooper, L. D., Tenzer,

    M. M., O’Brien, V. C., & McNamara, R. S. (2024). COVID-19 impacts using MBC.

    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 8(1), 135.

    22. Khau, M., Tabbane, K., Bloom, D., Abadi, S., Villemus, C., Rabinovitch, M., Shah, J. L.,

    Veillette, A., Iyer, S. N., Boksa, P., & Joober, R. (2022). MBC in first-episode psychosis.

    Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 8–16.

    23. Korsen, N., & Gerrish, S. (2022). PHQ-9 use in integrated care. Annals of Family

    Medicine, 20(Suppl 1).

    24. Kumar, M., Paz, C., Falkeström, F., & Castonguay, L. (2025). Strengthening systems

    with ROM. JAMA Psychiatry, 82(10), 953–954.

    25. Lam, R. W., Michalak, E. E., Murphy, J. K., et al. (2025). EMBED trial protocol. Cureus,

    17(8), e90395.

    26. Lampis, J., & Rocca, G. (2024). ROM use in Italian public services. Clinical Psychology

    & Psychotherapy, 31(6).

    27. Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Marti, C. N., & Albright, K. (2022). Mediators of MBC

    implementation. Implementation Science, 17(1).

    28. Lui, J. H. L., Brookman-Frazee, L., Smith, A., Lind, T., Terrones, L., Rodriguez, A.,

    Motamedi, M., Villodas, M., & Lau, A. S. (2022). Implementation facilitation strategies.

    Psychological Services, 19(2), 343–352.

    29. Machleid, F., Michnevich, T., Huang, L., Schröder-Frerkes, L., Wiegmann, C., Muffel,

    T., & Kaminski, J. (2024). Remote measurement-based care. PLOS One, 19(2),

    e0297929.

    30. McCoy, T. H., Castro, V. M., & Perlis, R. H. (2025). Estimating depression severity with

    LLMs. Journal of Affective Disorders, 381, 270–274.

    31. Meyer-Kalos, P., Owens, G., Fisher, M., et al. (2024). Putting MBC into action. BMC

    Psychiatry, 24(1), 871.

    32. Moltu, C., McAleavey, A. A., Helleseth, M. M., Møller, G. H., & Nordberg, S. S. (2021).

    Developing feedback systems. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 43.

    33. Patel, Z. S., Jensen-Doss, A., & Lewis, C. C. (2022). Attitudes toward MBC.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 49(1), 13–28.

    34. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., et al. (2025). Remote MBC rollout

    experiences. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    35. Roebroek, L., Bruins, J., Roe, D., et al. (2021). Care needs in psychosis. Epidemiology

    and Psychiatric Sciences, 30.

    36. Rush, A. J., Gore-Langton, R. E., Bart, G., et al. (2024). Tools to implement MBC for

    OUD. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 19(1), 14.

    37. Sales, C. M. D., Ashworth, M., Ayis, S., et al. (2023). I-PROMs position paper. Journal

    of Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 596–621.

    38. She, Z., Xu, H., Cormier, G., Drapeau, M., & Duncan, B. L. (2024). Culture and face in

    ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 311–322.

    39. Smits, H. J. H., Seelen-de Lang, B. L., Penterman, E. J. M., Nijman, H. L. I., &

    Noorthoorn, E. O. (2023). Quality of life outcomes in SMI. Journal of Applied Research

    in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(1), 58–67.

    40. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., Castonguay, L. G., & Moltu, C. (2021). Clinical dilemmas

    of ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 200–210.

    41. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., & Moltu, C. (2021). Complexity of clinical feedback.

    Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3117–3125.

    42. Timman, R., & Arrindell, W. A. (2022). SCL-3/7 for ROM. Acta Psychiatrica

    Scandinavica, 145(4), 397–411.

    43. Valdiviezo-Oña, J., Montesano, A., Evans, C., & Paz, C. (2023). Practice-based evidence

    via ROM. BMJ Open, 13, e071875.

    44. Van Wert, M. J., Malik, M., Memel, B., Moore, R., Buccino, D., Hackerman, F., Kumari,

    S., Everett, A., & Narrow, W. (2021). Barriers to ROM integration. Journal of Evaluation

    in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 767–775.

    45. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A., &

    Tiemens, B. G. (2023). Clinician-focused MBC strategies. BMC Health Services

    Research, 23(1), 326.

    46. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A.,

    Kleinjan, M., & Tiemens, B. G. (2021). ROM feedback challenges. Child & Youth Care

    Forum, 50(2), 307–332.

    47. Victor, S. E., Salk, R. H., Porta, G., et al. (2023). Measurement-based care for suicidal

    youth. PLOS One, 18(4), e0284073.

    48. Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Online ROM system

    evaluation. JMIR Mental Health, 8(12), e29243.

    49. Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2024). Organizational climate and

    MBC. Implementation Science, 19(1), 29.

    50. Woodard, G. S., Lane, E., Ehrenreich-May, J., Ginsburg, G. S., & Jensen-Doss, A.

    (2025). Predictors of MBC fidelity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

    54(3), 346–357.

    51. Zavaglia, E., Joober, R., Iyer, S. N., et al. (2025). Digital MBC in early psychosis.

    Schizophrenia Research, 282, 141–149.

    52. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Feng, L., & Wang, G. (2022).

    Optimization of MBC for depression. Trials, 23(1), 367.

    53. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., Wang, D., Zona, K., Mulvaney-Day, N., Aldis,

    R., Leff, H. S., Wang, P., & Rosenfeld, L. C. (2025). Provider experiences with RMBC

    rollout. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    54. Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., et al. (2006). Acute and longer-term

    outcomes in STAR*D. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905–1917.

    55. Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J. B., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., Boerescu, D., &

    Attiullah, N. (2008). How should remission be defined using the PHQ-9? Journal of

    Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1856–1861.

    56. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General

    Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    57. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). The GAD-7.

    Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    58. Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., &

    Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for MBC. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188.

    59. Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015).

    Outcomes for implementation science. Implementation Science, 10, 1–13.

    60. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice.

    American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(4), 589–595.

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

    **## Articles.pdf**

    References

    1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D.,

    Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D.,

    Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumber, P., Rizvi, A., Yadava, D., … Hyacinthe, J. (2025).

    Measurement-based care training curriculum in psychiatry residency programs: Four-year

    implementation experience and future directions. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience,

    22(4–6), 20–26.

    2. Aldis, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lanca, M., Zona, K., Lam, J. A., Asfour,

    J., Meltzer, J. C., Leff, H. S., Fulwiler, C., Wang, P., & Progovac, A. M. (2024).

    Determinants of remote measurement-based care uptake in a safety-net outpatient

    psychiatry department. Learning Health Systems, 8(S1), e10416.

    3. Askari, N., Gupta, R., Hussain-Shamsy, N., Barker, L. C., Champagne, T., Lam, R. W.,

    Bishop, K., Pirmohamed, J., Michalowska, M., Shah, V., Katzman, H., Jalan, A.,

    Shanmuganathan, A., Wang, V., & Vigod, S. N. (2025). Electronic measurement-based

    care for perinatal depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 25(1), 437.

    4. Azizian Kia, S., Wittkampf, L., van Lankeren, J., & Janse, P. (2025). Motives of

    therapists for using routine outcome monitoring. Administration and Policy in Mental

    Health, 52(1), 159–170.

    5. Barkham, M., Broglia, E., & The SCORE Consortium. (2024). Routine outcome

    monitoring and feedback in university mental health services. Counselling and

    Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 459–471.

    6. Bear, H. A., Dalzell, K., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Wolpert, M. (2022). Applying behaviour

    change theory to routine outcome monitoring. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

    61(3), 557–578.

    7. Borgnolo, L. J., McKenna, S., Hickie, I. B., Varidel, M., Turner, A., Gorban, C.,

    LaMonica, H. M., Chong, M. K., Capon, W., Dimitropoulos, G., Battisti, R., Whitwell,

    B., Hamilton, B., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025). Engagement with digital mental

    health technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27(3), e67597.

    8. Bugatti, M., Owen, J., Richardson, Z., Rasmussen, W., & Newton, D. (2024). Therapist

    engagement in measurement-based care. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1).

    9. Cheung, B. S., Murphy, J. K., Michalak, E. E., Liu, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Chen, J., &

    Lam, R. W. (2023). Barriers to technology-enhanced MBC for depression. Journal of

    Affective Disorders, 320, 1–6.

    10. Cuperfain, A. B., Hui, K., Berkhout, S. G., Foussias, G., Gratzer, D., Kidd, S. A.,

    Kozloff, N., Kurdyak, P., Linaksita, B., Miranda, D., Soklaridis, S., Voineskos, A. N., &

    Zaheer, J. (2021). Views of measurement-based care in early psychosis. BJPsych Open,

    7(5).

    11. de Beurs, E., Carlier, I., & van Hemert, A. (2022). Patient-reported psychopathology and

    quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1461–1471.

    12. El Hussein, M. T., & Bal, R. (2025). Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

    Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 21(8), 105458.

    13. Gaine, G. S., Nealis, L. J., Zhou, H., Purdon, S. E., & Abba-Aji, A. (2021). Inpatient

    recovery trajectories using ROM. Psychiatry Research, 302, 114000.

    14. Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10. Behaviour

    Change, 38(4), 221–234.

    15. He, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, P., Huang, X., Yu, M., Murphy, J., Michalak, E.,

    Liu, J., Yang, T., Yang, X., Fang, Y., Lam, R., & Chen, J. (2024). Standard vs enhanced

    MBC for depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1465–1473.

    16. Helldin, L., Mohn, C., Olsson-Tall, M., van Dijk-Härd, I., & Olsson, A. (2024).

    Measurement-based care in schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 53, 151–157.

    17. Hoenders, R., Bartels, A., Castelein, S., Visser, E., & Booij, S. (2021). Integrative

    outpatient mental health clinic outcomes. European Psychiatry, 64(S1).

    18. Huffman, L. G., Lawrence-Sidebottom, D., Huberty, J., Roots, M., Roots, K., Parikh, A.,

    Guerra, R., & Weiser, J. (2023). Digital MBC for youth anxiety and depression. JMIR

    Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, e46154.

    19. Ibrahim, H. M., & Jha, M. K. (2023). Measurement-based care for depression.

    Psychiatric Annals, 53(9), 395–399.

    20. Jonášová, K., Čevelíček, M., Doležal, P., & Řiháček, T. (2025). In-session use of ROM.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 52(1), 106–122.

    21. Jones, S. B., Ko, H., Gatto, A. J., Kablinger, A. S., Sharp, H. D., Cooper, L. D., Tenzer,

    M. M., O’Brien, V. C., & McNamara, R. S. (2024). COVID-19 impacts using MBC.

    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 8(1), 135.

    22. Khau, M., Tabbane, K., Bloom, D., Abadi, S., Villemus, C., Rabinovitch, M., Shah, J. L.,

    Veillette, A., Iyer, S. N., Boksa, P., & Joober, R. (2022). MBC in first-episode psychosis.

    Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 8–16.

    23. Korsen, N., & Gerrish, S. (2022). PHQ-9 use in integrated care. Annals of Family

    Medicine, 20(Suppl 1).

    24. Kumar, M., Paz, C., Falkeström, F., & Castonguay, L. (2025). Strengthening systems

    with ROM. JAMA Psychiatry, 82(10), 953–954.

    25. Lam, R. W., Michalak, E. E., Murphy, J. K., et al. (2025). EMBED trial protocol. Cureus,

    17(8), e90395.

    26. Lampis, J., & Rocca, G. (2024). ROM use in Italian public services. Clinical Psychology

    & Psychotherapy, 31(6).

    27. Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Marti, C. N., & Albright, K. (2022). Mediators of MBC

    implementation. Implementation Science, 17(1).

    28. Lui, J. H. L., Brookman-Frazee, L., Smith, A., Lind, T., Terrones, L., Rodriguez, A.,

    Motamedi, M., Villodas, M., & Lau, A. S. (2022). Implementation facilitation strategies.

    Psychological Services, 19(2), 343–352.

    29. Machleid, F., Michnevich, T., Huang, L., Schröder-Frerkes, L., Wiegmann, C., Muffel,

    T., & Kaminski, J. (2024). Remote measurement-based care. PLOS One, 19(2),

    e0297929.

    30. McCoy, T. H., Castro, V. M., & Perlis, R. H. (2025). Estimating depression severity with

    LLMs. Journal of Affective Disorders, 381, 270–274.

    31. Meyer-Kalos, P., Owens, G., Fisher, M., et al. (2024). Putting MBC into action. BMC

    Psychiatry, 24(1), 871.

    32. Moltu, C., McAleavey, A. A., Helleseth, M. M., Møller, G. H., & Nordberg, S. S. (2021).

    Developing feedback systems. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 43.

    33. Patel, Z. S., Jensen-Doss, A., & Lewis, C. C. (2022). Attitudes toward MBC.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 49(1), 13–28.

    34. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., et al. (2025). Remote MBC rollout

    experiences. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    35. Roebroek, L., Bruins, J., Roe, D., et al. (2021). Care needs in psychosis. Epidemiology

    and Psychiatric Sciences, 30.

    36. Rush, A. J., Gore-Langton, R. E., Bart, G., et al. (2024). Tools to implement MBC for

    OUD. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 19(1), 14.

    37. Sales, C. M. D., Ashworth, M., Ayis, S., et al. (2023). I-PROMs position paper. Journal

    of Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 596–621.

    38. She, Z., Xu, H., Cormier, G., Drapeau, M., & Duncan, B. L. (2024). Culture and face in

    ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 311–322.

    39. Smits, H. J. H., Seelen-de Lang, B. L., Penterman, E. J. M., Nijman, H. L. I., &

    Noorthoorn, E. O. (2023). Quality of life outcomes in SMI. Journal of Applied Research

    in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(1), 58–67.

    40. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., Castonguay, L. G., & Moltu, C. (2021). Clinical dilemmas

    of ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 200–210.

    41. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., & Moltu, C. (2021). Complexity of clinical feedback.

    Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3117–3125.

    42. Timman, R., & Arrindell, W. A. (2022). SCL-3/7 for ROM. Acta Psychiatrica

    Scandinavica, 145(4), 397–411.

    43. Valdiviezo-Oña, J., Montesano, A., Evans, C., & Paz, C. (2023). Practice-based evidence

    via ROM. BMJ Open, 13, e071875.

    44. Van Wert, M. J., Malik, M., Memel, B., Moore, R., Buccino, D., Hackerman, F., Kumari,

    S., Everett, A., & Narrow, W. (2021). Barriers to ROM integration. Journal of Evaluation

    in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 767–775.

    45. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A., &

    Tiemens, B. G. (2023). Clinician-focused MBC strategies. BMC Health Services

    Research, 23(1), 326.

    46. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A.,

    Kleinjan, M., & Tiemens, B. G. (2021). ROM feedback challenges. Child & Youth Care

    Forum, 50(2), 307–332.

    47. Victor, S. E., Salk, R. H., Porta, G., et al. (2023). Measurement-based care for suicidal

    youth. PLOS One, 18(4), e0284073.

    48. Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Online ROM system

    evaluation. JMIR Mental Health, 8(12), e29243.

    49. Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2024). Organizational climate and

    MBC. Implementation Science, 19(1), 29.

    50. Woodard, G. S., Lane, E., Ehrenreich-May, J., Ginsburg, G. S., & Jensen-Doss, A.

    (2025). Predictors of MBC fidelity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

    54(3), 346–357.

    51. Zavaglia, E., Joober, R., Iyer, S. N., et al. (2025). Digital MBC in early psychosis.

    Schizophrenia Research, 282, 141–149.

    52. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Feng, L., & Wang, G. (2022).

    Optimization of MBC for depression. Trials, 23(1), 367.

    53. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., Wang, D., Zona, K., Mulvaney-Day, N., Aldis,

    R., Leff, H. S., Wang, P., & Rosenfeld, L. C. (2025). Provider experiences with RMBC

    rollout. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    54. Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., et al. (2006). Acute and longer-term

    outcomes in STAR*D. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905–1917.

    55. Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J. B., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., Boerescu, D., &

    Attiullah, N. (2008). How should remission be defined using the PHQ-9? Journal of

    Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1856–1861.

    56. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General

    Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    57. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). The GAD-7.

    Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    58. Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., &

    Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for MBC. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188.

    59. Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015).

    Outcomes for implementation science. Implementation Science, 10, 1–13.

    60. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice.

    American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(4), 589–595.

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

    **## Articles.pdf**

    References

    1. Aboraya, A., Elswick, D., Berry, J., Chandran, D., Hill, C., Zheng, W., Hustead, J. D.,

    Van Oppen, D., Patel, V., Berzingi, S., Wang, K., Grimes, D., Gallucci, G., Mishra, D.,

    Shrestha, R., Justice, J., Chumber, P., Rizvi, A., Yadava, D., … Hyacinthe, J. (2025).

    Measurement-based care training curriculum in psychiatry residency programs: Four-year

    implementation experience and future directions. Innovations in Clinical Neuroscience,

    22(4–6), 20–26.

    2. Aldis, R., Rosenfeld, L. C., Mulvaney-Day, N., Lanca, M., Zona, K., Lam, J. A., Asfour,

    J., Meltzer, J. C., Leff, H. S., Fulwiler, C., Wang, P., & Progovac, A. M. (2024).

    Determinants of remote measurement-based care uptake in a safety-net outpatient

    psychiatry department. Learning Health Systems, 8(S1), e10416.

    3. Askari, N., Gupta, R., Hussain-Shamsy, N., Barker, L. C., Champagne, T., Lam, R. W.,

    Bishop, K., Pirmohamed, J., Michalowska, M., Shah, V., Katzman, H., Jalan, A.,

    Shanmuganathan, A., Wang, V., & Vigod, S. N. (2025). Electronic measurement-based

    care for perinatal depression and anxiety. BMC Psychiatry, 25(1), 437.

    4. Azizian Kia, S., Wittkampf, L., van Lankeren, J., & Janse, P. (2025). Motives of

    therapists for using routine outcome monitoring. Administration and Policy in Mental

    Health, 52(1), 159–170.

    5. Barkham, M., Broglia, E., & The SCORE Consortium. (2024). Routine outcome

    monitoring and feedback in university mental health services. Counselling and

    Psychotherapy Research, 24(2), 459–471.

    6. Bear, H. A., Dalzell, K., Edbrooke-Childs, J., & Wolpert, M. (2022). Applying behaviour

    change theory to routine outcome monitoring. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,

    61(3), 557–578.

    7. Borgnolo, L. J., McKenna, S., Hickie, I. B., Varidel, M., Turner, A., Gorban, C.,

    LaMonica, H. M., Chong, M. K., Capon, W., Dimitropoulos, G., Battisti, R., Whitwell,

    B., Hamilton, B., Scott, E. M., & Iorfino, F. (2025). Engagement with digital mental

    health technology. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 27(3), e67597.

    8. Bugatti, M., Owen, J., Richardson, Z., Rasmussen, W., & Newton, D. (2024). Therapist

    engagement in measurement-based care. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 31(1).

    9. Cheung, B. S., Murphy, J. K., Michalak, E. E., Liu, J., Yang, X., Wang, X., Chen, J., &

    Lam, R. W. (2023). Barriers to technology-enhanced MBC for depression. Journal of

    Affective Disorders, 320, 1–6.

    10. Cuperfain, A. B., Hui, K., Berkhout, S. G., Foussias, G., Gratzer, D., Kidd, S. A.,

    Kozloff, N., Kurdyak, P., Linaksita, B., Miranda, D., Soklaridis, S., Voineskos, A. N., &

    Zaheer, J. (2021). Views of measurement-based care in early psychosis. BJPsych Open,

    7(5).

    11. de Beurs, E., Carlier, I., & van Hemert, A. (2022). Patient-reported psychopathology and

    quality of life. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1461–1471.

    12. El Hussein, M. T., & Bal, R. (2025). Pharmacotherapy for major depressive disorder.

    Journal for Nurse Practitioners, 21(8), 105458.

    13. Gaine, G. S., Nealis, L. J., Zhou, H., Purdon, S. E., & Abba-Aji, A. (2021). Inpatient

    recovery trajectories using ROM. Psychiatry Research, 302, 114000.

    14. Halford, W. K., & Frost, A. D. J. (2021). Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-10. Behaviour

    Change, 38(4), 221–234.

    15. He, Y., Wang, X., Wang, Z., Zhang, P., Huang, X., Yu, M., Murphy, J., Michalak, E.,

    Liu, J., Yang, T., Yang, X., Fang, Y., Lam, R., & Chen, J. (2024). Standard vs enhanced

    MBC for depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 20, 1465–1473.

    16. Helldin, L., Mohn, C., Olsson-Tall, M., van Dijk-Härd, I., & Olsson, A. (2024).

    Measurement-based care in schizophrenia. Archives of Psychiatric Nursing, 53, 151–157.

    17. Hoenders, R., Bartels, A., Castelein, S., Visser, E., & Booij, S. (2021). Integrative

    outpatient mental health clinic outcomes. European Psychiatry, 64(S1).

    18. Huffman, L. G., Lawrence-Sidebottom, D., Huberty, J., Roots, M., Roots, K., Parikh, A.,

    Guerra, R., & Weiser, J. (2023). Digital MBC for youth anxiety and depression. JMIR

    Pediatrics and Parenting, 6, e46154.

    19. Ibrahim, H. M., & Jha, M. K. (2023). Measurement-based care for depression.

    Psychiatric Annals, 53(9), 395–399.

    20. Jonášová, K., Čevelíček, M., Doležal, P., & Řiháček, T. (2025). In-session use of ROM.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 52(1), 106–122.

    21. Jones, S. B., Ko, H., Gatto, A. J., Kablinger, A. S., Sharp, H. D., Cooper, L. D., Tenzer,

    M. M., O’Brien, V. C., & McNamara, R. S. (2024). COVID-19 impacts using MBC.

    Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes, 8(1), 135.

    22. Khau, M., Tabbane, K., Bloom, D., Abadi, S., Villemus, C., Rabinovitch, M., Shah, J. L.,

    Veillette, A., Iyer, S. N., Boksa, P., & Joober, R. (2022). MBC in first-episode psychosis.

    Journal of Psychiatric Research, 150, 8–16.

    23. Korsen, N., & Gerrish, S. (2022). PHQ-9 use in integrated care. Annals of Family

    Medicine, 20(Suppl 1).

    24. Kumar, M., Paz, C., Falkeström, F., & Castonguay, L. (2025). Strengthening systems

    with ROM. JAMA Psychiatry, 82(10), 953–954.

    25. Lam, R. W., Michalak, E. E., Murphy, J. K., et al. (2025). EMBED trial protocol. Cureus,

    17(8), e90395.

    26. Lampis, J., & Rocca, G. (2024). ROM use in Italian public services. Clinical Psychology

    & Psychotherapy, 31(6).

    27. Lewis, C. C., Boyd, M. R., Marti, C. N., & Albright, K. (2022). Mediators of MBC

    implementation. Implementation Science, 17(1).

    28. Lui, J. H. L., Brookman-Frazee, L., Smith, A., Lind, T., Terrones, L., Rodriguez, A.,

    Motamedi, M., Villodas, M., & Lau, A. S. (2022). Implementation facilitation strategies.

    Psychological Services, 19(2), 343–352.

    29. Machleid, F., Michnevich, T., Huang, L., Schröder-Frerkes, L., Wiegmann, C., Muffel,

    T., & Kaminski, J. (2024). Remote measurement-based care. PLOS One, 19(2),

    e0297929.

    30. McCoy, T. H., Castro, V. M., & Perlis, R. H. (2025). Estimating depression severity with

    LLMs. Journal of Affective Disorders, 381, 270–274.

    31. Meyer-Kalos, P., Owens, G., Fisher, M., et al. (2024). Putting MBC into action. BMC

    Psychiatry, 24(1), 871.

    32. Moltu, C., McAleavey, A. A., Helleseth, M. M., Møller, G. H., & Nordberg, S. S. (2021).

    Developing feedback systems. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 15(1), 43.

    33. Patel, Z. S., Jensen-Doss, A., & Lewis, C. C. (2022). Attitudes toward MBC.

    Administration and Policy in Mental Health, 49(1), 13–28.

    34. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., et al. (2025). Remote MBC rollout

    experiences. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    35. Roebroek, L., Bruins, J., Roe, D., et al. (2021). Care needs in psychosis. Epidemiology

    and Psychiatric Sciences, 30.

    36. Rush, A. J., Gore-Langton, R. E., Bart, G., et al. (2024). Tools to implement MBC for

    OUD. Addiction Science & Clinical Practice, 19(1), 14.

    37. Sales, C. M. D., Ashworth, M., Ayis, S., et al. (2023). I-PROMs position paper. Journal

    of Clinical Psychology, 79(3), 596–621.

    38. She, Z., Xu, H., Cormier, G., Drapeau, M., & Duncan, B. L. (2024). Culture and face in

    ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 34(3), 311–322.

    39. Smits, H. J. H., Seelen-de Lang, B. L., Penterman, E. J. M., Nijman, H. L. I., &

    Noorthoorn, E. O. (2023). Quality of life outcomes in SMI. Journal of Applied Research

    in Intellectual Disabilities, 36(1), 58–67.

    40. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., Castonguay, L. G., & Moltu, C. (2021). Clinical dilemmas

    of ROM. Psychotherapy Research, 31(2), 200–210.

    41. Solstad, S. M., Kleiven, G. S., & Moltu, C. (2021). Complexity of clinical feedback.

    Quality of Life Research, 30(11), 3117–3125.

    42. Timman, R., & Arrindell, W. A. (2022). SCL-3/7 for ROM. Acta Psychiatrica

    Scandinavica, 145(4), 397–411.

    43. Valdiviezo-Oña, J., Montesano, A., Evans, C., & Paz, C. (2023). Practice-based evidence

    via ROM. BMJ Open, 13, e071875.

    44. Van Wert, M. J., Malik, M., Memel, B., Moore, R., Buccino, D., Hackerman, F., Kumari,

    S., Everett, A., & Narrow, W. (2021). Barriers to ROM integration. Journal of Evaluation

    in Clinical Practice, 27(4), 767–775.

    45. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A., &

    Tiemens, B. G. (2023). Clinician-focused MBC strategies. BMC Health Services

    Research, 23(1), 326.

    46. van Sonsbeek, M. A. M. S., Hutschemaekers, G. J. M., Veerman, J. W., Vermulst, A.,

    Kleinjan, M., & Tiemens, B. G. (2021). ROM feedback challenges. Child & Youth Care

    Forum, 50(2), 307–332.

    47. Victor, S. E., Salk, R. H., Porta, G., et al. (2023). Measurement-based care for suicidal

    youth. PLOS One, 18(4), e0284073.

    48. Wiebe, D. E., Remers, S., Nippak, P., & Meyer, J. (2021). Online ROM system

    evaluation. JMIR Mental Health, 8(12), e29243.

    49. Williams, N. J., Ehrhart, M. G., Aarons, G. A., et al. (2024). Organizational climate and

    MBC. Implementation Science, 19(1), 29.

    50. Woodard, G. S., Lane, E., Ehrenreich-May, J., Ginsburg, G. S., & Jensen-Doss, A.

    (2025). Predictors of MBC fidelity. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology,

    54(3), 346–357.

    51. Zavaglia, E., Joober, R., Iyer, S. N., et al. (2025). Digital MBC in early psychosis.

    Schizophrenia Research, 282, 141–149.

    52. Zhou, J., Wang, X., Yang, J., Zhu, X., Xiao, L., Feng, L., & Wang, G. (2022).

    Optimization of MBC for depression. Trials, 23(1), 367.

    53. Progovac, A. M., Fulwiler, C., Lanca, M., Wang, D., Zona, K., Mulvaney-Day, N., Aldis,

    R., Leff, H. S., Wang, P., & Rosenfeld, L. C. (2025). Provider experiences with RMBC

    rollout. JMIR Formative Research, 9, e71570.

    54. Rush, A. J., Trivedi, M. H., Wisniewski, S. R., et al. (2006). Acute and longer-term

    outcomes in STAR*D. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163(11), 1905–1917.

    55. Zimmerman, M., McGlinchey, J. B., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., Boerescu, D., &

    Attiullah, N. (2008). How should remission be defined using the PHQ-9? Journal of

    Clinical Psychiatry, 69(12), 1856–1861.

    56. Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001). The PHQ-9. Journal of General

    Internal Medicine, 16(9), 606–613.

    57. Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006). The GAD-7.

    Archives of Internal Medicine, 166(10), 1092–1097.

    58. Fortney, J. C., Unützer, J., Wrenn, G., Pyne, J. M., Smith, G. R., Schoenbaum, M., &

    Harbin, H. T. (2017). A tipping point for MBC. Psychiatric Services, 68(2), 179–188.

    59. Lewis, C. C., Fischer, S., Weiner, B. J., Stanick, C., Kim, M., & Martinez, R. G. (2015).

    Outcomes for implementation science. Implementation Science, 10, 1–13.

    60. Zimmerman, M., & Mattia, J. I. (2001). Psychiatric diagnosis in clinical practice.

    American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(4), 589–595.

    **LiteratureReview1.docx**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/literaturereview1-docx-10507393)

  • [Solved] Assigment .Apa seven . All instructions attached.

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (2)** – ## LiteratureReview1.docx – ReferencesArticle1.pdf **## LiteratureReview1.docx** _Literature Review: Part 1_ Instructions: Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment: **Writing the Literature Review** Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **files (2)**

    – ## LiteratureReview1.docx

    – ReferencesArticle1.pdf

    **## LiteratureReview1.docx**

    _Literature Review: Part 1_

    Instructions:

    Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment:

    **Writing the Literature Review**

    Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21).
    _Writing the literature review_. [Video]. YouTube.
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0)

    Review 20 articles from the approved list. Synthesize the information for each article, including the authors, the title, the type of research, the methodology used, the tool used, the results, and the practice recommendation. Add the literature review to your Practice Change Project. Submit the literature review via Canvas for your mentor to provide feedback.

    Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.

    Be sure to review the
    [academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.

    **Submission Instructions:**

    · Submit your assignment by 11:59 PM Eastern on Sunday.

    · Review the rubric to determine how your assignment will be graded.

    · Your assignment will be run through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.

    ·
    [File Upload](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Studio](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Google Drive](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Office 365](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    Top of Form

    | | |
    | — | — |
    | Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded. |
    | Drag a file here, or<br>Choose a file to upload |
    | | |
    | |
    | <="" div="" style="margin: 10px 0px;"><br>I agree to the tool's <br>[End-User License Agreement](https://agmu.turnitin.com/integrations/cpf/eula/agmu)<br>This assignment submission is my own, original work<br>* | |
    | |

    Bottom of Form

    Rubric

    **- Official Assignment Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | – Official Assignment Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism<br>Concept Application | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The student meets 90% to 100% of the required content criteria by mastering both rudimentary and complex elements and, in addition, applying high-level facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The student meets 80% to 89% of the required content criteria by recognizing the fundamental, rudimentary, and complex elements and applying proficient facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The student meets 70% to 79% of the required content criteria by recognizing rudimentary and complex elements and demonstrating facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. All of the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The student meets less than 70% of the required content criteria with a low-level approach of rudimentary and complex elements and a lack of application facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. However, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar<br>Written Communication | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication<br>Specific Formatting | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90 % – 100% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information is complete in all the required components and exceeds expectations.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information meets all the necessary components and formatting requirements.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment meets 70% to 79% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. However, the presented information is missing some key details, but overall does not disrupt the required format.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of the required formatting elements in the description. The presented information is missing some key details that disrupt the needed formatting.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical and Logical Thinking<br>Thought analysis process | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90% to 100% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness that are accurate and correctly documented. In addition, the analysis offers a clear and concise analysis along with an impeccable and precise, well-thought process.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness which are accurate and correctly documented. The analysis is well communicated, and the fundamental thought process presented in the written piece clearly aligns with the assignment expectations.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment satisfies 70% to 79% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness but may overlook some essential parameters. The analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is evident; however, still developing.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of rudimentary details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness, but there was a severe overlook of some essential parameters. In addition, the analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is not evident and not founded on previous discussions or information.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Literacy<br>Quality of Sources and APA Citations | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. Additionally, all sources are recognized or cited properly.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

    **## LiteratureReview1.docx**

    _Literature Review: Part 1_

    Instructions:

    Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment:

    **Writing the Literature Review**

    Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21).
    _Writing the literature review_. [Video]. YouTube.
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0)

    Review 20 articles from the approved list. Synthesize the information for each article, including the authors, the title, the type of research, the methodology used, the tool used, the results, and the practice recommendation. Add the literature review to your Practice Change Project. Submit the literature review via Canvas for your mentor to provide feedback.

    Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.

    Be sure to review the
    [academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.

    **Submission Instructions:**

    · Submit your assignment by 11:59 PM Eastern on Sunday.

    · Review the rubric to determine how your assignment will be graded.

    · Your assignment will be run through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.

    ·
    [File Upload](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Studio](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Google Drive](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Office 365](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    Top of Form

    | | |
    | — | — |
    | Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded. |
    | Drag a file here, or<br>Choose a file to upload |
    | | |
    | |
    | <="" div="" style="margin: 10px 0px;"><br>I agree to the tool's <br>[End-User License Agreement](https://agmu.turnitin.com/integrations/cpf/eula/agmu)<br>This assignment submission is my own, original work<br>* | |
    | |

    Bottom of Form

    Rubric

    **- Official Assignment Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | – Official Assignment Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism<br>Concept Application | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The student meets 90% to 100% of the required content criteria by mastering both rudimentary and complex elements and, in addition, applying high-level facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The student meets 80% to 89% of the required content criteria by recognizing the fundamental, rudimentary, and complex elements and applying proficient facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The student meets 70% to 79% of the required content criteria by recognizing rudimentary and complex elements and demonstrating facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. All of the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The student meets less than 70% of the required content criteria with a low-level approach of rudimentary and complex elements and a lack of application facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. However, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar<br>Written Communication | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication<br>Specific Formatting | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90 % – 100% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information is complete in all the required components and exceeds expectations.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information meets all the necessary components and formatting requirements.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment meets 70% to 79% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. However, the presented information is missing some key details, but overall does not disrupt the required format.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of the required formatting elements in the description. The presented information is missing some key details that disrupt the needed formatting.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical and Logical Thinking<br>Thought analysis process | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90% to 100% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness that are accurate and correctly documented. In addition, the analysis offers a clear and concise analysis along with an impeccable and precise, well-thought process.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness which are accurate and correctly documented. The analysis is well communicated, and the fundamental thought process presented in the written piece clearly aligns with the assignment expectations.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment satisfies 70% to 79% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness but may overlook some essential parameters. The analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is evident; however, still developing.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of rudimentary details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness, but there was a severe overlook of some essential parameters. In addition, the analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is not evident and not founded on previous discussions or information.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Literacy<br>Quality of Sources and APA Citations | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. Additionally, all sources are recognized or cited properly.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

    **## LiteratureReview1.docx**

    _Literature Review: Part 1_

    Instructions:

    Watch the video about the literature review before completing this assignment:

    **Writing the Literature Review**

    Academic Skills, The University of Melbourne. (2017, September 21).
    _Writing the literature review_. [Video]. YouTube.
    [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0Links to an external site.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70n2-gAp7J0)

    Review 20 articles from the approved list. Synthesize the information for each article, including the authors, the title, the type of research, the methodology used, the tool used, the results, and the practice recommendation. Add the literature review to your Practice Change Project. Submit the literature review via Canvas for your mentor to provide feedback.

    Contribute a minimum of 5-6 pages. It should include at least 3 academic sources, formatted and cited in APA.

    Be sure to review the
    [academic expectations](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/1876/pages/expectations-and-best-practices-for-assignments) for your submission.

    **Submission Instructions:**

    · Submit your assignment by 11:59 PM Eastern on Sunday.

    · Review the rubric to determine how your assignment will be graded.

    · Your assignment will be run through TurnItIn to check for plagiarism.

    ·
    [File Upload](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Studio](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Google Drive](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    ·
    [Office 365](https://agmu.instructure.com/courses/44883/assignments/878278)

    Top of Form

    | | |
    | — | — |
    | Upload a file, or choose a file you've already uploaded. |
    | Drag a file here, or<br>Choose a file to upload |
    | | |
    | |
    | <="" div="" style="margin: 10px 0px;"><br>I agree to the tool's <br>[End-User License Agreement](https://agmu.turnitin.com/integrations/cpf/eula/agmu)<br>This assignment submission is my own, original work<br>* | |
    | |

    Bottom of Form

    Rubric

    **- Official Assignment Rubric**

    | | | |
    | — | — | — |
    | – Official Assignment Rubric |
    | **Criteria** | **Ratings** | **Pts** |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeProfessionalism<br>Concept Application | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The student meets 90% to 100% of the required content criteria by mastering both rudimentary and complex elements and, in addition, applying high-level facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The student meets 80% to 89% of the required content criteria by recognizing the fundamental, rudimentary, and complex elements and applying proficient facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. Lastly, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The student meets 70% to 79% of the required content criteria by recognizing rudimentary and complex elements and demonstrating facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. All of the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The student meets less than 70% of the required content criteria with a low-level approach of rudimentary and complex elements and a lack of application facts, theories, definitions, and other contextual aspects. However, all the delivered information is compliant with the assignment instructions.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeGrammar<br>Written Communication | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Excellence in grammar, spelling, and sentence structure. Sentences are not too long and are complete sentences.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Minimal (1 – 3) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Multiple (4 -7) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** Severe (8 – 10) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** Unacceptable (11 or more) typos, spelling, grammatical, punctuation, or translation errors. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCommunication<br>Specific Formatting | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90 % – 100% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information is complete in all the required components and exceeds expectations.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. Additionally, the presented information meets all the necessary components and formatting requirements.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment meets 70% to 79% of the required formatting elements in the assignment description. However, the presented information is missing some key details, but overall does not disrupt the required format.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of the required formatting elements in the description. The presented information is missing some key details that disrupt the needed formatting.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeCritical and Logical Thinking<br>Thought analysis process | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** The assignment meets 90% to 100% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness that are accurate and correctly documented. In addition, the analysis offers a clear and concise analysis along with an impeccable and precise, well-thought process.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** The assignment meets 80% to 89% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, and diagnosis awareness which are accurate and correctly documented. The analysis is well communicated, and the fundamental thought process presented in the written piece clearly aligns with the assignment expectations.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** The assignment satisfies 70% to 79% of rudimentary and complex details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness but may overlook some essential parameters. The analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is evident; however, still developing.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The assignment meets at most 69% of rudimentary details, situations, problems, or diagnosis awareness, but there was a severe overlook of some essential parameters. In addition, the analysis and thought process presented in the written piece is not evident and not founded on previous discussions or information.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |
    | This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeAcademic Literacy<br>Quality of Sources and APA Citations | **20 to >18.0 ptsExcellent** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, up to date (depending on what is acceptable in the field), from credible and trusted sources, and the number of sources meets the requested amount. Additionally, all sources are recognized or cited properly.<br> <br>**18 to >16.0 ptsGood** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 1 source is not a credible and trusted source; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting on the setup, and title page, with minimal formatting or punctuation errors within the in-text citations or references.<br> <br>**16 to >14.0 ptsFair** Supporting information is pertinent to the topic, however, 2 or more sources are not credible and trusted sources; they may or may not be the most recent (depending on what is acceptable in the field). Additionally, the number of sources meets the requested amount. The essay offers correct formatting, setup, and title page but has significant errors within in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**14 to >12.0 ptsPoor** The following criteria would apply, supporting information is not pertinent to the topic, none of the sources are from credible or trusted sources, or the number of sources requested was not met. The essay offers severe incorrect APA formatting, setup or missing title page, and/or problematic in-text citations and references.<br> <br>**12 to >0 ptsUnacceptable** The assignment did not reflect the requested outcomes, was off-topic, and/or the assignment was not submitted. | 20 pts |

    Total Points: 100

    **ReferencesArticle1.pdf**

    This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/referencesarticle1-pdf)

  • [Solved] Week 1 clinic skills

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    – Rate yourself according to your confidence level performing the procedures identified on the Clinical Skills Self-Assessment Form. – Based on your ratings, summarize your strengths and opportunities for improvement. – Based on your self-assessment and theory of nursing practice, develop three to f…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    – Rate yourself according to your confidence level performing the procedures identified on the Clinical Skills Self-Assessment Form.
    – Based on your ratings, summarize your strengths and opportunities for improvement.
    – Based on your self-assessment and theory of nursing practice, develop three to four (3–4) measurable goals and objectives for this practicum experience. Include them on the designated area of the form.

  • [Solved] Scholarship For Nursing practice

    ✓ Verified Academic Solution Available

    Executive Solution Overview

    **files (1)** – ## Scholarshipfornursingpractice.docx **## Scholarshipfornursingpractice.docx** It is anticipated that the initial discussion post should be in the range of 250-300 words. . All posts should be supported by a minimum of one scholarly resource, ideally within the last 5 years. Journal…

    Instant Solution Download

    $6.99

    Immediate access to the full model answer, formatted citations, and rubric breakdown.

    Need a Fresh Custom Paper?

    Have this question answered from scratch according to your specific instructions and deadline.

    Order on TutorsGallery →

    Assignment Prompt & Instructions

    **files (1)**

    – ## Scholarshipfornursingpractice.docx

    **## Scholarshipfornursingpractice.docx**

    It is anticipated that the initial discussion post should be in the range of 250-300 words. . All posts should be supported by a minimum of one scholarly resource, ideally within the last 5 years. Journals and websites must be cited appropriately. Citations and references must adhere to APA format.

    Instructions:

    Select Your Observation:

    Identify an improvement process or initiative you have observed in your professional practice setting OR from your review of scholarly resources where ideas, research, or concepts from different disciplines, specialties, or knowledge domains were connected to improve care, education, or outcomes.

    Examples: integrating palliative care principles into surgical ICU rounds; combining infection control data with patient satisfaction scores to guide interventions; merging gerontology evidence with technology-based monitoring tools; ICU rounds combining cardiac telemetry data with pharmacist input to reduce QT-prolonging antibiotics.

    Required Content:

    Opening Hook: A clear, engaging first line or image that captures attention.

    Main Observation: Briefly describe the integration of the improvement process or initiative that you observed. [anticipated that this would take a couple of sentences]

    Impact: Explain the observed outcome or potential benefits to patients, teams, or systems from this improvement process or initiative (supported with scholarly resources). [anticipated that this would take just a few sentences]

    Scholarly Tie-In: Include a brief discussion linking your observation to Boyer’s Scholarship of Integration. [anticipated that this would take a couple of sentences]

    Call to Action or Reflection: Encourage peers to consider how they might integrate interdisciplinary knowledge in their own practice. [anticipated that this would take a couple of sentences]

    Creativity Expectations:

    Use of original visuals or graphics

    Keep text concise, clear, and suitable for your chosen audience.

    Blend your professional tone with accessible, engaging delivery.

    Assignment should include your authentic video and voice recording to reflect your professional presence and communication skills.

    Submission Requirements:

    Either record your audiovisual social media post directly in the discussion thread or upload one that you have created in another platform (e.g., PPT, Canva, PowToon, etc.) into the discussion thread.

    It is anticipated that the audiovisual recording will be approximately 2 minutes in length. Recordings that vary widely from the anticipated range suggest an inability to succinctly synthesize and communicate the main points of the process and the key findings from the scholarly resources on which the process was based.

    Please be sure to validate your opinions and ideas with citations and references in APA format. The assignment requires you to upload a PDF file of the full-text article for all of your resources for your faculty to review.

    **## Scholarshipfornursingpractice.docx**

    It is anticipated that the initial discussion post should be in the range of 250-300 words. . All posts should be supported by a minimum of one scholarly resource, ideally within the last 5 years. Journals and websites must be cited appropriately. Citations and references must adhere to APA format.

    Instructions:

    Select Your Observation:

    Identify an improvement process or initiative you have observed in your professional practice setting OR from your review of scholarly resources where ideas, research, or concepts from different disciplines, specialties, or knowledge domains were connected to improve care, education, or outcomes.

    Examples: integrating palliative care principles into surgical ICU rounds; combining infection control data with patient satisfaction scores to guide interventions; merging gerontology evidence with technology-based monitoring tools; ICU rounds combining cardiac telemetry data with pharmacist input to reduce QT-prolonging antibiotics.

    Required Content:

    Opening Hook: A clear, engaging first line or image that captures attention.

    Main Observation: Briefly describe the integration of the improvement process or initiative that you observed. [anticipated that this would take a couple of sentences]

    Impact: Explain the observed outcome or potential benefits to patients, teams, or systems from this improvement process or initiative (supported with scholarly resources). [anticipated that this would take just a few sentences]

    Scholarly Tie-In: Include a brief discussion linking your observation to Boyer’s Scholarship of Integration. [anticipated that this would take a couple of sentences]

    Call to Action or Reflection: Encourage peers to consider how they might integrate interdisciplinary knowledge in their own practice. [anticipated that this would take a couple of sentences]

    Creativity Expectations:

    Use of original visuals or graphics

    Keep text concise, clear, and suitable for your chosen audience.

    Blend your professional tone with accessible, engaging delivery.

    Assignment should include your authentic video and voice recording to reflect your professional presence and communication skills.

    Submission Requirements:

    Either record your audiovisual social media post directly in the discussion thread or upload one that you have created in another platform (e.g., PPT, Canva, PowToon, etc.) into the discussion thread.

    It is anticipated that the audiovisual recording will be approximately 2 minutes in length. Recordings that vary widely from the anticipated range suggest an inability to succinctly synthesize and communicate the main points of the process and the key findings from the scholarly resources on which the process was based.

    Please be sure to validate your opinions and ideas with citations and references in APA format. The assignment requires you to upload a PDF file of the full-text article for all of your resources for your faculty to review.