Please review Chapter 3, Case 1: Prevention of Neural Tube Defects (p.129-131) a

    Please review Chapter 3, Case 1: Prevention of Neural Tube Defects (p.129-131) and upload a document addressing the following (10 points per question = 50 points total):
    NOTE: Please number your responses and copy/paste the EXACT questions below into your document – THANK YOU! 🙂
    1) What are neural tube defects (NTDs)? Describe the prevalence and etiology of NTDs. Who is at higher risk of having a child with a NTD?
    2) Describe the association between folate levels and prevention of NTDs in the developing fetus.
    3) Review the Case 1 patient’s 24 hour dietary recall (p.130-131). What dietary modifications might you suggest to improve her folate intake?
    4) Describe the structural difference between folate (naturally occurring in foods) versus folic acid (found in supplements and fortified foods). Are both forms equally bioavailable? Why or why not?
    5) What are the current guidelines on folic acid for the prevention of NTDs? Specifically, please describe the guidelines for both (A) all women planning pregnancy and (B) women who have had a previous NTD-affected pregnancy.
    **Please note that your assignment will be checked for originality. Your responses should represent YOUR OWN ORIGINAL WORK in your OWN ORIGINAL WORDS. The use of direct quotes is NOT permitted on this assignment. Please be sure to adequately paraphrase any information you are using from the textbook and online/other sources. Failure to do so will result in the deduction of points and can result in a grade of “0” (no credit) for the assignment.NTR 510 Case Study Grading Rubric
    NTR 510 Case Study Grading Rubric
    CriteriaRatingsPts
    This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ1
    10 to >8.0 ptsMeets Expectations
    Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
    8 to >5.0 ptsNearly Meets Expectations
    Response mostly addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
    5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet Expectations
    Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
    10 pts
    This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ2
    10 to >8.0 ptsMeets Expectations
    Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
    8 to >5.0 ptsNearly Meets Expectations
    Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
    5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet Expectations
    Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
    10 pts
    This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ3
    10 to >8.0 ptsMeets Expectations
    Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
    8 to >5.0 ptsNearly Meets Expectations
    Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
    5 to >0 ptsLow to No Marks
    Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
    10 pts
    This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ4
    10 to >8.0 ptsMeets Expectations
    Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
    8 to >5.0 ptsNearly Meets Expectations
    Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
    5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet Expectations
    Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
    10 pts
    This criterion is linked to a Learning OutcomeQ5
    10 to >8.0 ptsMeets Expectations
    Response fully addresses the question utilizing insightful & sophisticated content descriptions. The topic is explored in depth with relevant and specific examples. Response contained no more than two errors in writing mechanics.
    8 to >5.0 ptsNearly Meets Expectations
    Responses addresses the question but lacks in-depth insight. Examples may lack connection and/or relevancy to the topic. The writing contained 3-4 errors in writing mechanics.
    5 to >0 ptsDoes Not Meet Expectations
    Response might be vague, somewhat basic, or off-topic. The writing contained more than 4 errors in writing mechanics.
    10 pts
    Total Points: 50

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *