Critically discuss a public health intervention you would recommend for addressing a public health problem in your country
Assignment title:
Critically discuss a public health intervention you would recommend for addressing a public health problem in your country (3500 words)
This assignment asks you to recommend a feasible, evidence- and theory-based intervention for a current public health problem in your own country.
You will decide on and analyse the target problem, and use peer reviewed evidence of best practice from elsewhere to address current barriers, gaps, and opportunities to improve your target group’s health, show how this works in theory using a logic model, and consider how feasible your intervention is
Two stages:
1. Formative assignment submit Week 7
Due date: Thursday 10th November 2022 at 1pm UK time.
Do as much as you can – the module will not have covered all aspects yet.
Feedback from lecturers by end of Week 9
2. Summative assignment submit Week 12
Due date: Thursday 15th December 2022 at 1pm UK time
Word count: 3500 including tables and figures, excluding References. Figures / tables
You must use a logic model
You may wish to use an image to map your determinants to the Rainbow model or other suitable framework, and to illustrate your behaviour change theory.
Remember to give tables and figures titles and numbers, to refer them by Table or Figure number in the text, and describe their key aspects within the report. You must not copy and paste copyrighted images from datasets or online sources.
Layout
Use the following six headers. The suggested word counts are simply a guide and reflect the relative importance of the sections.
- Introduction (suggested word count: 300)
- Critical analysis of the target problem (600 words)
- Current interventions (700 words)
- Current interventions in your country / area (350 words)
- Effective interventions from elsewhere (350 words)
- Recommended intervention (900 words)
- Critical Discussion (800 words)
- Conclusion (200 words)
1. Introduction
Critically discuss the current overall public health situation in your country:
- Identify your country
- Outline your country’s current overall public health problems
- Assess how your country is currently intervening at policy, primary, secondary, and tertiary levels to protect and improve public health in line with:
- Your country’s health goals
- global health goals
2. Identify a current and potentially solvable public health problem that you will focus on - this is your target problem
2. Critical analysis of the target problem
- Use peer reviewed evidence and reliable surveillance data to explain the trends in incidence and prevalence for the target problem in your country
- Identify the determinants of your target problem. Match them to a model of health determinants.
- Analyse how these determinants intersect to create lower and higher risks for particular groups of people. Use an appropriate model to explain how protective and risk factors combine to create increasing vulnerability in some groups.
- Select and justify your target group - specify their characteristics and explain why they are vulnerable to the target problem, based on their determinants. Be specific about the disparities they experience. Depending on the target group and problem, you decide to focus on, choose a whether you will focus on the whole country or a specific place or area within the country (target setting).
- You may wish to match the determinants to a behaviour change model and consider which determinants are modifiable (can be changed) and are worth targeting, and which cannot be changed (immutable).
3. Current Interventions
a.Current interventions in your country
Identify and critically discuss the interventions your country has already implemented to try to address the target problem:
Which Policies?
Which Primary, Secondary, and / or Tertiary level interventions?
Explain why these interventions are not effective for your target group e.g. which modifiable determinants do they fail to impact, what barriers to accessing the intervention do your target group experience, etc.
b. Effective interventions from elsewhere
- Identify and critically discuss at least one peer-reviewed public health intervention* that has been successfully used elsewhere to address your target problem. Explain:
- The evidence for how effective they were in preventing / reducing the target problem
- why they were effective
- how they might fit to your target group to address the determinants of the target proble
* Policies, primary, secondary, and / or tertiary interventions from other countries, or from other areas within your own country.
4. Recommended intervention
- Based on these effective interventions, recommend an evidence-based intervention to address your target problem for your target group (you can combine different aspects of more than one intervention, or replicate one. You can include more than one level.)
- Use a logic model to illustrate how your recommended intervention will improve the target problem for your target group according to a behaviour change theory such as the Behaviour Change Wheel. Clearly show which determinants are targeted by each aspect of the intervention (inputs), the outputs and the short, medium, and long term SMART outcomes that will prevent or reduce the target problem for your target group.
- Specify how the implementation and the short, medium, longer term outcomes will be evaluated using appropriate measures and / or surveillance data. Ensure this fits with the intervention level (policy, primary, secondary, tertiary) and outcomes.
- Be clear about the resources required for the intervention to work: settings, key professionals, roles, collaborations, public health service provision, policy level changes, etc.
5. Critical Discussion
- Critically assess the feasibility* of implementing your recommended intervention for your target group in your target setting to address your target public health problem. Consider:
- Acknowledge the complexity of your intervention if it targets multiple determinants, has multiple levels, and / or uses multiple techniques.
- How changing modifiable determinants of the problem will change your target group’s outcomes
- Its strengths
- Its limitations, including potential barriers to implementation; key determinants that can not be changed, etc.
- The potential ethical issues
Demonstrate your insight into the credibility of the existing evidence base and your ability to create a persuasive, balanced, and realistic argument to support your recommended intervention. Use peer reviewed sources to support each aspect of the discussion
*You may wish to use the BCW’s APPEASE feasibility criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, acceptability, side-effects/ safety, and equity considerations), or the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) feasibility criteria for complex interventions (optimal content and delivery, acceptability, adherence, likelihood of cost effectiveness, or capacity of providers to deliver the intervention).
6. Conclusion
Identify the key messages that your reader should learn from your assignment.
Aim to give reader an integrated and succinct summary of what you have learned about drawing on good public health practice from elsewhere in the world to make recommendations for evidence and theory-based complex interventions to address public health problems in your country (the title of the assignment*) and how you have achieved all the learning outcomes from the module and assignment.
*Critically discuss a public health intervention you would recommend for addressing a public health problem in your country
It is your responsibility to check your work against the attributes and mark scheme.
How this assignment contributes to your learning on your programme
The programme specification for your programme of study outlines the learning that you are expected to have gained during the course of your studies. Each module contributes certain skills to that learning. This table shows you the types of evidence that the marker will be looking for to assess whether you have developed relevant skills during this module
|
Attributes Assessed from the Programme Specification
|
Evidence in the CMNR7007 assignment
|
|
Academic literacy
|
|
|
Research literacy
|
|
|
Critical self-awareness
|
|
|
Digital and information literacy
|
|
|
Active citizenship
|
|
Mark Scheme
This matrix shows how the marks are calculated. We have split the marks into the different sections of the assignment to help you check that you have given the right evidence in each part of your work. Your marker will assess your work within one of the cells of this table. They will then award you a proportion of the marks for each criterion (the rows of the matrix). For example, a piece of work which is mainly described by the pass criteria in the background, with some elements from the merit criteria, will score a mark which is at the higher end of the pass criteria. The marker may award 58% of the 15 marks, which represents a high pass. This will result in a mark of 9 for the background section. Whole and half (0.5) marks can be awarded and total scores ending in a ‘.5’ will be rounded up to the nearest whole number for the final grade.
|
Assignment Sections |
Distinction (70-100%) |
Merit (60-69%) |
Pass (50-59%) |
Bare Fail (40-49%) |
Fail (0-39%) |
|
Introduction and critical review of the target problem (out of 25 marks) |
Concisely outlines current public health problems and goals. Target problem is justified, clearly defined, and critically analysed. Target group and setting are clearly justified and defined. Relevant models/theories are accurately applied.
Appropriate use of critically reviewed, high-quality peer-reviewed research and reliable surveillance data. All referencing is accurate: correct, complete, and in Harvard style. |
Clearly outlines current public health problems and goals. Target problem is clearly defined and analysed. Target group and setting are clearly defined. Relevant models/theories are correctly applied.
Satisfactory use of critically reviewed, high-quality peer-reviewed research and reliable surveillance data; more citations needed / some errors in formatting in the text / list. |
Adequately outlines current public health problems and goals. Target problem is adequately defined and analysed. Target group and setting are defined. Relevant models/theories are applied.
Adequate use of critically reviewed, high-quality peer-reviewed research and reliable surveillance data, but some citations are low quality, more may be needed, and / or referencing has multiple errors in the text / list. |
Outlines the current public health problems and goals but is not accurate. Unclear target problem, group and / or setting. Relevant models/theories are not correctly applied.
Inadequate use of peer-reviewed research and surveillance data, and / or referencing has multiple errors in the text / list. |
Does not outline the current public health problems and goals. Does not define the target problem, group, and / or setting. Does not apply relevant models/theories.
Poor referencing: few relevant sources, in text and list referencing is incomplete / not Harvard style |
|
Current Interventions (out of 20 marks) |
Current interventions in the country are succinctly and critically discussed using high-quality peer-reviewed evidence and surveillance data. Barriers, gaps, and opportunities are clearly identified. Effective interventions from elsewhere that might fit the target group are critically discussed.
Relevant theories are accurately applied. Accurate referencing. |
Current interventions in the country are critically discussed using high-quality peer-reviewed and surveillance data. Barriers, gaps, and opportunities are identified. Effective interventions from elsewhere that might fit the target group are clearly discussed.
Satisfactory application of relevant theories. Satisfactory referencing. |
Current interventions in the country are adequately discussed using peer-reviewed and surveillance data. Adequate identification of barriers, gaps, and opportunities. Effective interventions from elsewhere that might fit the target group are adequately discussed.
Adequate application of relevant theories. One or more aspects missing, unclear, or incorrect. Adequate referencing. |
Current interventions in the country are inadequately discussed. Limited attempt to identify barriers, gaps, and opportunities. Effective interventions from elsewhere that might fit the target group are inadequately discussed.
Incorrect application of relevant theories. Some aspects are missing, unclear, or incorrect. Inadequate referencing. |
Current and effective interventions are missing or poorly discussed. Incorrect / missing use of relevant theories. All / most aspects are missing, unclear, or incorrect. Poor referencing. |
|
Recommended Intervention (out of 25 marks) |
The intervention accurately reflects good practice: based on effective intervention(s) from elsewhere, precise fit to all / some of the determinants of the problem, and accurately mapped to a clearly specified and appropriate behaviour change theory in the logic model. The evaluation methods are appropriate and clearly defined. Each section is described in sufficient detail to allow replication of the intervention. Accurate referencing. |
The intervention is a satisfactory reflection of good practice: based on effective intervention(s) from elsewhere, satisfactor y fit to most of the determinants of the problem, and clearly mapped to an appropriate behaviour change theory in the logic model. The evaluation methods are correctly identified. Nearly all sections are described in sufficient detail to allow replication. Satisfactory referencing. |
The intervention is an adequate reflection of good practice: based on effective intervention(s) from elsewhere, an adequate fit to some of the determinants of the problem, and is mapped to an appropriate behaviour change theory in the logic model. The evaluation methods are adequately identified. One or more aspects are missing, unclear, or incorrect. Adequate referencing. |
The intervention does not reflect good practice: it is not adequately based on effective intervention(s) from elsewhere / it is not an adequate fit to the determinants of the problem. An attempt has been made to map it to behaviour change theory and / or a logic model. The evaluation assessment methods are not adequately explained. Some aspects are missing, unclear, or incorrect. Inadequate referencing. |
The intervention is not relevant, incomplete, or missing. The theory is missing or poorly chosen. The logic model is missing or substantially incorrect. The evaluation methods are irrelevant, incomplete, or missing. The intervention could not be replicated. All / most aspects are missing, unclear, or incorrect. Poor referencing. |
|
Critical discussion (out of 25 marks) |
The feasibility of the recommended intervention is critically discussed using appropriate peer- |
The feasibility of the recommended intervention is critically discussed using appropriate |
The feasibility of the recommended intervention is adequately discussed using appropriate |
The feasibility of the recommended intervention is not adequately discussed in comparison to |
The feasibility of the recommended intervention is not adequately |
|
|
reviewed evidence and relevant guidelines and theories. Accurate referencing. |
peer-reviewed evidence and relevant guidelines and theories. Satisfactory referencing. |
peer reviewed evidence and relevant theories and / or guidelines. Adequate referencing |
appropriate peer- reviewed evidence and relevant theories / guidelines. Inadequate referencing. |
discussed. Poor referencing. |
|
Conclusion and Referencing
(out of 5 marks) |
The conclusion concisely integrates the assignment and clearly reflects on the acquired learning. Accurate referencing. |
The conclusion integrates the assignment well and reflects on the acquired learning. Satisfactory referencing. |
The conclusion adequately integrates the assignment and reflects on the acquired learning. Adequate referencing |
The conclusion does not adequately integrate the assignment or reflect on the acquired learning. Inadequate referencing. |
The conclusion is missing or fails to reflect the assignment and the learning. Poor referencing. |
