Recent Question/Assignment

Assignment Brief
Submission Deadline Marks and Feedback
Before 10am on:
28/04/2023 20 working days after deadline (L4, 5 and 7)
15 working days after deadline (L6)
10 working days after deadline (block delivery)
26/05/2023
Key assignment details
Unit title & code Principles, Policies and Issues PUB017-6
Assignment number and title Assignment Briefing Paper: write a briefing paper for decision makers outlining the background to your selected public health issue, present the key summary points of your evaluation of existing policies and programmes designed to improve health outcomes and offer solutions (new initiative(s) and strategy (ies) )and recommendations for improvement.
Assignment type Report
Weighting of assignment 100%
Size or length of assessment 3000 words
Unit learning outcomes 1. Demonstrate the following knowledge and understanding:
• A critical understanding of the role of contemporary public health policies and programmes for improving health outcomes.
2. Demonstrate the following skills and abilities:
• A critical evaluation of the gaps in contemporary public health policies and programmes for improving health outcomes and propose solutions (new initiative(s) and strategy (ies) and recommendations for improvement.
What am I required to do in this assignment?
Write a 3000 word briefing paper for decision makers outlining the background to your selected public health issue, present the key summary points of your evaluation of existing policies and programmes designed to improve health outcomes and offer solutions (new strategy (ies) and initiative(s) and recommendations for improvement.
ABT2020_V1
What do I need to do to pass? (Threshold Expectations from UIF)
• Outline who the decision makers are? In other words who is your intended audience for the briefing paper e.g.
journalists, policy makers, diplomats, the general educated public.
• Cover background details of your selected public health issue.
• Using the key summary points of your critical evaluation (strengths and weaknesses) of current policies and programmes designed to improve health outcomes related to your public health issue.
• Present a detailed discussion of your proposed new initiative(s) needed to improve health outcomes in this area.
• Present a detailed discussion of your proposed new a strategy(ies) associated with the new initiative showing how these changes will improve health outcomes.
• Outline estimated costs for the new initiative/s and associated strategy(ies) and the impact for example on the service delivery.
How do I produce high quality work that merits a good grade?
We will be completing this section together in week 1 and then during other weeks/assignment support sessions.
How does this assignment relate to what we are doing in scheduled sessions?
Each week the principles, policies and issues lectures will discuss the key principles of public health and the public health policies that shape the way in which public health issues might be addressed.
In this assignment you will present a detailed critical discussion of a selected public health issue identifying the relevant policies and programmes implemented to address the public health issue selected and evaluate the impact of these policies and programmes on health outcomes. Using the existing evidence base to draw on examples of good practice you will propose and discuss ways of enhancing the effectiveness of the policies and programmes related to the selected public health issue by suggesting a new initiative(s) and associated strategy (ies) and costs needed to improve health outcomes in this area.
How will my assignment be marked?
Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page.
You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit.
How will my assignment be marked?
70%+ (Ist Class) 60-69% (2:1) 50-59% (2:2) 40-49% (3rd
Class)
Threshold
Standard 35-39% (Fail) 0-34% (Fail)
1 Written expression and structure
Excellent or outstanding presentation of publication standard.
Written expression is concise, accurate and articulate.
Excellent, coherent in-depth discussion.
Briefing paper tightly focuses on and successfully addresses the assignment question.
Minor spelling and grammatical errors
Presentation of briefing paper, including figures and tables is very good.
Briefing paper has a clear structure and information is well organised.
Very good, detailed and coherent discussion.
Demonstrates very good understanding and use key terminology.
Focuses on addressing assignment question and avoids inclusion of irrelevant information.
Minimal spelling and grammatical errors
Good, well presented briefing paper but figures and/or tables lack informative titles, or are poorly presented.
Briefing paper has a good, well organised structure and points are explained coherently
Good, correct use of key terminology, but explanations are relatively basic.
Attempts to address the assignment question well, but briefing paper includes some irrelevant information.
Some spelling and grammatical errors.
Overall presentation of the briefing paper is satisfactory, but lacks informative figures and/or tables.
Most points are explained coherently, but structure and organisation of the briefing paper is very weak.
Satisfactory use of key terminology, but explanations are vague and over simplistic.
The assignment question is addressed superficially.
Briefing paper includes interesting but irrelevant details throughout.
Many spelling and grammatical errors throughout briefing paper.
Some of the elements of the briefing paper are present but overall poorly presented.
Written expression contains errors points are not clear.
Key terminology used but with errors or inaccuracies.
Spelling and grammatical errors throughout the briefing paper limit understanding of the content.
The assignment question is only addressed in part and contains irrelevant information or detail throughout. Does not include the elements required for the briefing paper and is poorly presented.
Written expression contains errors and is confusing.
Key terminology not used.
Description of the issue and points unclear.

70%+ (Ist Class) 60-69% (2:1) 50-59% (2:2) 40-49% (3rd
Class)
Threshold
Standard 35-39% (Fail) 0-34% (Fail)
2 Use of literature and referencing
An excellent, comprehensive range of current primary literature is used effectively to support discussion.
References and citations are consistently formatted in the UoB Harvard style. Good range of evidence cited including current peer-reviewed primary literature.
Most references and citations are formatted in the UoB Harvard style
but some inaccuracies remain. Good range of evidence cited including current peer-reviewed primary literature.
Most references and citations are formatted in the UoB Harvard style
but some inaccuracies remain. Has identified essential literature but minimal range of literature is cited.
References and citations are included but UoB Harvard style is not used consistently.
Literature used is inadequate and not specific enough to the issue.
Literature is not adequately cited and referenced in UoB Harvard style. Literature used is minimal or absent.
Literature used is not relevant to the issue.
Literature is not adequately cited and reference in UoB Harvard style.
3 Application of knowledge
Excellent competent use of public health outcome data to describe the impact of the selected issue.
Insightful discussion of impact on public health highlighting broad range ways in which the issue effects the population. Very good, competent use of public health outcome data to describe the impact of the selected issue.
In addition to simply describing the selected public health issue the action plan discusses broader ways in which the issue effects the population... Good use of use of public health outcome data to describe the impact of the selected issue.
In addition to simply describing the selected public health issue the action plan identifies broader ways in which the issue effects the population, but lacks a tight focus on health. Satisfactory use of public health outcome data to describe the impact of the selected issue on health outcomes.
Discussion of the selected public health issue is superficial.
Evaluation of existing policies
and programmes in the selected area lacks depth.
.
Limited use of outcome data to describe the impact of the selected issue on health outcomes.
Discussion of the selected public health issues is minimal, inconsistent or inaccurate.
Minimal evaluation of existing policies and programmes. No use of outcome data to describe the impact of the selected issue on health outcomes.
Discussion of the selected public health issue is absent or unintelligible.
No evaluation of existing policies.
4 Critical reflection on current public health policies programmes In-depth insightful discussion demonstrates excellent understanding of specific strengths and weakness of current public health policies and programmes Discussion demonstrates very good understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of current public
health policies and programmes in the selected area. Describes strengths and weaknesses of public health of current public health policies and programmes in the selected area. Limited description of strengths and weaknesses of current public health policies and programmes in the selected area. Minimal description and discussion of existing policies or absent.
Key policies not identified.
Relevant policies not identified.
No description and discussion of relevant policy.

70%+ (Ist Class) 60-69% (2:1) 50-59% (2:2) 40-49% (3rd
Class)
Threshold
Standard 35-39% (Fail) 0-34% (Fail)
in the selected area.
5
Critical analysis, synthesis and proposed new
initiative/s,
strategy/ies and recommendations for improvement. Presents
excellent, indepth evidencebased critical evaluation of the impact on public health.
Excellent evidence based analysis for proposed new
initiative(s), associated strategy (ies). The action plan ends
with insightful
recommendations for improvement. Very good critical analysis of impact on public health based on synthesis of information from multiple sources of good quality information.
Very good evidence based analysis for
proposed new
initiative(s), associated strategy (ies) and recommendations for improvement.
Attempts to synthesise information from multiple sources.
Presents good evidence based analysis for
proposed new
initiative(s), associated strategy (ies) and recommendations for improvement.
Some attempt to analyse the impact on public health but action plan lacks critical depth.
Weak proposed
new initiative(s), associated strategy (ies) and recommendations for improvement.
Minimal attempt to analyse the impact on public health.
New initiative(s) and recommendations for improvement not described or absent. No attempt to analyse the impact on public health.
New initiative(s) and recommendations for improvement absent.