Hormone Replacement Therapy Discussion

Posted: January 20th, 2023

Discussion questions
For this assignment, you will review the latest evidence based guidelines as they pertain to the case below. At least 5 references not older than 5 years old. APA format
Ms. Martin is a 55-year-old woman who has been on HRT for 4 years. HRT was prescribed because Ms. Martin was experiencing vasomotor symptoms associated with menopause. Her last mammogram was 2 years ago and last pap was 5 years ago. Ms. Martin made an appointment with her nurse practitioner to discuss discontinuing HRT after hearing and reading news reports about the dangers associated with the medication. Except for the HRT, Ms. Martin is taking no medication other than a daily vitamin. She had a tubal ligation after the birth of her third child but has had no other surgeries or history of any medical conditions. Her father had cardiovascular disease and died of a myocardial infarction at 77 years of age. Her mother was diagnosed with breast cancer at 81 years of age. Ms. Martin does not smoke and rarely drinks alcohol. She likes to work in her garden but is not involved in a formal exercise program. She has gained about 10 pounds since menopause.
What evidence-based information will you provide to Ms. Martin regarding her concerns of HRT?
Discuss the advantages and risks associated with HRT.
What are your recommendations for Ms. Martin?
Will you recommend continuing or discontinuing HRT and why?
What alternative treatments for menopausal symptoms will you discuss with Ms. Martin?
Discuss the recommended screening tests, using the latest evidence based guidelines that Ms. Martin should have.
What health promotion, maintenance, and prevention education would be important to provide to Ms. Martin?
Rubric for Research Paper

 
 
Outstanding – 20pts
Good  – 15pts
Fair – 10pts
Unacceptable – 5pts

 
Outline
 
Excellent section headings, indicative of a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics and subtopics clearly indicated.
Professional looking.
Good section headings, indicative to a steady “flow” to the overall paper. Topics clearly indicated, could use more subtopics.
 
Fair section headings, indicative that the paper has “flow”. Topics and subtopics not clearly indicated. Unclear organization of thoughts.
 
Disorganized appearance.
Relevant topics missing or incorrect, paper has no indicative “flow”.
Not professional.

Abstract
 
Highly informative, complete and easy to understand. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Abstract makes you want to read the paper.
Informative, complete and understandable. Appropriate vocabulary is used.
Somewhat informative and understandable.
 
Not very informative or understandable.
 

Structure
 
Thesis is clear, easy to find, and appropriate to the assignment.
Thesis is supported by the rest of the paper.
Paper contains a “roadmap” for the reader.
There is a logical “flow” to the topics/arguments. Conclusion follows clearly from the arguments presented.
Thesis is clear and appropriate.   Thesis fairly well supported.
Paper is fairly well organized.
Conclusion follows from the rest of the paper.
Thesis is fairly clear.
Inconsistent support for thesis. Paper weakly organized. Conclusion is acceptable.
Thesis unclear and/or inappropriate.
Thesis not supported.
Paper is not organized. Conclusion doesn’t follow from the rest of the paper.

Research
 
The evidence comes from a wide variety of valid sources. The bibliography is complete and reflects appropriate sources.
 
The evidence comes from the minimum valid sources. The bibliography is complete.
Valid sources are inconsistently used.  The bibliography contains minor formatting errors.
 
Multiple sources cited  incorrectly.
Bibliography missing.
 

Critical
Thinki
 
ng
Arguments are pertinent to the topic.
Arguments are logical, supported with evidence. The key arguments have been made – no major points have been left out.
Arguments are
pertinent to the topic.   Arguments are fairly logical and reasonably supported.
Most key arguments have been made.
Arguments are not consistently pertinent, logical, or supported. Few key arguments have been made.
Arguments not pertinent. Arguments rarely, if at
all, logical and supported.
Almost no key arguments have been made.