ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion Source Evaluation!.docx

ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion: Source
Evaluation!
"
This is a graded discussion:
25 points possible
due Aug 5 at 1:59am
Week 4 Discussion: Source
Evaluation
5 8
Search entries or author
# Reply
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: pp. 273-280, 289-293
Lesson
Minimum of 1 scholarly source (one of the listed
con-position articles)
Apply the following writing resources to your posts:
Link (multimedia presentation): Citing References
in Text

Link (website): APA Citation and Writing
Initial Post Instructions
Part 1: Research & Review
Choose one of the con articles below to review and
discuss with your classmates. If you have a different
con article you would like to use, please discuss it with
your professor in advance.
Topics Con-Position Articles
Patient
Portals
Wong, D. & Morgan-Lynch, S. (2017, December).
Patient portals and young people: addressing the
privacy dilemma of providing access to health
information . Journal of Primary Health Care, 9(4),
240-243.
Cosmetic
Surgery
Khunger, N. (2014, September). Risk assessment and
prevention of complications in aesthetic surgery .
Journal of Cutaneous & Aesthetic Surgery, 7(3),141-
142. (Click on View record in DOAJ to access article.)
Cost of
Cancer
Goldman, D.P. & Philipson, T. (2014). Five myths about
cancer care in America . Health Affairs, 33(10), 1801-
1804. (Click on Full Text Finder to access article.)

Surrogacy
Gullino, S. (2015, October). Surrogacy breaks the bond
of motherhood . Ethics & Medics, 40 (10), 1-4.
Organ
Donation
Shaw, D.M. (2017, July). The consequences of
vagueness in consent to organ donation . Bioethics,
31 (6), 424-43.
Private
Hospitalizat
ion
Natterman, J. & Rayne, P. (2017). The prisoner in a
private hospital setting: What providers should know .
Journal of Health Care Law & Policy, 19 (1), 119-147.
Workplace
stress
Langille, J. (2017). Fight or flight...or fix? Employers
must work with employees to address workplace stress
. Canadian Journal of Medical Laboratory Science,
79(4), 26-29.
Part 2: Application
Discuss how credible the source is using the CRAAP
evaluation model. Detail as many of the 5 components
as possible:
1. Currency: How up-to-date is the resource? Why
is the date of publication important?

2. Relevance: How significant is the information in
the resource to the topic? Is there a direct
coalition to the subject matter? Is the source a
primary or secondary source? What makes the
source appropriate for an academic paper?
3. Authority: What makes the source credible?
What is the publishing body? What are the
authors' credentials? Provided info on both.
4. Accuracy: Was the source peer-reviewed (how
do you know?)? Were sources cited in the work?
What makes the source reliable?
5. Purpose: Why was this source created? What is
its original intent (inform? persuade? entertain?).
Did you notice any particular agenda or bias in
the source?
Please use specific examples and cite your sources in
APA format. Sometimes, we have to do extra research
on the authors or publishing bodies. Those sources
should be cited as well.
Follow-Up Post Instructions
Respond to at least two peers or one peer and the
instructor. Here, we have an opportunity to compare
research notes with our fellow peers. Help your peers
by composing a signal phrase based on the source’s
credentials.
Example
Address the following:

What weaknesses do you see, if any, in the
source?
If you were to discredit this source is some way,
what would be the best approach?
The goal here is not to attack the source, but to test it.
When we begin preparing rebuttals later this term,
knowing potential points of weakness and predicting
what our opposition may question is key. Remember,
the goal here is to find multiple perspectives, but those
perspectives should be both professional and
respectful. Ask questions to keep the conversation
going.
Note: If you see that someone has already received
feedback from two peers, please choose to help a peer
who has yet to obtain feedback.
Writing Requirements
Minimum of 3 posts (1 initial & 2 follow-up)
Initial Post Length: minimum of 3 college-level
paragraphs
APA format for in-text citations and list of
references
Grading
This activity will be graded using the Discussion
Grading Rubric. Please review the following link:
Link (webpage): Discussion Guidelines
Course Outcomes (CO): 4, 6
Due Date for Initial Post: By 11:59 p.m. MT on
Wednesday

Due Date for Follow-Up Posts: By 11:59 p.m. MT on
Sunday
The signal phrase should include the author (or article title if no
author is
noted), date of publication, statement of credibility, an
interesting verb
choice, a cited quote or paraphrase -- all in one complete
sentence!
1 Dr. Seuss (2 2013) 3 renown author of numerous and beloved
children’s books, 4 queries, 5 “Do you like green eggs and
ham?”
8).
Unread
$ %
&
Subscribe
THERESA GERGELA
(Instructor)
Jun 9, 2019
Edited by THERESA GERGELA on Jul 5 at 5:42pm
# Reply '
"
Hello, Class, and welcome to Week 4!
This week we look at the important topic of

evaluating sources. I think you will find the
“CRAAP” model helpful; on a daily basis we read,
ingest, interpret, discard, or accept copious
amounts of information through written and visual
texts, and discerning the credibility of them is a
useful skill.
Sparks and Rapp (2011), doctorate holders in
Learning Sciences, assert, “Knowledge about an
individual source (e.g., a respected public figure
vs. an accused wrongdoer) could influence
whether readers rely on or disregard the
propositions provided by that source.” We may
already have preconceived ideas about the
credibility of, for example, a newspaper or
website; when doing research, the necessity of
consciously and carefully evaluating writers and
their sources is crucial.
All too often, in the media today, we see evidence
of bias. This should be seen as a red flag when
evaluating sources! Bias is not always easily
discernible, however, and reading with a skeptical
eye goes a long way towards uncovering it.
Please pay special attention to the instructions for
locating peer-reviewed sources.
Please begin posting on Monday, July 29, for
credit this week. Try and include all the
components of a signal phrase in your peer
response suggestions. (Your scholarly outside
source for the initial post should be from among
the list provided, or contact me individually.) I
look forward to reading your discussions of source
credibility!

Theresa
Sparks, J. R., & Rapp, D. N. (2011). Readers'
reliance on source credibility in the service of
comprehension. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, and
Cognition, 37(1), 230-247. Retrieved from
https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?
url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=edswsc&AN=000286544100016&
site=eds-live&scope=site
Teresa Starner
Yesterday
# Reply '
"
David M. Shaw wrote the article The
Consequences of Vagueness in Consent to
Organ Donation. He holds an MA in English lit.,
a Ph.D. in philosophy, and a Master of Medical
Law. This article was written to inform and
educate professionals what the potential
barriers are to obtaining consent for organ
donation from the deceased’s’ families.
This article was published by Wiley-Blackwell in
2017 and revised in 2019 in the journal
Bioethics which is peer-reviewed. It states it is
peer-reviewed in the journal subset. The article
is a secondary source which references
numerous scholarly and peer-reviewed sources
to support the claim that lack of concrete
information surrounding the process of organ

donation is a major reason families do not
consent. All the sources referenced are
appropriate to the subject as they give support
to facts contained in the article which support
the claim.
Some sources date back to 2006 which is
outside the 5-year rule of thumb for source
material. This could be viewed as a weakness
and give the basis for rebuttal by locating newer
source information with up to date statistical
data that refutes the older sources. Organ
donation is an evolving subject so using newer
sources would have given the claim more
strength. Sources “over 5 years is usually
considered outdated in the general education
and healthcare fields” (Chamberlain University,
2019).
References
Chamberlain University, 2019. Week 4 lesson:
information literacy. retrieved from:
https://chamberlain.instructure.com/courses/468
38/pages/week-4-lesson-information-
literacy?module_item_id=5905678
Shaw, D. M. (2017, July). The consequences of
vagueness in consent to organ donation.
Bioethics, 31(6), 424-431.

http://dx.doi.org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.
org/10.1111/bioe.12335
Kimberly Evans
Yesterday
# Reply '
"
The article I chose to evaluate using the CRAAP
evaluation model is, The Consequences of
Vagueness in Consent to Organ Donation. This
article was informative. It discusses how potential
donors and families are not fully informed of all the
details that surface when immediate decisions need
to be made at the time of organ donation. This is a
complicated process and there are many decisions
to be made that many are not aware of. It
emphasizes lack of communication with the donor’s
family. Even if one is registered to be a donor, there
can still be many conflicts. It suggests that the
validity of the consent can be questionable, as well
as what the donor would consent to during the organ
donation process. This can be very distressing to the
potential donor’s family. It can lead to refusal of
consent which can also cause harm to the potential
recipients and their families. The article does
suggest need for more informed consent and
education. It also offers some strategies to reduce
the vagueness. The information thoroughly covered
the topic.
As the article is information not obtained firsthand, it
is a secondary source. The article was obtained
from Bioethics, which “is a monthly peer-reviewed

academic journal published by Wiley-Blackwell”
(Wikipedia). Peer review was also noted in the
Journal Subset. Bioethics has been publishing for
over 30 years. (Wikipedia) This article was published
July 2017. There is a possibility there has been
changes in the past two years to improve the
consent process, but I did not research for any
updated information.
The author, David M. Shaw, has a PhD in philosophy
and has a Master of Medical Law. He has worked at
the Institute for Bioethics since 2012 and is affiliated
with the Department of Health, Ethics and Society.
Dr. Shaw’s primary interest is in organ donation and
research ethics. (Shaw, 2017) Sources in this article
are cited. With the above information on the author
and journal, I feel this is a credible source.
References
Shaw, D. M. (2017, July). The consequences of
vagueness in consent to organ donation. Bioethics,
31(6), 424-431.
http://dx.doi.org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/1
0.1111/bioe.12335
Wikipedia. Retrieved July 30, 2019, from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioethics_(journal)
Cindy Pemberton
Yesterday
# Reply '
"

Hello Kimberly,
In Shaw (2017) , Dr of Philosophy with Masters
in Medical Law, Enquire, The consequences of
vagueness in consent to organ donation, I feel
that the article should have included the origin of
this obtained research information and included
actual donnor accounts to add to the credibility
and validity of the article; being a doctor of
philosophy with a masters in medical law, I
would think Mr. Shaw should have anticipated
this type of critique and incorporated those
points in his article.
Thanks,
Cindy Pemberton
Yesterday
# Reply '
"
Hello Professor & classmates,
I will be evaluating an article on The Cost of Cancer,
there is a lot of talk on cancer these days; in the
news, in magazines and in advertisements. It is
important to get accurate information out to the
general public and establish credibility for us to trust
the health care system.
This resource was not up to date, as it was written
back in October of 2014, that’s 5 years of new
information that is not included. The date of the
publication is important because you want to retrieve

the most up to date information possible (Seyler &
Brizee, 2018, pg. 275), especially if you are doing a
research paper. In my opinion the information found
in the resource, which is on 5 myths about cancer,
does not support the topic. I thought I would be
reading about the high cost of cancer from the topic,
so there is no coalition to the subject matter. This
article goes into specific myths on cancer and
misconceptions regarding cancer treatment.
I believe the source is primary, because it is original
research from the authors. The source is appropriate
for an academic paper because it is from a credible
source, it is peer-reviewed and peer reviewed
journals are always scholarly in nature (Nelson,
2014); and it identifies the authors responsible for
the information provided (Seyler & Brizee, 2018, pg.
281). The publishing body is The People to People
Health Foundation, Inc., Project HOPE. One author,
Dana P Goldman, is the Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair
and director of the Schaeffer Center for Health
Policy and Economics, University of Southern
California, in Los Angeles. The other author, Tomas
Philipson, is the Daniel Levin Professor of Public
Policy Economics and Law at the University of
Chicago, in Illinois. The source was peer reviewed,
and I ascertained this by filtering for it in the library. I
did not see any sources cited in this article to note,
so I can’t be sure how the authors obtained the
information or the accuracy of the information itself.
This source was created to discredit certain myths
about cancer and to inform the general public about
those myths. I was actually saddened to read a
couple of those myths, because I was led to believe
otherwise from what I have heard on the news and

other publications. Then again, this article is 5 years
old, so there may not be as much credibility to some
of those myths anymore; at least I would hope so. I
was unable to find and bias in this article, the
authors just stated the facts mostly, and gave stats
to back up the arguments.
References
Seyler, D. U., & Brizee, A. (2018). Read, reason,
write: An argument text and reader. New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Goldman, D.P. & Philipson, T. (2014). Five myths
about cancer care in America. Health Affairs, 33(10),
1801 - 1804. Retrieved From
https://chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?
url=https://search.proquest.com/d
ocview/1613558910?accountid=147674
Nelson, H., (2014) Systemic Reviews to Answer
Healthcare Questions. Retrieved From
https://library.chamberlain.edu/c.php?
g=942828&p=6796294
THERESA GERGELA
(Instructor)

Yesterday
# Reply '
"
Hello Cindy,
thanks for your discussion post.
Excellent comment/note about the currency of
the data. Technically, sources within a five-
year range are considered credible for
academic writing; however, as you note,
sometimes one must take into account the
topic and the rapidness of change with which
it might be affected. Regarding your
comment about sources, the article/authors
do use numerous notes within it, the origins
or subjects of which are included at the end of
the paper. When considering an article, as
you state, it is important to also consider the
credibility of the sources used in it.
I like that you provide a paragraph about the
credentials and expertise of the writers.
Sometimes that bit of extra research can help
determine these categories specifically.
I do believe that your identification of author
purpose is correct; while many articles are
informative, they also have a certain stance
or specific intent to persuade the reader of
that particular stance. Here, the aim appears
to be to "debunk a number of the most
common misconceptions about cancer

treatment, such as claims that the war on
cancer has been a failure and that treatment
costs are unsustainable" (Goldman &
Philipson, 2014).
APA: Did you click on the cite button for
article? It is below.
(Note that volume numbers are italicized, and
the article is associated with a doi.)
For the Nelson reference, there is no comma
after the author first initial, and there should
be period after the year. The title would not be
capitalized.
Theresa
References
Goldman, D. P., & Philipson, T. (2014). Five
myths about cancer care in America. Health
Affairs (Project Hope), 33(10), 1801–1804.
https://doi-
org.chamberlainuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.137
7/hlthaff.2014.0826
Cindy Pemberton
Yesterday
# Reply '
"
Good day Professor,

Thank you for all the feedback, I do
appreciate it. I did click the cite button, I'm
not sure what happens when I copy and
paste sometimes, it gets distorted. I noted
the rest of your comments regarding APA.
Thanks
Sinead Lynch
Yesterday
"
For the purpose of the discussion this week, I have
decided to analyze the article “Fight or Flight… or
Fix: Employers must work with employees to
address workplace stress” by Jane Langille using
the CRAAP method.
Currency: According to Seyler & Brizee, an article is
considered outdated if the information is over five
years old (2018). The date of publication is important
simply because new research and studies are being
conducted every day. Nearly as soon as the
information is published, it can be considered out of
date. The article in question was published in the
winter of 2017 in the Canadian Journal of Medical
Laboratory Science (Langille, 2017). This publication
date falls well within the five year mark.
Relevance: The information in this article is
significantly relevant to the topic. The article includes
several quotations from a manager at the
Anatomical Pathology Lab in Ontario, Canada
(Langille, 2017). The name of the lab manager is

Louis Litsas (Langille, 2017). He states his
philosophy that by having a daily huddle and
connecting to his staff on a more personal level
helps to decrease the rate of burnout in his facility
(Langille, 2017). He states that the daily huddle is a
forum for individuals to bring up issues or stresses
that they are experiencing in the workplace, and
then everyone can input their ideas about how to
solve these issues (Langille, 2017). This information
provided by Litsas is a secondary source. The
author also incorporates statistics from 2016 that
was collected by the journal that the article was
published in regarding workplace stress. The survey
found that, “a surprising 59% (17/29) of participants
reported that they have experienced a high level of
stress at work at least once more or daily, and 76%
(22/29) felt burned out at least weekly, if not daily,
due to work stressors” (Langille, 2019. One issue is,
however, that the information seems to be very
specific only to mangers in charge in a laboratory
setting.
Authority: The author for this article utilized source
such as the Mayo Clinic and the World Health
Organization for some of its source material
(Langille, 2017). These are both highly though of
organizations that are world renowned. The author
references a Dr. David Posen who was interviewed
on a podcast for the journal in which the article was
published. The article does not establish much
information on why Posen is considered an expert
on this subject. She cites Dr. Posen as being an
expert on workplace stress. The publishing body for
this article is the Canadian Journal of Medical
Laboratory Science that is owned by the Canadian
Society for Medical Laboratory Science. There is not

much available information on the credentials of the
author. The article does not list any degrees that
Langille holds. The only information provided states
that she is a health and medical writer for the
CJMLS. I was unable to find any further information
July 2019
Home
Syllabus
Announcements
Resources
Modules
Files
Grades
People
VoiceThread
Bookstore
Library Guides
Media Gallery
My Media
New Webex

Academic Sup-
port
Surveys
Account
Dashboard
Courses
Groups
Calendar
Inbox
Help
�
7/31/19, 2)29 AM
Page 1 of 1
TYPE SHORT TITLE IN ALL CAPS 2
Title in Upper and Lower Case
Your Name
Chamberlain College of Nursing

Course Number: Course Name
Term Month and Year
Running head: TYPE SHORT TITLE IN ALL CAPS 1
TYPE SHORT TITLE IN ALL CAPS 3
Title of your Paper in Upper and Lower Case (Centered, not
Bold)
Type your introduction here and remove the instructions.. The
introduction should begin with an attention grabber and end
with your working thesis statement. Remember to employ an
objective tone by applying only 3rd person point of view (no
1st: I, me, my, we, our, us, mine) or 2nd: you, your person point
of view).
Context
Begin to type the body of your paper here. Use as many
paragraphs as needed to cover the content appropriately. As
noted in the Lecture’s outline, the context section should
include potential qualifiers, and definitions. It is essentially
background information that provides your audience with the
context needed to understand your claim.
1st Con-Point
Begin with a topic sentence written in your own words that
presents your grounds. Next, apply the evidence/warrant.
Signal phrases are highly recommended to introduce new
sources (ex: According to Dr. John Smith, head physician at the
Mayo Clinic…). Cite your sources in APA format via
parenthetical citations. Follow through with a few sentences
examining the evidence and connecting it back to your main
point. Strive for a minimum of 5 developed sentences in a
college level paragraph. Remember to refer back to the outline
in our Week 2 Lesson if you need to review the structure of the
paper.
Repeat this process for your 2nd and 3rd Con-Points, dedicating
a paragraph to each.

Conclusion
Papers should end with a conclusion. Unpack your thesis (do
not copy/paste it) and apply a concluding technique. It should
be concise and contain no new detail. No matter how much
space remains on the page, the references always start on a
separate page.
References (centered, not bold)
Type your references in alphabetical order here using hanging
indents. See your APA Manual and the resources in your APA
folder in Course Resources for reference formatting.
ENGL147N-60265 Assignments Week 4 Assignment: Con-
Positi…!
Total Points: 125.0
Week 4 Assignment: Con-Posi-
tion Paper
Due Monday by 1:59am Points 125
Submitting a file upload
Position Paper Grading Rubric - 125 pts (2)
Criteria Ratings Pts
5.0 pts
30.0 pts

30.0 pts
25.0 pts
10.0 pts
10.0 pts
5.0 pts
10.0 pts
Submit Assignment
Required Resources
Read/review the following resources for this activity:
Textbook: pp. 69-81
Lesson
Week 3 Assignment
Link (Word doc): Con-Paper Template
Minimum of 3 academic articles (from the Week 3
Assignment)
Apply the following writing resources to your posts:
Link (multimedia presentation): Citing References in Text
Link (website): APA Citation and Writing
Instructions
For this assignment, complete the following:
Review the Toulmin-model outline (Week 2 Lesson) and
your completed Week 3 Assignment (Con-Position

Proposal). Assess any feedback provided by the
professor and/or your peers.
Compose a position paper representing the con side of
your new topic. (See the Con-Paper Template). The
paper should include approximately 6 developed
paragraphs:
Introduction (with thesis statement)
Context paragraph
3 body paragraphs (focusing on 3 cons)
Conclusion
Apply a formal tone appropriate for academic audiences,
maintaining an objective 3 person point of view - no 1
person (I, me, my, we, our, us, mine) or 2 person (you,
your). Avoid contractions, clichés, and slang terminology.
Use the provided template to assist in formatting the title
page and document.
Incorporate at least 3 scholarly sources into the paper.
Cite all sources in APA format, both parenthetically and
on a reference page.
Before submission, proofread and edit carefully for
spelling, punctuation, and grammar. Not every error will
be flagged automatically in word-processing programs,
and some that are flagged as errors are actually correct.
Writing Requirements (APA format)
Length: 2-3 pages (not including the title or reference
pages)
1-inch margins
Double spaced
12-point Times New Roman font
Title page
References page (minimum of 3 academic articles)

Grading
This activity will be graded using the Con-Position Paper
Grading Rubric.
Course Outcomes (CO): 3, 6
Due Date: By 11:59 p.m. MT on Sunday
rd st
nd
Length 5.0 pts
Meets length requirement
0.0 pts
Does not meet length requirement
Point
Analysis
30.0 pts
The central
idea is
developed and
expanded with
depth of
critical
thought.
25.5 pts
The
central
idea is
discernible
and

developed.
22.5 pts
The central idea
needs more
development
with points
tying back to
the thesis.
18.0 pts
The central
idea is not
developed,
and the
analysis lacks
critical
thought.
0.0 pts
No
effort
Support 30.0 pts
The
writing
supports
claims
with
several
detailed
and
persuasive
examples.
25.5 pts

The writing
supports
claims with
examples, but
additional
analysis or
examples
could
strengthen
the argument.
22.5 pts
The writing supports
claims with
examples, but the
examples are not
well-developed or
examined. Additional
examples and
analysis are needed
to make the
argument more
persuasive.
18.0 pts
The
central
idea is
not well-
supported
by claims
and/or
examples.
0.0 pts
No

effort
Organization 25.0 pts
Paper is clear
and cohesive.
Introduction
and
conclusion
support the
overall flow of
the paper.
21.25 pts
Paper is
basically
clear and
well-
organized
with a
minimum of
non-related
material
present.
18.75 pts
Paper has
some issues
with clarity,
flow, and
cohesion.
Paper lacks
organization.
15.0 pts
Paper lacks
organization

and has
difficulty
staying on
track. Central
themes are
difficult to
identify.
0.0 pts
No
effort
Writing:
Mechanics
& Usage
10.0 pts
The writing is
free of major
errors in
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
that would
detract from
a clear
reading of
the paper.
8.5 pts
The writing
contains a few
major errors in
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation,

but the errors
do not detract
from a clear
reading of the
text.
7.5 pts
The writing
contains
some major
errors in
grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
that need to
be addressed
for a clearer
reading of the
paper.
6.0 pts
The writing
contains
several
major errors
in grammar,
spelling, and
punctuation
that impede
a clear
reading of
the paper.
0.0 pts
No
effort

Clarity &
Flow
10.0 pts
The writing
contains
strong word
choice that
clarifies
ideas and
masterful
sentence
variety aids
with the flow
of ideas.
8.5 pts
The writing
contains
varied word
choice and
sentence
structures
that clarify
ideas and aid
with the flow
of ideas.
7.5 pts
The writing
contains word
choice and
sentence
structures that
can be revised

for better
clarification of
ideas and flow
of ideas.
6.0 pts
The writing
contains
wording and
sentence
structures
that are
awkward
and/or
unclear,
impeding the
clarity and
flow of ideas.
0.0 pts
No
effort
Voice 5.0 pts
The writing
maintains
third-person
point of
view/objective
voice
throughout
the entire
text.
4.25 pts
The writing

maintains
third-person
point of
view/objective
voice
throughout
much of the
text.
3.75 pts
The writing
has some
deviation
from third-
person point
of
view/objective
voice that
needs to be
revised so as
not to sound
biased or
patronizing.
3.0 pts
The writing
deviates
significantly
from third-
person point
of
view/objective
voice that
needs to be
revised so as
not to sound

biased or
patronizing.
0.0 pts
No
effort
APA Format 10.0 pts
All sources
are properly
integrated and
cited in the
text and
references
page
demonstrating
a mastery of
integrating
resources and
APA format.
8.5 pts
Most sources
are integrated
and cited in
the text and
references
page. Some
minor errors
may exist in
integration
and/or
citation, but it
does not
interfere with
understanding

the source of
the
information.
7.5 pts
Most
sources are
integrated
and cited in
the text and
references
page. Some
errors may
exist in
integration
and/or
citation that
need to be
addressed
to clarify
the source
of
information.
6.0 pts
Sources are
not properly
integrated/cited
in the
text/references
page.
Formatting
contains
several errors
that suggest a
lack of

understanding
of the
integration of
resources and
APA format.
0.0 pts
No
effort
"Previous Next#
July 2019
Home
Syllabus
Announcements
Resources
Modules
Files
Grades
People
VoiceThread
Bookstore
Library Guides

Media Gallery
My Media
New Webex
Academic Sup-
port
Surveys
Account
Dashboard
Courses
Groups
Calendar
Inbox
Help
�
7/31/19, 2)35 AM
Page 1 of 1
Searching: Information Resources for Chamberlain
University.

Basic Search Advanced Search Search History
Keyword AN 25288425
Search
Create Alert
Authors:
Source:
Publication Type:
Language:
Journal Info:
Imprint Name(s):
MeSH Terms:
Abstract:
Comments:
Contributed
Indexing:
Entry Date(s):
Update Code:
DOI:
PMID:

Database:
Five myths about
cancer care in America.
Goldman DP; Dana P. Goldman
([email protected]) is the
Leonard D. Schaeffer Chair and
director of the Schaeffer Center
for Health Policy and
Econcomics, University of
Southern California, in Los
Angeles.
Philipson T; Tomas Philipson is
the Daniel Levin Professor of
Public Policy, Economics, and
Law at the University of Chicago,
in Illinois.
Health Affairs (Project Hope)
[Health Aff (Millwood)] 2014 Oct;
Vol. 33 (10), pp. 1801-4.
Journal Article; Research
Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
English
Publisher: Project Hope Country
of Publication: United States NLM
ID: 8303128 Publication Model:
Print Cited Medium: Internet
ISSN: 1544-5208 (Electronic)
Linking ISSN: 02782715 NLM
ISO Abbreviation: Health Aff

(Millwood) Subsets: MEDLINE
Publication: <Mar./Apr. 1999-> :
Bethesda, MD : Project Hope
Original Publication: Millwood,
Va. : Project Hope, c1981-
Neoplasms/*therapy
Health Care Costs/statistics &
numerical data ; Humans
; Neoplasms/economics
; Neoplasms/mortality ; Terminal
Care/economics ; United States
In this commentary we debunk a
number of the most common
misconceptions about cancer
treatment, such as claims that the
war on cancer has been a failure
and that treatment costs are
unsustainable. In addition, there
is good evidence that patients
value these treatments more
highly than traditional cost-
effectiveness analysis would
indicate. We argue that coverage
policies placing undue burden on
patients are socially wasteful and
will likely discourage further
innovation.
(Project HOPE—The People-to-
People Health Foundation, Inc.)
Comment in: Health Aff
(Millwood). 2014
Oct;33(10):1805-7. (PMID:

25288426)
Keywords: Health Economics;
Health Spending
Date Created: 20141008 Date
Completed: 20160916 Latest
Revision: 20141007
20181211
10.1377/hlthaff.2014.0826
25288425
MEDLINE Complete
Result List Refine Search 1 of 1
Result List Refine Search 1 of 1
Top of Page
Mobile Site
iPhone and Android apps
EBSCO Support Site
Privacy Policy
Terms of Use
Copyright
Contact Us

ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion Source Evaluation!.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion Source Evaluation!.docx

Similar to ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion Source Evaluation!.docx (11)

More from gidmanmary

More from gidmanmary (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

ENGL147N-60265 Modules Week 4 Discussion Source Evaluation!.docx