| Course | NU 760 Scholarship for Nursing Practice |
|---|---|
| Unit | Unit 8 |
| Paper type | Response to peer review |
| Length | About 500 words, 4 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Herzing University |
| Program | MSN |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for NU 760 Unit 8
Response to Peer Review: Revised Paper on Nurse-Initiated Tobacco Treatment for Hospitalized Smokers
Student Name
Department of Nursing, Herzing University
NU 760: Scholarship for Nursing Practice
Instructor Name
April 15, 2026
Response to Peer Review: Revised Paper on Nurse-Initiated Tobacco Treatment for Hospitalized Smokers
Summary of the Revision
My paper proposes that nurses on medical units identify every hospitalized adult who smokes, offer nicotine replacement during the stay, provide brief counseling, and refer each patient at discharge to a quitline and to a follow-up call within one week. Two classmates and the course faculty reviewed the first draft. Their comments produced three structural changes: a new section on post-discharge support, which the evidence shows is where the effect lies; a reorganized evidence section built around intensity of intervention rather than individual studies; and a rewritten measurement plan with abstinence verified at six months rather than a knowledge survey. One comment is declined, with the reason stated below. Each comment is mapped to the change it produced so that the revision can be checked without comparing two drafts.
Comments and Changes, Mapped
The table lists each comment, the change made, and where it now appears in the revised paper.
| No. | Reviewer comment | Response | Change and location |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Faculty: The evidence section lists studies one by one and never says what intensity of intervention works. | Accepted; structural change. | Evidence section rewritten around the finding that counseling starting in hospital and continuing at least one month after discharge increases quit rates, while in-hospital counseling alone does not (Rigotti et al., 2012). Section 3, new first paragraph. |
| 2 | Faculty: Your plan ends at discharge, but your own sources say the effect depends on what happens after. | Accepted; structural change. | New section 5, Post-Discharge Support: quitline referral with a warm transfer, a nurse call at one week, and a supply of nicotine replacement at discharge, modeled on a trial in which sustained post-discharge support increased six-month abstinence (Rigotti et al., 2014). |
| 3 | Classmate A: The outcome measure is a patient knowledge survey, which does not measure quitting. | Accepted. | Measurement plan rewritten: primary outcome is self-reported seven-day abstinence at six months, confirmed where possible; knowledge survey removed. Section 6. |
| 4 | Classmate A: Nicotine replacement dosing is vague. | Accepted. | Dosing table added by cigarettes per day, with patch and short-acting forms. Appendix A. |
| 5 | Classmate B: The paper should recommend varenicline for all patients instead of nicotine replacement, because it is more effective. | Declined, with reason. | No change to the core recommendation; a paragraph added in section 4 explaining the choice (see below). |
| 6 | Classmate B: The introduction repeats the statistics from the problem statement. | Accepted. | Introduction cut from 410 to 220 words; statistics appear once. |
| 7 | Faculty: Terminology shifts between tobacco treatment, smoking cessation, and quitting support. | Accepted. | Single term, tobacco treatment, used throughout; smoking cessation used only for outcomes. |
The Declined Comment and Why
Classmate B recommended varenicline for all patients because it is more effective than nicotine replacement for many smokers. That is a fair point about effectiveness, and I have added it to the discussion. I declined to change the recommendation for three reasons. First, the proposal is for a nurse-initiated protocol, and nicotine replacement can be started under a nursing protocol with standing orders, while varenicline requires a prescriber's decision about each patient. Second, the protocol's first goal is to treat nicotine withdrawal during the hospital stay, when nicotine replacement acts immediately and varenicline, which is usually started one to two weeks before a quit date, does not. Third, the revised post-discharge section now prompts the discharging prescriber to consider varenicline for patients who want it, so the option is not lost. The paper now says this explicitly, rather than leaving the choice unexplained.
Changes That Go Beyond the Comments
Revising the evidence section exposed a weakness that no reviewer mentioned: my cost estimate assumed every patient would use nicotine replacement for the full stay, which overstated the cost. I recalculated it using the unit's average length of stay and an assumed 60% uptake, and the revised figure appears in section 5. I also added the national clinical guideline on treating tobacco use as the basis for the counseling steps, since the first draft cited only trials (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2008). The guideline's structure, asking every patient about tobacco use, advising, assessing readiness, assisting, and arranging follow-up, now organizes the protocol steps in section 4, which makes the nursing workflow easier to follow.
What Changed in the Argument
The first draft argued that nurses should counsel smokers in hospital. The revised paper argues that nurses should start tobacco treatment in hospital and make sure it continues after discharge, because the evidence shows that the continuation is what makes the difference. That is a different argument, and it is the main result of the review.
References
Rigotti, N. A., Clair, C., Munafo, M. R., & Stead, L. F. (2012). Interventions for smoking cessation in hospitalised patients. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, (5), Article CD001837. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001837.pub3
Rigotti, N. A., Regan, S., Levy, D. E., Japuntich, S., Chang, Y., Park, E. R., Viana, J. C., Kelley, J. H. K., Reyen, M., & Singer, D. E. (2014). Sustained care intervention and postdischarge smoking cessation among hospitalized adults: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA, 312(7), 719-728. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.9237
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2008). Treating tobacco use and dependence: 2008 update [Clinical practice guideline]. Public Health Service.
NU 760 Unit 8 instructions, in plain terms
For Unit 8 you respond to peer feedback on your scholarly paper and explain your revisions. Expect to summarize the revision, list each comment received and how you addressed it, explain any comments you declined and why, and note any further changes you made. Many versions use a table that maps comments to changes and page locations. Check whether your section wants the revised paper submitted alongside the response. A professional tone matters, especially when declining a suggestion. You do not have to accept every comment, but you do need to answer each one. Structural feedback, such as reorganizing the argument, deserves as much attention as line edits. Cite sources where a change relies on new evidence.
How the NU 760 Unit 8 example is put together
The response opens with a short summary of what the paper argues and how the revision changed it. The table is the core: each row gives the reviewer, the comment, the change and its location, so the grader can verify every claim. The declined comment gets its own section, which acknowledges what the reviewer got right before explaining the reason with evidence. A section on changes beyond the comments shows the writer kept thinking after the feedback, catching a cost assumption no reviewer flagged. The last section explains how the argument shifted, which is the most important outcome of revision. The tone throughout is professional and specific, and every change can be traced to a comment or to the writer's own review of the evidence.
Reading the NU 760 Unit 8 rubric
The Herzing rubric for a peer review response generally scores responsiveness to feedback, the quality of revisions, justification of declined suggestions, professional communication, and APA 7. Responsiveness points require every comment to be acknowledged and addressed. The revision quality criterion rewards substantive changes, especially to structure and argument, over cosmetic edits. Justification points go to declined comments explained with reasons and evidence. Professional communication covers respectful tone and clear organization, often in a table. Some rubrics include a criterion for self-reflection on the writing process. The APA criterion covers both the response and any new sources, such as the 2008 Public Health Service clinical practice guideline cited here for treatment choices.
NU 760 Unit 8 help before you submit
Responses to peer review in Unit 8 usually lose marks by listing comments and writing done next to each without saying what changed or where. Another common problem is ignoring a comment the writer disagreed with, instead of explaining the decision. Defensive or dismissive language toward a classmate costs professional communication points. Students often address only grammar comments and skip structural ones. Changes that are claimed but not visible in the revised paper are easy for graders to catch. Leaving out a summary of how the argument changed misses the point of revision. Finally, when a change relies on new evidence, cite it, because a revision that introduces unsupported claims creates new problems the reviewer did not ask for.
Get a NU 760 Unit 8 example written to your instructions
Send the Unit 8 instructions and the rubric from your NU 760 classroom, plus your paper and the peer feedback it received. We write a custom example that maps each comment to its change, defends one refusal and shows the revision in full, returned in 24 to 48 hours. The first custom sample is free.
More NU 760 papers and MSN samples
- NU 760 Unit 1: Practice problem statement
- NU 760 Unit 2: Search strategy
- NU 760 Unit 3: Annotated bibliography
- NU 760 Unit 4: Evidence review
- NU 760 Unit 5: Evidence translation plan
- NU 760 Unit 6: Dissemination plan
- NU 760 Unit 7: Scholarly paper
- NU 651 Unit 8: Organizational change dossier
- NU 715 Unit 8: Telehealth program plan
- NSG 520 Unit 8: Foundational sciences portfolio
- NSG 521 Unit 8: Assessment skills portfolio
NU 760 Unit 8 questions, answered
Do I have to accept every comment?
No, and accepting all of them usually costs you. Peer comments can rest on a misreading, and a writer who explains why the original was right, in terms that engage the substance rather than defending the wording, demonstrates the judgment this unit is assessing. Decline something once, and defend it properly rather than dismissively.
What counts as answering structural feedback?
Changing the structure. If a reviewer says the argument is missing, the revision needs an argument, not a better topic sentence in the paragraph where the argument should have been. Sentence-level edits in response to paragraph-level problems are the commonest reason a revision reads as cosmetic to the person who gave the feedback.
How do I handle feedback I think is simply wrong?
Answer it on its merits and stay professional. Say what the reviewer appears to have understood, why the original text says something different, and whether you have clarified the passage to prevent the same reading. That response is more useful than either accepting a change you disagree with or dismissing the comment without engaging it.
Where can I find a free NU 760 Unit 8 sample paper?
This page shows the complete NU 760 Unit 8 tobacco treatment peer review response without charge, the comment table and the declined suggestion included. A custom response can be written to your own reviewers' comments and revised paper.
Do I have to accept every peer review comment on my nursing paper?
No, but you must answer each one. In this sample the writer declines a suggestion to use varenicline for all patients, agrees that it is often more effective, and explains with evidence why nicotine replacement stays the starting point on a medical unit.