Please include these points in the assignment PLEASE INCLUDE CITATION EACH LINE AND EACH POINT We need to include intext citations and peer reviewed APA 7 referencing style. (Each line one ) And also we need 25 references PLEASE CHECK THE GRAMMARS AND SPELLING MISTAKES. Title Name : Farhath Sultana Unit code : PUBH621 Student Id : S00391338 ASSESSMENT TASK - 3 You need to reference correctly (APA7) for in-text and Reference List You need to substantiate (cite evidence) all your ideas and arguments Read the marking criteria (rubric)
1. Overview
For this assessment you are required to evaluate a public health program as per the instructions and rubric.
The purpose of this task is to enable you to assess epidemiological information and integrate epidemiological concepts and methods to critically appraise a public health program. This will help give you a good understanding of practical epidemiology programs, and an appreciation of their appropriateness, strengths, and limitations.
The assignment comprises two parts. In Part A you will need to do some calculations, provide and interpret the results of a hypothetical screening program. Part B requires you to critically evaluate a public health prevention initiative. You are to answer both Part A and Part B and submit both parts in the same document.
Weighting: 40%
Learning outcomes assessed: LO1, LO2, LO3, LO4, LO5
Length: 2,000 words ± 10%. Part A: ~ 800 words. Part B: ~1,200 words
Format: Structured written document, 1.5 line spacing
Referencing style: APA 7
How to submit: One Word document (incorporating both part A & part B) via the Canvas AT2 Turnitin link
Return of assignment: Electronically via Canvas, within 3 weeks after the due date
Assessment criteria: Refer to AT3 detailed instructions and marking rubric
2. Assignment details
This assignment comprises two parts to be submitted in the same Word document. Answer both part A and part B.
For part A, you will calculate and interpret the results of a hypothetical screening scenario.
For part B, you are to critique a public health public health bowel cancer screening program.
You are expected to source relevant websites and/or publications with correctly formatted referencing in both part A and B. Refer to the sections for part A and part B below.
Part A details (click here) (10 marks)
Part A of this assessment task requires you to calculate and interpret the results of a screening test in a hypothetical scenario, and then justify the appropriateness and applicability of the test results.
The World Health Organization defines screeningLinks to an external site. as “the process of presumptive identification of unrecognised disease in an apparently healthy, asymptomatic population by means of tests, examinations or other procedures that can be applied rapidly and easily to the target population. A screening programme must include all the core components in the screening process from inviting the target population to accessing effective treatment for individuals diagnosed with disease”. (WHO, 2020, p.6). Cervical cancer screening is designed to detect the presence of the human papillomavirus (HPV) which can develop into cervical cancer.
Hypothetical scenario
Recnacvph is a small but high-income (hypothetical) country in the Middle East with a total population of approximately 500,000. The overall health of the population is generally very good, with a low prevalence of chronic non-communicable disease, including cancer.
Of the total population, 270,000 people are women over 25 years of age. The societal values and beliefs in this country are quite conservative. Women rarely seek care from male medical practitioners, however 90% of the medical practitioners in this country are men.
Cervical cancer screening is designed to detect the presence of the human papillomavirus (HPV) which can develop into cervical cancer. The government of this country is considering conducting cervical screening tests for HPV at the population level. A validation study was conducted with the total population of women over the age of 25, to determine whether cervical screening could be used to detect HPV towards the prevention of cervical cancer. Of the 264,600 women who did not have HPV, 79,380 were tested positive. 215 women were incorrectly screened as negative.
Part A instructions
Part B details (click here) (25 marks)
For part B, you are to critically evaluate an existing population-based bowel screening program for early detection and possible subsequent treatments of colorectal cancer in the Australian population.
Include the following in your evaluation:
Please note, this assignment is not the same as conducting a critical appraisal of a published research article using a critical appraisal checklist. In your critique you are expected to explore current factors related to bowel cancer screening and provide a thorough discussion of the above areas using supporting data from high quality evidence. You may like to use a framework to help guide you in your critique. For example, you could use the dimensions of the RE-AIM framework to help you consider and discuss the strengths and weaknesses/limitations of the program.
Your critique must be supported and justified using academic literature and appropriately referenced.
Presentation (click here) (5 marks)
It is expected that all submissions are checked for spelling, grammar, English expression, correct formatting and use of APA 7 citations and references. Double check that you have not directly copied and pasted text from source documents, but have paraphrased any material you have referred to.
All written assessments are to be appropriately formatted and within the word limit. This includes having a title page (indicating word count), 1.5 line spacing, 12 point font, and inclusion of student name/ID in the header/footer.
The word count refers to the main body of text only, which includes headings and in-text citations. Excluded from word counts are the title page and reference list.
Use a brief heading for each question. Do not write out the full text of the questions in your submission, which increases your Turnitin matching text score.
View Rubric
| PUBH621 AT3 rubric | ||
|---|---|---|
| PUBH621 AT3 rubric | ||
| Criteria | Ratings | Points |
A1. Screening test calculations view longer description | 5 to >4.2 pts Excellent All calculations, formulas and table correctly presented. No errors in calculations and results. 4.2 to >3.7 pts Very good As per excellent, but with an occasional very minor error/omission. 3.7 to >3.2 pts Good As per very good, but with a few minor errors/omissions. 3.2 to >2.4 pts Pass Mostly correct formulas, calculations and results. 2.4 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Major errors/omissions that do not provide accurate results. | / 5 pts |
A2. Screening recommendation view longer description | 5 to >4.2 pts Excellent A high-level thorough discussion of implications of screening test implications. Very clear and fully justified recommendation. Supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 4.2 to >3.7 pts Very good A very good discussion of implications of screening test implications. Clear and justified recommendation. Supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 3.7 to >3.2 pts Good A good discussion of implications of screening test implications. Mostly clear and justified recommendation. Supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 3.2 to >2.4 pts Pass A fair discussion of implications of screening test implications. Recommendation provided. Supported by some appropriate evidence. 2.4 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Very little or no discussion of implications of screening test implications. Recommendation unclear/unjustified or not provided. Minimal or no evidence presented. | / 5 pts |
B1. Significance and effectiveness view longer description | 10 to >8.4 pts Excellent Comprehensive presentation of significance, risk factors and program effectiveness. Fully supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 8.4 to >7.4 pts Very good A very good presentation of significance, risk factors and program effectiveness. Supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 7.4 to >6.4 pts Good A good presentation of significance, risk factors and program effectiveness. Supported by appropriate evidence. 6.4 to >4.9 pts Pass A fair presentation of significance, risk factors and program effectiveness, using some appropriate evidence. 4.9 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Very little, unclear and/or no presentation of requirements. Minimal or no appropriate evidence presented. | / 10 pts |
B2. Program critique view longer description | 15 to >12.6 pts Excellent An excellent critique, meeting all requirements to a high level. A thorough discussion and well justified recommendation. Fully supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 12.6 to >11.1 pts Very good A very good critique, meeting all requirements. A very good discussion and well justified recommendation. Supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 11.1 to >9.6 pts Good A good critique, meeting all or most requirements. A good discussion and justified recommendation. Supported by appropriate evidence. 9.6 to >7.4 pts Pass A fair critique, meeting all or most requirements. A fair discussion and recommendation using some appropriate evidence. 7.4 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Very little or no critique and/or not meeting requirements and /or unclear or unjustified or no recommendation. Minimal or no evidence presented. | / 15 pts |
Presentation view longer description | 5 to >4.2 pts Excellent High-level quality of writing that is clear, logical and coherent, meeting word limit requirements. No errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, citations and references. Meets submission and formatting requirements. 4.2 to >3.7 pts Very good Very good quality of writing, mostly logical, clear and coherent, meeting word limit requirements. No or minor errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, citations and references. Meets submission and formatting requirements. 3.7 to >3.2 pts Good Good quality of writing, mostly clear and coherent, meeting word limit requirements. No or few errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, citations or references. Meets most submission and formatting requirements. 3.2 to >2.4 pts Pass Fair quality of writing. May have errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation but generally meaning is discernible. May have errors in citations or references but generally applied. May not meet all submission and formatting requirements. 2.4 to >0 pts Unsatisfactory Poor standard of writing which fails to adhere to grammar, spelling, punctuation, word limit, formatting, submission, citation and referencing requirements. The errors detract significantly from the report. | / 5 pts |
| Total points: 0 | ||
Get original papers written according to your instructions and save time for what matters most.
