Expert answer:Powerpoint assignment

Expert answer:you will create a PowerPoint® presentation that illustrates the connection between current psychology research and your role as a leader in a selected career field. You will present a psychology research article that studies a specific challenge that could be encountered in your career field.Go to the Library and select a topic that connects psychology with your career field. Be sure to select the peer-reviewed box, so that you know your research studies are primary academic sources. —( Two articles are attatched) From libraryA future addictions counselor may select the effectiveness of cognitive behavioral therapy.A future business professional may select ways of improving work morale.An early childhood development professional may select behavior modification techniques to improve classroom behavior.After reviewing several studies, select one research study that most interests you.Click on the Cite link to bring up an APA reference for your article. —( I will share the link when you need it )After reviewing the entire article, focus on the abstract for the main highlights of the research.Create a presentation that is at least 10 slides long to present this information to future colleagues. Consider this presentation training for future colleagues on how your study of psychology relates to particular problem in your career field. Your slides should address the following questions:Identify your career field and article you selected.—– ( Health Care Adminstration, and articles are attached)Describe the highlights of the research study.—- ( affects and effects in pyschology ways of deaf patients not getting access to interpreters)Relate the research to your career field.—— (Quality of life in Health Care setting)Identify ways in which this information can be implemented into your career field——–. ( can improve getting medical qualifed interpreters, and assign one person per patient) ( giving better quality patient care in the Health care setting) ( Improve sensivitiy to others, boost health mental health for each individuals who are patients)Writing Requirements and GuidelinesYour Assignment should be at least 10 slides, not the Cover and Reference pages.Cover page: Provide your name, title of Assignment, course and unit number, and dateBody: at least 10 slides answering the questions provided in the Assignment directionsReference Page: Sources in APA format_—————————————– If there is any questions, or such, Commincate with me !! There are two articles, and I will send more if needed, See few commentso help with idea of doing in affets effects of deaf patients not getting qualifed live interpreters in hospitals that can affect emotional andmeantal issues, not understanding etcetc.
contentserver__1_.pdf

possible_outline_for_ps124_u8_project.pptx

sample_unit_8_ppt_presentation_template_sept_2015.pptx

unit_8_ppt_project_tips.docx

126118006.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
screening and the HPV vaccine through peer
education is critical to reducing the cervical
cancer burden in medically underserved Hispanic communities. j
About the Authors
John S. Luque, Mondi Mason, and Claudia Reyes-Garcia
are with the Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health,
Georgia Southern University, Statesboro, GA. Andrea
Hinojosa is with the Southeast Georgia Communities Project, Lyons, GA. Cathy D. Meade is with the Department of
Health Outcomes and Behavior, Moffitt Cancer Center,
Tampa, FL, and with the Department of Oncologic Sciences,
University of South Florida, Tampa.
Correspondence should be sent to John S. Luque, Assistant Professor, Jiann-Ping Hsu College of Public Health,
Georgia Southern University, PO Box 8015, Statesboro,
GA 30460-8015 (e-mail: jluque@georgiasouthern.edu).
Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking
the ‘‘Reprints/Eprints’’ link.
This article was accepted June 3, 2011.
Contributors
J. S. Luque developed the curriculum, analyzed the data,
and wrote the article. M. Mason, C. Reyes-Garcia, and C. D.
Meade contributed to the curriculum design and assisted
with the writing of the article. A. Hinojosa recruited the
promotoras and contributed to the writing of the article.
Acknowledgments
This publication was supported by grant R03
CA138123, Small Grants for Behavioral Research in
Cancer Control, National Cancer Institute.
The research was previously presented at the Third
American Association for Cancer Research Conference,
Science of Cancer Health Disparities (September 2010),
Miami Beach, FL.
Note. The article’s contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the
official views of the National Cancer Institute.
Human Participant Protection
The Georgia Southern University institutional review
board approved this study.
References
1. Flores K, Bencomo C. Preventing cervical cancer
in the Latina population. J Womens Health (Larchmt).
2009;18(12):1935—1943.
2. U.S. Cancer Statistics Working Group. United States
Cancer Statistics: 1999—2007 Incidence and Mortality
Web-Based Report. Atlanta, GA: Department of Health
and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, and National Cancer Institute; 2010.
3. Scarinci IC, Garcia FA, Kobetz E, et al. Cervical
cancer prevention: new tools and old barriers. Cancer.
2010;116(11):2531—2542.
immigrants and Anglo-American women: cultural models
of cervical cancer beliefs and risk factors. NAPA Bull.
2010;34(1):84—104.
6. Taylor VM, Coronado G, Acorda E, et al. Development
of an ESL curriculum to educate Chinese immigrants about
hepatitis B. J Community Health. 2008;33(4):217—224.
7. Helitzer D, Peterson AB, Thompson J, Fluder S.
Development of a planning and evaluation methodology
for assessing the contribution of theory to a diabetes
prevention lifestyle intervention. Health Promot Pract.
2008;9(4):404—414.
8. Bandura A. Health promotion by social cognitive
means. Health Educ Behav. 2004;31(2):143—164.
9. Freire P. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY:
Herder and Herder; 1970.
10. Meade CD, Calvo A, Cuthbertson D. Impact of
culturally, linguistically, and literacy relevant cancer
information among Hispanic farmworker women.
J Cancer Educ. 2002;17(1):50—54.
Community Participatory
Research With Deaf Sign
Language Users to
Identify Health Inequities
Steven Barnett, MD, Jonathan D. Klein, MD,
MPH, Robert Q. Pollard Jr, PhD, Vincent Samar,
PhD, Deirdre Schlehofer, EdD, Matthew Starr,
MPH, Erika Sutter, MPH, Hongmei Yang, PhD,
and Thomas A. Pearson, MD, PhD, MPH
Deaf people who use American
Sign Language (ASL) are medically
underserved and often excluded
from health research and surveillance. We used a community participatory approach to develop and
administer an ASL-accessible health
survey. We identified deaf community strengths (e.g., a low prevalence
of current smokers) and 3 glaring
health inequities: obesity, partner
violence, and suicide. This collaborative work represents the first
time a deaf community has used its
own data to identify health priorities. (Am J Public Health.
2011;101:2233–2244. doi:10.2105/
AJPH.2011.300247)
4. Fernandez ME, McCurdy SA, Arvey SR, et al. HPV
knowledge, attitudes, and cultural beliefs among Hispanic
men and women living on the Texas—Mexico border.
Ethn Health. 2009;14(6):607—624.
5. Luque JS, Castañeda H, Martinez Tyson D, Vargas N,
Proctor S, Meade CD. HPV awareness among Latina
Deaf people who use American Sign Language (ASL) are medically underserved and
December 2011, Vol 101, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health
often excluded from health research and public
health surveillance.1,2 ASL is different from
English3 and, as is the case with many of the
world’s languages,4 has no written form. Many
ASL users have been deaf since birth or early
childhood. Biological and social determinants
of health suggest that communities of ASL
users should be predisposed to health inequities.2
Rochester, New York, has a large population
of deaf ASL users. The Rochester Prevention
Research Center’s National Center for Deaf
Health Research (NCDHR) used a community
participatory approach to develop and administer an ASL-accessible health survey to estimate deaf individuals’ health status and health
risk and to compare results with data from the
local general population as a means of identifying health inequities.
METHODS
Deaf and hearing researchers and community members worked collaboratively to develop a linguistically and culturally appropriate
survey based on the Behavioral Risk Factor
Surveillance System (BRFSS).5 We worked with
community members to prioritize health survey
topics and developed items to measure important
deaf-related demographic information (e.g., age
at onset of deafness).6,7 We adapted existing
English-language survey items through a process
that included translation,8 back-translation, and
in-depth individual cognitive interviews. A computer interface was used to present survey items
in sign language (via video) and written English
on a touch-screen kiosk. The NCDHR Deaf
Health Survey contained 98 items.
We recruited deaf individuals through deaf
community organizations, via e-mail and posters, and face-to-face during community events;
339 deaf adults from the Rochester metropolitan statistical area completed the survey over
a period of 6 months in 2008. Results were
compared with BRFSS data collected via random-digit dialing in the Rochester community
in 2006.9 We used SAS version 9.2 survey
procedures10 to adjust for possible biases introduced by telephone survey methodology. The
Rochester deaf community contributed to interpretation of the survey findings and identified
health inequities in need of future research and
intervention.
Barnett et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 2235
RESEARCH AND PRACTICE
TABLE 1—Demographic and Deaf-Related Characteristics: 2008 NCDHR Deaf Health Survey
and 2006 Monroe County BRFSS, Rochester, NY
NCDHR Deaf Health Survey (n = 339) Monroe County BRFSS (n = 2546)
Age, y
Mean (95% CI)
Range
46.4 (45.0, 47.8)
46.3 (45.3, 47.3)
18–88
18–95
Male, % (95% CI)
45.5 (40.2, 50.9)
47.6 (44.9, 50.3)
Race, % (95% CI)
White
85.7 (81.8, 89.6)
82.4 (80.4, 84.5)
African American
4.4 (2.1, 6.7)
12.2 (10.6, 13.9)
Asian/Pacific Islander
2.5 (0.8, 4.3)
2.5 (1.4, 3.6)
American Indian/Alaska Native
1.3 (0.02, 2.5)
0.6 (0.2, 1.0)
Other or multiple races
6.0 (3.4, 8.7)
2.2 (1.5, 2.9)
3.2 (1.2, 5.1)
3.9 (2.9, 4.8)
< 20 000 20 000–35 000 28.2 (23.0, 33.4) 23.4 (18.5, 28.3) 19.2 (17.0, 21.5) 15.1 (13.3, 16.9) 35 000–75 000 35.7 (30.2, 41.3) 35.9 (33.1, 38.7) > 75 000
12.7 (8.9, 16.6)
29.7 (27.1, 32.4)
Hispanic % (95% CI)
Household income, $, % (95% CI)
Highest level of education, % (95% CI)
< high school 5.1 (2.6, 7.5) 7.1 (5.7, 8.5) High school or equivalent 12.7 (9.0, 16.4) 26.4 (24.0, 28.8) Some college/2-y degree 34.1 (28.8, 39.3) 24.4 (22.1, 26.8) 48.1 (42.5, 53.6) 42.1 (39.5, 44.7) Married 50.0 (44.5, 55.5) 53.2 (50.5, 55.9) Divorced 15.2 (11.2, 19.2) 9.2 (7.9, 10.4) Widowed 1.9 (0.4, 3.4) 6.6 (5.6, 7.5) Separated 3.8 (1.7, 5.9) 2.2 (1.6, 2.7) 24.7 (19.9, 29.4) 23.4 (20.7, 26.0) 4.4 (2.1, 6.7) 5.5 (4.2, 6.9) ‡college Marital status, % (95% CI) Never married Member of unmarried couple Age at onset of deafness, y, % (95% CI) Born deaf 69.8 (64.6, 74.9) ... <1 8.4 (5.3, 11.5) ... 1–3 10.0 (6.6, 13.3) ... 4–10 4.8 (2.4, 7.2) ... 11–18 1.0 (0.0, 2.0) ... ‡ 19 1.3 (0.0, 2.5) ... 4.8 (2.4, 7.2) ... 31.9 (26.8, 37.1) ... Don’t know Mother, father, or siblings are deaf, % (95% CI) DISCUSSION Note. BRFSS = Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; CI = confidence interval; NCDHR = National Center for Deaf Health Research. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Ellipses indicate question not asked in Monroe County BRFSS survey. RESULTS Survey respondents were predominantly White and highly educated, and most had been deaf since birth or early childhood (Table 1). It is notable that many of the NCDHR Deaf Health Survey findings were similar to the 2006 Rochester telephone BRFSS results. The low prevalence of smoking observed (9.1%), less than half the smoking prevalence in the local general population (18.1%), is consistent with other reports7,11---13 (Table 2). The low 2236 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Barnett et al. smoking prevalence is consistent with our participants’ high educational attainment but not their relatively low income (the median income of the local general population is $5179914). Research designed to provide an understanding of smoking in the deaf community could inform smoking-related interventions with other groups. The prevalence of obesity among our respondents was higher than that in the local general population (Table 2). Research has shown that general population participants tend to overreport their height or underreport their weight (or both) in telephone surveys.15 It may be that similar reporting biases were not present among our deaf participants. Even so, the high prevalence of overweight and obesity warrants a culturally appropriate and accessible intervention. The prevalence of past-year suicide attempts in our sample appeared to be higher than that observed in the 2006 Rochester telephone survey (Table 2). Although other researchers have reported an association between deafness and suicide risk,16 none of these studies involved a community-based sample. We measured past-year and lifetime experiences of partner violence (Table 2). One review reports that deaf children are at high risk for sexual abuse.17 Childhood trauma is associated with adult health consequences,18 including interpersonal violence, suicide attempts, and obesity, outcomes that are consistent with our survey findings. Our community participatory approach successfully assessed health status and identified health risks in a community-wide sample of deaf individuals. This work is an important step toward the inclusion of deaf ASL users in population health surveillance and health promotion programs designed to address health priorities. Our research builds on previous research that used sign language interview surveys with deaf patients,19 sign language interview surveys,11,19 and topic-focused computerbased sign language surveys.12,20---23 We advanced this research through our community participatory approach and by using an accessible, standardized, self-administered computerbased survey to measure a broad range of health topics in a community-based sample and setting. American Journal of Public Health | December 2011, Vol 101, No. 12 RESEARCH AND PRACTICE data interpretation. T. A. Pearson contributed to the study design, data collection, data interpretation, and the writing of the article. TABLE 2—Selected Findings: 2008 NCDHR Deaf Health Survey and 2006 Monroe County BRFSS, Rochester, NY NCDHR Deaf Health Survey, % (95% CI) Monroe County BRFSS, % (95% CI) All participants Current smoker 9.1 (6.4, 12.9) Weight classification by BMI Neither overweight nor obese (£ 24.9 kg/m2) Overweight (25.0–29.9 kg/m2) Obese (‡ 30.0 kg/m2) Ever attempted suicide Attempted suicide in past 12 mo 18.1 (16.1, 20.2) 31.7 (26.6, 36.8) 38.8 (36.1, 41.5) 34.2 (29.0, 39.3) 34.6 (32.1, 37.1) 34.2 (29.0, 39.3) 26.6 (24.2, 29.0) 14.6 (10.7, 18.6) ... 2.2 (0.6, 3.9) 0.4 (0.2, 0.7) Participants younger than 65 ya Intimate partner violence Ever been emotionally abused Emotionally abused in past 12 mo 27.5 (22.4, 33.1) 7.4 (4.8, 11.3) ... ... Ever been physically abused 21.0 (16.3, 25.8) 13.9 (11.8, 16.0) Physically abused in past 12 mo Ever been forced to have sex Forced to have sex in past 12 mo 3.1 (1.1, 5.1) 2.7 (1.7, 3.8) 20.8 (16.1, 25.6) 5.8 (4.5, 7.0) 3.8 (1.6, 6.1) 0.7 (0.1, 1.3) Note. BMI = body mass index; BRFSS = Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System; CI = confidence interval; NCDHR = National Center for Deaf Health Research. Percentages may not sum to 100 because of rounding. Ellipses indicate question not asked in Monroe County BRFSS survey. a The Monroe County BRFSS survey administered intimate partner violence items only to respondents younger than 65 years, so for comparison we used the same age limit for our deaf sample. For participants under age 65, NCDHR Deaf Health Survey n=308, and Monroe County BRFSS n=1906. The limitations of our study underscore the challenges of conducting deaf health surveys. We did not have reliable measures of the size or demographics of the Rochester or US population of deaf adult ASL users.24 Although the fact that our Rochester sample was predominantly White is consistent with national data,6,25,26 our sample’s high educational attainment is not typical of the US deaf community.6 Our findings probably underestimate the magnitude of health disparities experienced by other populations of deaf ASL users. The Healthy People 2020 goal to promote health among people with disabilities requires accessible data collection.27 It is now possible, through surveys such as the one described here, to include deaf ASL users in public health surveillance programs. j Deirdre Schlehofer, Matthew Starr, Erika Sutter, and Thomas A. Pearson were with the Department of Community and Preventive Medicine, Rochester Prevention Research Center/National Center for Deaf Health Research, University of Rochester Medical Center. Jonathan D. Klein was with the Department of Pediatrics, Rochester Prevention Research Center/National Center for Deaf Health Research, University of Rochester Medical Center. Robert Q. Pollard Jr was with the Deaf Wellness Center, Department of Psychiatry, University of Rochester Medical Center. Vincent Samar was with the Department of Research and Teacher Education, National Technical Institute for the Deaf, Rochester Institute of Technology. Hongmei Yang was with the Department of Biostatistics and Computational Biology, University of Rochester Medical Center. Correspondence should be sent to Thomas A. Pearson, MD, PhD, MPH, National Center for Deaf Health Research, University of Rochester Medical Center, Box CU420644, 265 Crittenden Blvd, Rochester, NY 14642 (e-mail: thomas_pearson@urmc.rochester.edu). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking on the ‘‘Reprints/ Eprints’’ link. This article was accepted March 25, 2011. Contributors About the Authors At the time of the study, Steven Barnett was with the Department of Family Medicine, Rochester Prevention Research Center/National Center for Deaf Health Research, University of Rochester Medical Center, Rochester, NY. S. Barnett contributed to the study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, and the writing of the article. J. D. Klein, R. Q. Pollard, V. Samar, D. Schlehofer, and M. Starr contributed to the study design, data collection, and data interpretation. H. Yang contributed to the data analysis and data interpretation. E. Sutter contributed to the study design, data analysis, and December 2011, Vol 101, No. 12 | American Journal of Public Health Acknowledgments This research was supported by cooperative agreements U48 DP001910-01 and U48 DP000031 from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Steven Barnett is supported by grant K08 HS15700 from the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The contents of this article have been summarized in an ASL video (appendix available as a supplement to the online version of this article at http://www.ajph.org). The Research Committee and the Deaf Health Community Committee of the Rochester Prevention Research Center’s National Center for Deaf Health Research contributed to the Deaf Health Survey’s development and performance and to the interpretation of its findings. We are grateful to the Deaf Health Community Committee for its assistance with and support of the Deaf Health Survey. We also thank Julia Aggas, Tamala David, Robyn Dean, Susan Demers-McLetchie, Elizabeth Finigan, Michael McKee, Amanda O’Hearn, and Anne Steider for their contributions and collaboration throughout the entire survey development process. Finally, we thank our community partners, including the National Technical Institute for the Deaf, the Monroe County Department of Public Health, the Rochester Recreation Club of the Deaf, and the Rochester School for the Deaf. Note. The contents of this article are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official views of the CDC. Human Participant Protection This study was approved by the institutional review boards of the University of Rochester and the Rochester Institute of Technology. Informed consent was obtained from all participants via computer-based video in American Sign Language with written English. References 1. Barnett S, Franks P. Telephone ownership and deaf people: implications for telephone surveys. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(11):1754---1756. 2. Barnett S, McKee M, Smith S, et al. Deaf sign language users, health inequities, and public health: opportunity for social justice. Prev Chronic Dis. 2011; 8(2):A45. 3. Barnett S. Clinical and cultural issues in caring for deaf people. Fam Med. 1999;31(1):17---22. 4. Schultz T, Kirchhoff K. Multilingual Speech Processing. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press; 2006. 5. Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System Survey Questionnaire––2006. Atlanta, GA: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2006. 6. Barnett S, Franks P. Healthcare utilization and adults who are deaf: relationship with age at onset of deafness. Health Serv Res. 2002;37(1):105---120. 7. Barnett S, Franks P. Smoking and deaf adults: associations with age at onset of deafness. Am Ann Deaf. 1999;144(1):44---50. 8. Graybill P, Aggas J, Dean R, et al. A community participatory approach to adapting survey items for deaf individuals and American Sign Language. Field Methods. 2010;22(4):429---448. Barnett et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 2237 RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 9. Monroe County Dept of Public Health. Monroe County Adult Health Survey Report 2006. Available at: http://www.monroecounty.gov/File/Health/2006% 20ADULT%20HEALTH%20SURVEY.pdf. Accessed July 15, 2011. 10. SAS/STAT 9.2 User’s Guide. 2nd ed. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.; 2009. 11. Dye M, Kyle J. Deaf People in the Community: Health and Disability. Bristol, England: Deaf Studies Trust; 2001. 12. Berman BA, Bernaards C, Eckhardt EA, et al. Is tobacco use a problem among deaf college students? Am Ann Deaf. 2006;151(4):441---451. 13. Margellos-Anast H, Hedding T, Miller L. Improving Access to Health and Mental Health for Chicago’s Deaf Community: A Survey of Deaf Adults. Chicago, IL: Sinai Health System and Advocate Health Care; 2004. 14. US Census Bureau. State and county quick facts: Monroe County, New ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

How it works

1. Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
2. Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions 
3. Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
4.  Download the paper after the writer uploads it 

Will the writer plagiarize my essay?

You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.

Is this service safe?

All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades