I need a minimum of 30 references, Also please make sure to deliver them on time.
HSH702 AT1 Rubric Assessment Criteria Fail Pass Credit Distinction High Distinction Choice of social determinants of health (15 marks) Relevant social determinants of health should be discussed with relation to the topic you have chosen. The SDOH should be appropriate for the chosen topic. A clear link should be made between the topic and the SDOH determinants. The determinants should be logical and justified. The reader should be able to see the link between the topic, the determinants, and health. The discussion is evidence-based. SDOH are not presented or are not relevant for the scenario or do not come from credible published lists. There is no link between the SDOH and the scenario or the links are not logical. No evidence is presented. SDOH are presented. May not come from credible published lists of SDOH. Some of the SDOH are relevant or aligned to the chosen scenario. Some links between the SDOH and the scenario, though these may not be logical. Limited evidence presented. Two or three SDOH are presented. They are drawn from credible published lists of SDOH. Most of the SDOH are relevant and aligned to the chosen scenario. The links between the SDOH and the scenario are supported by evidence drawn from the literature. Two or three SDOH are presented. They are drawn from credible published lists of SDOH. All SDOH are relevant and aligned to the chosen scenario. The links between the SDOH and the scenario are supported by evidence drawn from the literature. Two or three SDOH are presented. They are drawn from credible published lists of SDOH. All SDOH are relevant and aligned to the chosen scenario. The links between the SDOH and the scenario are supported by evidence drawn from a wide range of contemporary, relevant, peer reviewed and grey/professional literature. Policy recommendations (20 marks) A clear set of policy recommendations are provided. They are fully-formed, explained, justified, and flow logically from the links made between the scenario and the SDOH discussed. The audience should be able to see the links between the scenario, the SDOH, and how these policy recommendations will make the scenario a ‘healthier’ policy. Recommendations are not included or they lack justification and links to the SDOH and scenario. No evidence is presented to support recommendations. A set of recommendations are provided, though there is some confusion with their explanation, discussion, or justification. There is some confusion with the link to the SDOH and the policy. Not all recommendations make the policy healthier A set of recommendations are provided. Most recommendations are justified and supported by evidence. Most recommendations are linked to the SDOH and make the policy healthier. A set of recommendations are provided. They ae all justified and supported by evidence. All recommendations are linked to the SDOH. All recommendations are supported by evidence. A set of recommendations are provided. They are fully formed, justified, flow logically, and there is an excellent link to the SDOH and the policy. Recommendations are strongly supported by a wide range of contemporary, relevant, peer reviewed and grey/professional literature. The recommendations make the policy healthier. Professionalism of writing and presentation (10 marks) Writing style very difficult to understand. Work contains frequent errors in spelling, punctuation, syntax or grammar; style is inconsistent or inappropriate. Content conveys meaning, although there are some problems with the standard of presentation (spelling, punctuation, syntax, grammar or style). Content is clearly written and logically structured. Submission adheres to word limit and is submitted according to assignment guidelines. . Content is clearly written and logically structured with few spelling or grammatical errors. Aan academic tone and level of argument is generally used. Submission adheres to word limit and is submitted according to assignment guidelines. Content is logically structured, fluently written, uses correct terminology. Language clearly and effectively communicates ideas. Structure and presentation provide a logical flow and clear presentation of key issues and concepts. Submission is free of spelling or grammatical errors. Submission adheres to word limit and is submitted according to assignment guidelines. Referencing (5 marks) No or incorrect citations. Citations and references listed. Cite and format references according to Harvard, Deakin Harvard, or APA. Accurately cite and format references according to Harvard, Deakin Harvard, or APA. Accurately cite and format references according to Harvard, Deakin Harvard, or APA without error.