ASSESSMENT TASK 3 MARKING RUBRIC Economic evaluation of health programs

ASSESSMENT TASK 3 MARKING RUBRIC Economic evaluation of health programs

Criteria Fail (<50%)

Below Expectations Pass (50-59%)

Meets Expectations Credit (60-69%)

Good Distinction (70-79%)

Very Good High Distinction (80-

100%) Outstanding

Appropriate economic evaluation of health of this project, and justification (10 marks) No or very limited discussion on the appropriateness of the economic evaluation of health of this project, no / cursory discussion on the justification 0 4.9 marks Limited/brief/very basic discussion on the appropriateness of the economic evaluation of health of this project, cursory discussion on the justification

5- 5.9 marks Mostly accurate discussion on the appropriateness of the economic evaluation of health of this project, good discussion on the justification with reasonable argument provided

6 6.9 marks

accurate discussion on the on the appropriateness of the economic evaluation of health of this project, good discussion on the justification with very good argument provided

7 7.9 marks

Clear, accurate,

comprehensive discussion the on the appropriateness of the economic evaluation of health of this project, excellent discussion on the justification with mastery level argument provided

8 10. 0 marks

Choose two diseases

You need to make your argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the other(10 marks) Evidence of unsatisfactory argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the other0 4.9 marks Evidence of limited / brief understanding argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the other5- 5.9 marks Evidence of mostly correct argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the other6 6.9 marks

Evidence of critical understanding and correct argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the other7 7.9 marks

Evidence of high level of critical understanding and academic arguments correct argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the other8 10. 0 marks

DALY factor

Population size and

Life expectancy of that population of interest

(10 marks) No / inaccurate identification of DALY factor

Population size and

Life expectancy of that population of interest

0 4.9 marks One to two factors identified in relation to the DALY factor

Population size and

Life expectancy of that population of interest

5- 5.9 marks All three i.e. DALY factor

Population size and

Life expectancy of that population of interest have been identified and discussedThere are few inconsistencies in the understanding of these issues

6 6.9 marks

All three i.e. DALY factor

Population size and

Life expectancy of that population of interest have been identified and discussed

with very good demonstration of the understanding of these factors

7 7.9 marks

All three i.e. DALY factor

Population size and

Life expectancy of that population of interest have been identified and discussedwith mastery demonstration of the understanding of these factors

8 10. 0 marks

Calculate DALY of the two conditions and make your argument on how many DALYs can be saved(10 marks) No / inaccurate calculation of DALY factor of the two conditions0 4.9 marks

Accurate calculation of DALY factor of the two conditions, but the argument on how many DALYs can be saved was inaccurate5- 5.9 marks

Accurate calculation of DALY factor of the two conditions, the argument on how many DALYs can be saved was accurate, but some inconsistencies found6 6.9 marks

Accurate calculation of DALY factor of the two conditions, the argument on how many DALYs can be saved was accurate, and consistent7 7.9 marks

Accurate calculation of DALY factor of the two conditions, the argument on how many DALYs can be saved was excellent at mastery level

8 10.0 marks

Use of literature

Information is informedby scholarly peer reviewed

articles,

references are skilfully placed /integrated into the narrative, demonstratescritical appraisal of

sources and conforms to

APA 7th ed. referencing

style. (5 marks) No evidence of literature

being consulted, OR heavy use of irrelevant,

old (>10 years) or <4

relevant refs. No attempt to use refs to informstatements made. No critical appraisal evident,

Does not adhere to APA 7th ed. referencing style.

Major errors in in-text citations and/or reference

formatting.

0 2.4 markLimited selection of

appropriate refs., 4-5 relevant refs., some refs.

>10 years old. Poor

placement/limitedintegration of refs. Limited critical appraisal, poor

paraphrasing or have too much emphasis on directquotations.

Attempts APA

7th ed. referencing style/ frequent errors in in-text

citations and/or reference

list.

2.5- 2.9 marks

Appropriate selection of

refs., 6-7 relevant refs.

Mainly peer-reviewed

articles and government

websites that are relevant to the topic. 10

years.

Refs. are mostlywell placed /integrated.

Demonstrates someattempt at criticalappraisal of sources.

Generally, adheres to

APA 7th ed. referencing

style but with several

errors in in-text citations

and/or reference list

3.0 3.4 marks

Appropriate selection of

refs., 8-9 relevant reference (approx. 1 academic ref.

for every 100-150 words).

Mainly peer-reviewed

articles and government

websites that are relevant

to the topic. 10 years.

Refs. are mostly well placed/ integrated. Critical

appraisal, good para phrasing is evident. Mostly adheres to APA 7th ed. referencing style with only a few minor errors in in-text citations and/or reference list3.5 3.9 marks Evidence of wide reading.

Appropriate selection of

10+ refs. (approx. 1

academic ref. for every

100-150 words). Mainly

peer-reviewed articles and government websites that are highly relevant to the topic. Most refs were recent, have been usedcritically to inform

ideas, and are placedeffectively to allow the

reader to learn more.

Adheres to APA 7th ed.

referencing style with no

errors in in-text citations

or reference list.

4.0 5.0 marks

Self-reflection

250 - 300 words / member)

Argument on choosing two chronic conditions and explanation on DALYAdherence to the word limits

Writing style, grammar, spelling & expression are clear and reflective(10 marks) Unsatisfactory delivery of the reflective piece. Very poor / cursory adherence to the criterion

0 4.9 marks

Limited attempt

of the reflective piece, discrepancies in the word count, Lessons learnt inadequately stated Many errors/gaps identified

5- 5.9 marks

Satisfactory attempt

of the reflective piece, discrepancies in the word count, Lessons learnt inadequately stated Many errors/gaps identified

6 6.9 marks

Clear, and focused reflective piece, adherence to the word count, Lessons learnt clearly stated Occasional minor errors/gaps identified7 7.9 marks

Comprehensive, focused and well written reflective piece, adherence to the word count, Lessons learnt clearly stated. No gaps or errors identified8 10.0 marks

Presentation of the PPT

The introduction:

Title slide with

Assessment name, student names and IDs

Provides a brief background to topic

Engages the reader, creates interest and gives the reader clear direction of the critical analysis.

(5 marks) Does not meet this criterion0 2.4 markMeets most elements of the criterion but has

more than one significant

knowledge

error/gaps

2.5- 2.9 marks

Most elements of this criterion met competently but has many minor knowledge errors /gaps or one significant gap or error

3.0 3.4 marks

All elements of this criterion met with a strong grasp of the subject matter. Several minor knowledge errors /gap

3.5 3.9 marks All elements of this criterion met with a very high standard.

Occasional minor errors/gaps

4.0 5.0 marks

Total / 60 marks (30% of the total)

Assessment Task 3 Instructions

Assessment task 3:Prepare a group powerpoint presentation on economic evaluation of a public health intervention. NO online or F2F presentation needed, just online submission by one student via Moodle

Weight: 30%Due date:Thu, Oct 26, 2023 11.59pm

Number of slides 21 - 25max

Details of task:

Youre the director of chronic disease control in the Ministry of Health your meeting with your fellow directors discussing health programs when the Minister of Health, Mr Bruce Ministry has just been offered $100 million in additional funds using to benefit from that kind of money.

Decide which economic evaluation of health will be appropriate of this project, explain your justification.

Choose two diseases

You need to make your argument why you wanted MoH to fund one over the otherYou need to find

DALY factor for these two conditions

Population size in a geographical location

Life expectancy of that population of interest

Calculate DALY of the two conditions and make your argument on how many DALYs can be saved on those two conditions (e.g. HIV vs Diabetes, Epilepsy vs Multiple sclerosis etc)

You can discuss other options with the course coordinator.

Requirements:

Project groups: Self-allocation instructions are on Moodle. There will be 3/4 students per group.

Once you have been allocated to your group, a communication strategy will need to be developed. For example, how will you all communicate with each other.

Your group need to upload the presentation by the due date.

One member of your group will submit your presentation via the online submission link on Moodle. Detailed instructions and marking guide can be found on Moodle.

This is an academic piece of work which means that information needs to be supported by theory and referenced. Referencing and in-text citations should adhere to APA 7th edition guidelines. Presentation will include in-text citations and all references listed on the final slide. Minimum number of references is 10. References must be peer reviewed and not more than 15 years oldTasks:

A: Power Point presentation

Structure of your Presentation as follows:

Title page (Assessment name, student names and IDs)

Introduction: Identify your chosen two chronic conditions

Main Presentation

Discuss QALY and DALY concepts in generalArgument on why you have chosen two chronic conditions (what are those conditions, their prevalence / disease burden, incidence, hospitalisation, rehabilitation, mortality , life expectancy etc)

Compare and Discuss DALY factors for two conditions.

Calculate YLL and YLD for two conditions and make your argument why you have chosen one over the other.

Conclusion

Reference

Task B: Self-reflection:

Each member of the team, in addition to the PowerPoint presentation, need to submit an additional 250 words self-reflection piece on the topic you have chosen for this assignment.

This will become one single word document of 1000 words (250 300 words / student) with names and student ID number.

One member of your group will submit this self-reflection word document via the same online submission link on MoodleReference

Joshua A Salomon, Theo Vos, Daniel R Hogan, Michael Gagnon, Mohsen Naghavi, Ali Mokdad, Nazma Begum, Razibuzzaman Shah, Muhammad Karyana, Soewarta Kosen, Mario Reyna Farje, Gilberto Moncada, Arup Dutta, Sunil Sazawal, Andrew Dyer, Jason Seiler, Victor Aboyans, Lesley Baker, Amanda Baxter, Emelia J Benjamin, Kavi Bhalla, Aref Bin Abdulhak, Fiona Blyth, Rupert Bourne, Tasanee Braithwaite, Peter Brooks, Traolach S Brugha, Claire Bryan-Hancock, Rachelle Buchbinder, Peter Burney, Bianca Calabria, Honglei Chen, Sumeet S Chugh, Rebecca Cooley, Michael H Criqui, Marita Cross, Kaustubh C Dabhadkar, Nabila Dahodwala, Adrian Davis, Louisa Degenhardt, Cesar Daz-Torn, E Ray Dorsey, Tim Driscoll, Karen Edmond, Alexis Elbaz, Majid Ezzati, Valery Feigin, Cleusa P Ferri, Abraham D Flaxman, Louise Flood, Marlene Fransen, Kana Fuse, Belinda J Gabbe, Richard F Gillum, Juanita Haagsma, James E Harrison, Rasmus Havmoeller, Roderick J Hay, Abdullah Hel-Baqui, Hans W Hoek, Howard Hoffman, Emily Hogeland, Damian Hoy, Deborah Jarvis, Jost B Jonas, Ganesan Karthikeyan, Lisa Marie Knowlton, Tim Lathlean, Janet L Leasher, Stephen S Lim, Steven E Lipshultz, Alan D Lopez, Rafael Lozano, Ronan Lyons, Reza Malekzadeh, Wagner Marcenes, Lyn March, David J Margolis, Neil McGill, John McGrath, George A Mensah, Ana-Claire Meyer, Catherine Michaud, Andrew Moran, Rintaro Mori, Michele E Murdoch, Luigi Naldi, Charles R Newton, Rosana Norman, Saad B Omer, Richard Osborne, Neil Pearce, Fernando Perez-Ruiz, Norberto Perico, Konrad Pesudovs, David Phillips, Farshad Pourmalek, Martin Prince, Jrgen T Rehm, Guiseppe Remuzzi, Kathryn Richardson, Robin Room, Sukanta Saha, Uchechukwu Sampson, Lidia Sanchez-Riera, Maria Segui-Gomez, Saeid Shahraz, Kenji Shibuya, David Singh, Karen Sliwa, Emma Smith, Isabelle Soerjomataram, Timothy Steiner, Wilma A Stolk, Lars Jacob Stovner, Christopher Sudfeld, Hugh R Taylor, Imad M Tleyjeh, Marieke J van der Werf, Wendy L Watson, David J Weatherall, Robert Weintraub, Marc G Weisskopf, Harvey Whiteford, James D Wilkinson, Anthony D Woolf, Zhi-Jie Zheng, Christopher JL Murray,

Common values in assessing health outcomes from disease and injury: disability weights measurement study for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010,

The Lancet,

Volume 380, Issue 9859,

2012,

Pages 2129-2143,

ISSN 0140-6736,

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61680-8.

(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673612616808)