Case Study Report PUBH6000
- Subject Code :
PUBH6000
- University :
Torrens Unviersity Australia Exam Question Bank is not sponsored or endorsed by this college or university.
- Country :
Australia
ASSESSMENT 3 BRIEF |
|
Subject Code and Title |
PUBH6000: Social Determinants of Health |
Assessment |
Case Study Report |
Individual/Group |
Individual |
Length |
1,500 words (+/- 10%) |
Learning Outcomes |
The Subject Learning Outcomes demonstrated by successful completion of the task below include: a) Critically examine principles of public health, and the interpret the stakeholders roles in addressing health inequalities and inequities b) Critically analyse the impact of potential social determinants on the health outcomes of different populations. c) Critically analyse health outcomes in disadvantaged populations d) Explore and apply conceptual frameworks/models into public health practice e) Reflect on the integration of digital health into public health practice |
Submission (12 week delivery) |
Due: Sunday Week 11 at 11:55pm (AEST/AEDT). |
Submission (6 week delivery) |
Due: Due by 11:55 pm AEST/AEDT Wednesday, Week 6 |
Weighting |
35% |
Total Marks |
100 marks |
Context
This assessment requires you to demonstrate the knowledge gained within this subject on the social determinants of health, specifically as they relate to the given case scenario. As public health practitioners, you will be required to engage with multiple stakeholders to develop health interventions and engage in learning opportunities to promote the health and well-being of the community.
This assessment is designed to showcase your ability to integrate critical thinking with existing evidence and apply the knowledge gained throughout the subject course to suggest relevant recommendations for public health practice. It also aims to help you understand the role of stakeholders, including multidisciplinary teams, in addressing health inequality and inequity in the population. Lastly, this assessment will enable you to appreciate the importance of innovation in public health by reflecting on the application of digital health and technology to improve public health outcomes.
Use the same case scenario as given for Assessment 2.
Task Summary
Assessment 3 builds on Assessment 2 based on the given case scenario previously provided for Assessment 2. You are required to write a 1500 words (+/-10) report applying public health conceptual frameworks and propose recommendations to address health inequities and health inequalities in the given population in the case scenario.
Instructions
- Review the given case scenario provided by your Learning Facilitator for Assessment 2
- Briefly introduce the case study, discussing at least three determinants leading to the health outcomes in the given Make sure that you are not doing copy and paste for this section from your Assessment 2 as it can be considered as academic integrity breach.
- Use the given assessment 3 template to develop your case study report
- Critically propose evidence-based recommendations for health interventions to improve health inequities and health inequalities among the population by addressing the key social determinants in the given scenario context.
- Explain the relevant and specific stakeholders that could be involved in your health intervention and critically explain their contributions to your health intervention.
- Explain how digital health and technology can enhance the public health response in the specific scenario and provide at least two evidence-based examples of public health strategies using these innovations related to the given topic.
- Provide at least 10 academically acceptable references using APA 7th edition referencing style to support your Remember to include the in-text citations.
- Include your literature search history and strategy as an
NOTE: It is compulsory to use the assessment template provided for Assessment 3.
Format parameters
- Use the given template for assessment 2
- Include a title page that states:
- The assessment title;
- Your first and last name;
- Your student identification number;
- Word count (including in-text citations but excluding the reference list);
- The subject name;
- Your lecturer/learning facilitator; and
- An academic integrity declaration
- In relation to formatting, ensure that your paper uses:
- APA 7th version referencing style; Page numbers;
- 5 spacing;
- Font style: Arial, Tahoma
- A font size of 11-points minimum
Submission Instructions
Submit your assessment via the Assessment 3 link available on the Assessment page. The Learning Facilitator will provide feedback via the Grade Centre in the Blackboard portal. Feedback can be viewed in My Grades.
Academic Integrity Declaration
I declare that except where I have referenced, the work I am submitting for this assessment task is my own work. I have read and am aware of Torrens University Australia Academic Integrity Policy and Procedure viewable online at http://www.torrens.edu.au/policies-and-forms
I am aware that I need to keep a copy of all submitted material and their drafts, and I will do so accordingly.
Assessment Rubric
Assessment Attributes |
Fail (Unacceptable) 0-49% |
Pass (Functional) 50-64% |
Credit (Proficient) 65-74% |
Distinction (Advanced) 75-84% |
High Distinction (Exceptional) 85-100% |
Demonstrate knowledge and understanding ofsocial determinantsofhealth influencing health inequities and inequalities in the specific population. |
The assessment demonstrates limited knowledge and understanding of social determinants of health influencing health inequities and inequalities in the specific population. |
The assessment demonstrates a functional knowledge and understanding of social determinants of health influencing health inequities and inequalities in the specific population. |
The assessment demonstrates proficient knowledge and understanding of social determinants of health influencing health inequities and inequalities in the specific population. |
The assessment demonstrates advanced knowledge and understanding of social determinants of health influencing health inequities and inequalities in the specific population. |
The assessment demonstrates exceptional knowledge and understanding of social determinants of health influencing health inequities and inequalities in the specific population. |
15% |
Key determinants are not identified and are not related to health outcomes. Evidence not used appropriately. |
Only 1-2 key determinants are identified, and the links with health outcomes have been limited addressed and need more supported evidence. |
At least 3 key determinants are identified, and the links with health outcomes have been reasonably addressed and supported with credible evidence. |
At least 3 key determinants are identified, and the links with health outcomes have been addressed in detail and well-explained relevant evidence from credible sources. |
At least 3 key determinants are identified, and the links with health outcomes have been expertly addressed in detail and well-justified with relevant and high-quality evidence from credible sources. |
Apply principles of public health and population health concepts to propose a recommendation on public health practice for the specific population. 25% |
The assessment does not demonstrate an ability to apply knowledge and understanding of principles of public health and concepts of population health to propose recommendations on public health practice for specific population.
Recommendations are not provided or are not inappropriate. |
The assessment presents limited ability to apply knowledge and understanding of Principles of public health and concepts of population health to propose recommendations on public health practice for specific population. The recommendations are overly descriptive and needs more supported evidence. |
The assessment presents a good application of principles of public health and concepts of population health to propose recommendations on public health practice for specific population. The recommendations are reasonably explained and justified by credible evidence. |
The assessment presents an excellent application of principles of public health and concepts of population health to propose recommendations on public health practice for specific population. The recommendations are very well explained and justified with relevant and credible evidence. |
The assessment contains a highly sophisticated application of principles of public health and concepts of population health to propose recommendations on public health practice for specific population. The recommendations are expertly explained and well justified by relevant and high-quality evidence from credible sources. |
Critically explain the stakeholders that could be involved in your health intervention and critically explain their contributions to your health intervention. |
The potential stakeholders that would be involved in an intervention are not identified. |
Potential stakeholders that could be involved in an intervention are identified, but how they would be involved in the intervention is not clearly explained. |
Potential stakeholders that could be involved in the intervention are clearly identified and how they would be involved in the intervention is explained, but lack of justification |
Potential stakeholders that could be involved in the intervention are identified, and how they would be involved in the intervention is critically explained with some justification |
Potential stakeholders that could be involved are clearly identified, and how they would be involved in the intervention is critically explained and well justified. |
25% |
|||||
Explain how digital health and technology can enhance the public health response in the specific scenario and provide at least two evidence-based examples related to the topic. 15% |
The assessment does not describe the role of digital health and new technologies in public health, or the description is inconsistent and irrelevant to the topic. No examples are included or are not appropriately evidenced. |
The assessment describes the role of digital health and new technologies in public health but with limited arguments, inconsistencies, and irrelevant information on the topic. The assessment includes at least one example with limited evidence. |
The assessment describes the role of digital health and new technologies in public health with adequate arguments and is consistent with the topic but with some unrelated information. The assessment includes at least one evidence-based example. |
The assessment describes the role of digital health and new technologies in public health with proficient arguments that are consistent and relevant. The assessment includes at least two evidence-based examples. |
The assessment describes the role of digital health and new technologies in public health with highly proficient, consistent, and relevant arguments. The assessment includes two or more evidence-based examples. |
Evidence of research and critical analysis of the academic literature
10% |
There is no evidence of the use of library databases or search engines, and the findings are irrelevant to the topic. No inclusion in the appendix of evidence of the search history strategy
The assessment does not discriminate personal opinion and information and shows limited or no evidence of independent research. |
Shows evidence of the use of library databases and search engines but with mistakes, and some of the findings are irrelevant to the topic (e.g. no use of appropriate keywords or Boolean operators, references are only sometimes relevant). The search history strategy is partially included in the appendix.
The assessment shows some mistakes between assertion of personal opinion and information with some evidence from independent research. |
Shows evidence of the use of library databases and search engines with appropriate use of keywords and Boolean operators, minor mistakes, and most of the findings are relevant to the topic. The search history strategy is included in the appendix but shows some information that need to be corrected or needs to be added (eg. No database name, missing some key words).
The assessment discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from independent research. |
Shows evidence of the use of library databases and search engines with proficient use of keywords and Boolean operators, no mistakes and the findings are relevant to the topic.
The search history strategy is included in the appendix and minor issues are found (eg. An incorrect keyword)
The Assessment discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by evidence from independent research. |
Shows evidence of the use of library databases and search engines with proficient advanced keywords and Boolean operators.
A proficient search history strategy is included in the appendix with no mistakes.
The report systematically and critically discriminates between assertion of personal opinion and information substantiated by robust evidence from independent research. |
Assessment fulfils general academic standards and general criteria.
10% |
Poorly written with many errors and does not meet the academic genre and does not use the given assessment template. Provide less than 10 references and demonstrates inconsistent use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas. There are mistakes in using the APA style. |
Written according to the academic genre and use the given assessment template
Provide 10 references and demonstrates consistent use of credible and relevant research sources to support and develop ideas, but these are not always explicit or well developed. There are some mistakes in using the APA style. |
Well-written and adheres totheacademicgenreanduse the given assessment template.
Provide 10 or more references and demonstrates consistent use of high quality, credible and relevant research sources integrated in the writing and contribute to the argument. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. |
Very well-written and adheres to the academic genre and use the given assessment template.
Provide more than 10 references and consistently demonstrates expert use of good quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop appropriate arguments and statements. Shows evidence of reading beyond the key reading. There are no mistakes in using the APA style. |
Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre and use the given assessment template.
Provide more than 10 references and demonstrates expert use of high-quality, credible and relevant research sources to support and develop arguments and position statements. Shows extensive evidence of reading beyond the key reading. There are no mistakes in using the APA Style. |
The following Subject Learning Outcomes are addressed in this assessment |
|
SLO a) |
Critically examine principles of public health, and the interpret the stakeholders roles in addressing health inequalities and inequities |
SLO b) |
Critically analyse the impact of potential social determinants on the health outcomes of different populations |
SLO c) |
Critically analyse health outcomes in disadvantaged populations |
SLO d) |
Explore and apply conceptual frameworks/models into public health practice |
SLO e) |
Reflect on the integration of digital health into public health practice |
