Critical analysis of epidemiological issue
Microsoft Word - PUBH642_Assessment task 1 outline.docx Page 1 of 4 FACULTY OF HEALTH SCIENCES School of BEHAVIOURAL AND HEALTH SCIENCE Melbourne Campus (St Patricks) SEMESTER 2, 2019 PUBH642: Global Nutrition and Food Security Lecturer in Charge: Sharon Croxford Office location: Daniel Mannix Building, 403.1.32 Email:
[email protected] Telephone: 03 9230 8480 Contact me: via tutorials or LEO forums for ALL unit related matters and email for personal matters. You should receive a response within 48 hours. ASSESSMENT TASK 1 Learning outcomes assessed 1. Demonstrate advanced knowledge of local and global determinants of adequate nutrition and the interrelationships between nutrition and social, cultural, economic and environmental and other factors (GA 2, 5) 2. Compare and contrast different food systems, as well as the determinants and consequences of food insecurity at local, national and global levels (GA 3, 5) 3. Assess nutritional status of a community or population, its food system and its food security, with an emphasis on identifying vulnerabilities and enhancing program sustainability (GA 2, 6, 8) 4. Critically appraise interventions for addressing hunger, malnutrition, micronutrient deficiency and food security, especially in terms of program sustainability (GA 2, 4, 8) 5. Integrate knowledge of nutrition and food security issues with the design of effective and culturally appropriate strategies or interventions to address these issues (GA 3, 6, 8) Page 2 of 4 Critical analysis of epidemiological issue Diet plays an important role in the etiology (and therefore prevention) of non-communicable diseases such as coronary heart disease, type 2 diabetes, certain cancers, osteoporosis and others. In this report, students will select a diet-related condition, describe its determinants, aetiology and epidemiology including rates and at-risk groups (around 1000 words). Further, students will identify and critically analyse two programs intended to address the issue (1500 words). This analysis will include considerations of e f f e c t i v e n e s s , community involvement and engagement, cultural relevance, strength of t h e evaluation framework, and program sustainability and finally a conclusion will concisely summarise the key points and main argument. Assignments must be supported by citing academic literature and/or official statistical resources (Government reports and statistics, World Health Organisation, “grey literature”) as appropriate. The minimum requirement is 20 such references in a reference list. Due date: 09/09/2019, 9am (AEST) Weighting: 50% Length and/or format: 2500 words (+/- 10%) Purpose: To enab le s tudents to apply knowledge of micronutrients and macronutrients to address diet-related deficiencies including the inter-relationship between nutrition and social, cultural, economic and environmental factors; and to critically analyse t w o programs int e n d e d to address the issue. Learning outcomes assessed: 1, 4, 5 How to submit: Electronic submission via the PUBH642 LEO page Return of assignment: Electronic return via the PUBH642 LEO page Assessment criteria: Marking criteria as follows (see below) REFERENCING This unit requires you to use the APA 6 referencing system. See https://libguides.acu.edu.au/referencing/apa for more details. ACU POLICIES AND REGULATIONS It is your responsibility to read and familiarise yourself with ACU policies and regulations, including regulations on examinations; review and appeals; acceptable use of IT facilities; and conduct and responsibilities. These are in the ACU Handbook, available from the website. A list of these and other important policies can be found at the University policies page of the Student Portal. Assessment policy and procedures You must read the Assessment Policy and Assessment Procedures in the University Handbook: they include rules on deadlines; penalties for late submission; extensions; and special consideration. If you have any queries on Assessment Policy, please see your Lecturer in Charge. Page 3 of 4 Academic integrity You have the responsibility to submit only work which is your own, or which properly acknowledges the thoughts, ideas, findings and/or work of others. The Academic Integrity and Misconduct Policy and the Academic Misconduct Procedures are available from the website. Please read them, and note in particular that cheating, plagiarism, collusion, recycling of assignments and misrepresentation are not acceptable. Penalties for academic misconduct can vary in severity and can include being excluded from the course. Turnitin The Turnitin application (a text-matching tool) will be used in this unit, in order to enable: • students to improve their academic writing by identifying possible areas of poor citation and referencing in their written work; and • teaching staff to identify areas of possible plagiarism in students’ written work. While Turnitin can help in identifying problems with plagiarism, avoiding plagiarism is more important. Information on avoiding plagiarism is available from the Academic Skills Unit. For any assignment that has been created to allow submission through Turnitin (check the Assignment submission details for each assessment task), you should submit your draft well in advance of the due date (ideally, several days before) to ensure that you have time to work on any issues identified by Turnitin. On the assignment due date, lecturers will have access to your final submission and the Turnitin Originality Report. Page 4 of 4 Assessment task 1 marking criteria: Critical analysis of epidemiological issue marks Assessment criteria 1. Description of the diet-related condition. Etiology and epidemiology (rates and distribution) of the diet-related disease 8.5 - 10 A high-level description of the diet-related condition. Evidence of both depth and breadth of reading, using adequate and appropriate evidence. 7.5 - 8.4 A very good description of the diet-related condition. Evidence of both depth and breadth of reading of adequate and appropriate evidence. 6.5 - 7.4 A good description of the diet-related condition. Evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. A considered argument is presented, and is supported by adequate and appropriate evidence. 5 - 6.4 A satisfactory description of the diet-related condition is made, using some evidence. 0 - 4.9 Very little or no description of the diet-related condition. An argument is / not presented with minimal or no evidence. 2. Determinants of the diet-related condition. Major food sources, at risk groups and determinants 8.5 - 10 A high-level description of the major food sources, identified groups at risk and determinants that impact the condition. Evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 7.5 - 8.4 A very good description of the major food sources, identified groups at risk and determinants that impact the condition. Evidence of both depth and breadth of reading. 6.5 - 7.4 A good description of the major food sources, identified some groups at risk and determinants that impact the condition. 5 - 6.4 A satisfactory description of the major food sources, identified groups at risk and determinants that impact the condition. 0 - 4.9 Very little (or no) description of the major food sources. Did not identify groups at risk and/or determinants that impact the condition. 3. Description of programs to address the diet-related condition 8.5 - 10 A highly informative description and analysis of two programs that address the diet-related disease or condition. 7.5 - 8.4 A reasonably informative description and analysis of two programs that address the diet-related disease or condition. 6.5 - 7.4 A somewhat informative description and analysis of two programs that address the diet-related disease or condition. 5 - 6.4 A barely informative description and analysis of two programs that address the diet-related disease or condition. 0 - 4.9 Absent, unfocused uninformative description and analysis of two programs that address the diet-related disease or condition. 4. Critical analysis of programs to address the diet-related condition 8.5 - 10 A high-level analysis of the programs' effectiveness and community engagement, including cultural relevance, strength of evaluation frameworks and program sustainability. 7.5 - 8.4 Very good analysis of the programs' effectiveness and community engagement, including cultural relevance, strength of evaluation frameworks and program sustainability. 6.5 - 7.4 A somewhat informative analysis of the programs' effectiveness and community engagement, including cultural relevance, strength of evaluation frameworks and program sustainability. 5 - 6.4 A bare analysis of the programs' effectiveness and community engagement, including cultural relevance, strength of evaluation frameworks and program sustainability. 0 - 4.9 Fails to analyse the programs' effectiveness and community engagement, including cultural relevance, strength of evaluation frameworks and program sustainability. 5. Effective communication and use of references 8.5 - 10 High-level quality of writing that is logical, clear and eloquent, meeting word limit requirements. No errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation or APA6 formatting. Required numbers of credible and relevant references are used. 7.5 - 8.4 Very good quality of writing, mostly clear, logical and well written, with minor errors with grammar, spelling, punctuation, APA6 referencing. Meets word limit requirements. The meaning is easily discernible. Credible and relevant references used. 6.5 - 7.4 Good quality of writing, logic, which meets word limit requirements. There are errors with grammar, spelling and punctuation, APA6 referencing, but the meaning is easily discernible. Credible and relevant references are used. 5 - 6.4 Satisfactory quality of writing. Errors in spelling, sentence structure, organisation do not obscure meaning. Meets word limit requirements. APA referencing style is applied mostly. References may be insufficient to carry the assignment. 0 - 4.9 Poor standard of writing, which fails to adhere to word limit requirements, grammar, spelling, punctuation or APA6 referencing style. The errors detract significantly and/or the reader cannot make sense of the writing.