This is a peer review assignment. Your task will be to edit and grade the peer’s assignment. 

You will need to use the track changes to record the editing suggested changes

Attached are the

1) peer Introduction paper you are to review

2) peer review rubric

3)Introduction

4) Introduction Rubric

HLTH 698

Project Paper: Introduction Instructions

For the first stage of development, you will focus on the Introduction section of the paper. You must utilize at least 5 peer-reviewed or government resources which may be drawn from the annotated bibliography or from additional research. In this section, be sure to establish the background for your practicum. Define the central problem or focus area of your practicum, and provide the epidemiological, environmental, biological, sociological, political, and/or theological origins for the problem. You must also address the rationale for pursuit of the problem in your particular practicum setting. Label your Microsoft Word document as follows: LASTNAME_FIRSTNAME_HLTH698_SECTION_TERM_YEARIntroduction.

Your Introduction section must be submitted directly to your instructor through the Project Paper: Introduction assignment link by Sunday of Week/Module 6.

You must also submit your paper to a Peer-Editor by Sunday of Week/Module 6. Attach a copy of the Project Paper: Peer-Editor Rubric for Stages 1–4 found under the Project Paper Overview at the end of your document. You must submit the assignment via the Project Paper: Introduction Forum link to the assigned Peer-Editor from your group by Sunday of Module/Week 6. Using the Forum in the Group Discussion Board will allow your instructor to monitor and validate your progress as needed. Each Peer-Editor will make corrections to the paper assigned to him/her using the Track Changes icon under the Review tab as well. Additional comments and recommendations should be included using the Comment icon. The marked paper must be returned to the original author during Week 7. The edited paper will also be submitted directly to the instructor through the assignment link in Week 7 without further revisions.

Submit the initial paper through the Introduction Assignment and to your Peer-Editor via the Group Discussion link in the Course Menu by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of Module/Week 6.

You will edit and grade your peer’s paper then submit the marked version of the peer’s assignment by 11:59 p.m. (ET) on Sunday of Module/Week 7.

University

HLTH 698

Project Paper: Introduction

Student Name

February 24, 2019

Words count: 702

Addressing Dental Health Disparities in the Atlanta Areas

According to Ogunbodede, “Health inequality is the generic term used to designate differences, variations, and disparities in the health achievements of individuals and groups,” while “health inequity refers to those inequalities in health that are deemed to be unfair or stemming from some form of injustice”.1

Dental caries and periodontal diseases have historically been considered the most important global oral health burdens.2 At present, the distribution and severity of oral diseases vary among different parts of the world and within the same country or region.2 In many developing countries, access to oral health services is limited and teeth are often left untreated or are extracted because of pain or discomfort. Throughout the world, losing teeth is still seen as a natural consequence of ageing.2 Despite great achievements in oral health of populations globally, problems still remain in many communities all over the world – particularly among under-privileged groups in developed and developing countries.2

In the United States, oral disease is a remarkable health problem.3 Epidemiologically, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), approximately 91% of U.S. adults aged 20–64 had dental caries in permanent teeth in 2011–2012. Dental caries among adults aged 35–64 was higher (94%–97%) compared with adults aged 20–34 (82%).4 The prevalence of caries among adults aged 20–64 was lower for Hispanic (85%), non-Hispanic black (86%), and non-Hispanic Asian (85%) adults compared with non-Hispanic white adults (94%).4


Oral health in the Atlanta areas is inextricably intertwined with a variety of factors (epidemiological, environmental, biological, sociological, political, and/or theological) including insurance status, family income, education, race and urban/rural residence.5 Dental health disparity is considerably linked to severe oral disease, a substantial reduction of quality of life, and the inability to perform normal social activities, stemming from oral functional limitations.5 Oral health is an integral part of general health and important to the individual’s well-being, affirmed the US Surgeon General.6 Oral diseases, in particular tooth decay and periodontal disease, affect not only health but esthetics and frequently result in tooth loss which can be a deterrent to the improvement of

Peer-editor Rubric for instructor assessment of Peer-editing assignments HLTH 698

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

4 points

Proficient

5 points

Use of Comment function

The student made inadequate use of the Comment function of the Review tab of Word.

The student underutilized the Comment function of Review tab of Word.

The student Peer-Editor appropriately used the Comment function to provide critiques and feedback.

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

4 points

Proficient

5 points

Use of the Track Changes feature

The student made inadequate use of the Track Changes function of the Review tab of Word.

The student underutilized the Track Changes function of Review tab of Word.

The student Peer-Editor appropriately used both the Track Changes function to provide corrections to grammar, spelling and general paper mechanics.

Criteria

Novice

0-3 points

Competent

4 points

Proficient

5 points

Use of peer-editor rubric

The rubric was either missing or not utilized adequately to assess the paper.

The rubric was attached but not fully utilized to provide a grade.

The appropriate Peer-Editor rubric was attached and used to assess the submitted paper.

Criteria

Novice

0-15 points

Competent

16-18 points

Proficient

19-20 points

Corrections of paper mechanics, grammar, and spelling

Much greater editorial effort is needed to find significant errors in the mechanics, grammar, and spelling. The corrections offered will not adequately improve the paper much toward the profession standard.

Many of the mechanical, grammar, and spelling errors in the submitted paper were identified and corrected to provide the author of the paper opportunities for improvement in writing skills.

A thorough edit of the paper found and corrected the majority of mechanical, grammar, and spelling errors in the submitted paper. In situations where recurring errors of the same type are made it is appropriate to fix the first few and provide a comment stating the presence of similar errors throughout the paper to alert the peer of the need for continuing revisions. The quality of the edits are sufficient to i

HLTH 698


Project Paper: Section Grading Rubric

Criteria

Levels of Achievement

Peer

Score

Instructor

Score

Novice

Competent

Proficient

Quality of Information

0–7

Information has little or no relation to assigned developmental stage of the Project Paper or is from non-professional sources.

8–9

Information clearly relates to the developmental stage of the Project Paper. The information provided lacks supporting details from the professional literature.

10

Information clearly relates to the practicum and clearly fits with the assigned developmental stage. It includes several supporting details from published professional literature.

Organization

0–7

The information appears to be disorganized and not formatted to according to current AMA style.

8–9

Information is organized, but paragraphs are not well-constructed of are not properly format to comply with current AMA style.

10

Information is very organized with well-constructed paragraphs and correctly formatted to fit current AMA style.

Content

0–7

The required elements of the Project Paper are not addressed satisfactorily.

8–9

The required elements of the Project Paper are generally, but not comprehensively, addressed; and all or most questions are answered.

10

The required elements of the Project Paper are fully addressed and/or all questions are answered.

Criteria

Levels of Achievement

Peer

Score

Instructor Score

Novice

Competent

Proficient

Sources

0–7

Sources are not accurately documented or formatted.

8-9

All sources (information and graphics) are accurately documented, but some are not in current AMA format.

10

The required number of sources for the stage is cited and is accur