Social analysis of a public health issue of a vulnerable population in a location of your choice.
SOCIAL ANALYSIS OF A PUBLIC HEALTH ISSUE Assessment overview Due Date: Friday May 31, 2pm Weight: 40% Description: Social analysis of a public health issue of a vulnerable population in a location of your choice Assessment description Your task is conduct a social analysis and write a case study of up to 2200 words. Undertaking a social analysis is a core public health skill. You are required to apply the components of what you have learnt in PUBH7620 to the investigation of a public health issue, in a vulnerable population, in a location of your choice. Components 1. Choose a public health issue 2. Choose a vulnerable population that is at risk and or/affected by the public health issue in the location. 3. Choose a geographical location where this public health issue is prevalent. 4. Write a social analysis of the health issue in the population group, in the location using academic/ peer reviewed literature In writing your case study you need to address the following: What is the health issue, locality and vulnerable population? How is the health issue socially distributed in the locality? What are the social determinants linked to the health issue that are experienced by your vulnerable population? What are the social, cultural and political impacts of the public health issue on the vulnerable population in your country/location? How is the health issue socially constructed for your vulnerable population (e.g., issues of stigma, discrimination, victim blaming)? What is the response of the chosen vulnerable group to the public health issue? Critically assess the country/ service provision response to this issue. What research/further information is needed to understand the issue? Propose a public health response to this issue (using an upstream, mid-stream and/or downstream approach to the social determinants of health) outlining a rationale for your proposed response. Assignment Format Requirements Please ensure that your assignment complies with the following formatting specifications. Assessment cover sheet: Please sign and attach the assessment cover sheet (available in the assessment tab on the course BB site) to the front of your submission. Typing your name in the Cover Sheet Declaration will suffice as your signature that the work has not been plagiarised. Writing style: The social analysis should be written in good academic English and draw on course readings and additional literature. Word limit: As indicated above the social analysis should be no more than 2200 words. Please note this does not include the reference list. Paper Size: Standard A4 (210 x 297mm) Margins: All margins at least 2.0cm Font: At least 11 point and Times New Roman only Line spacing: 1.5 line spacing References: Harvard or APA style. Attach references as a separate page at the end of your assignment. Each week's journal submission must contain appropriate referencing - you must reference all sources used. File Name: LastName_PUBH7620 Social analysis Submission: Via the submission link on the course Blackboard site by Midnight EST Friday 1 June 2018. 2018 PUBH7620 Social Analysis Marking Rubric Criteria Fail (<50%) pass (50-64%) credit (65-74%) distinction (75-84%) high distinction (≥85%) assignment responds directly to the assessment task and addresses questions outlined for the social analysis (50%) poor or no application to assessment task some evidence of social analysis of health issue but difficult to follow and/or few points made. some work is focused on the aims and themes of the assignment, but not all questions are followed. largely descriptive accounts. not terribly cohesive. solid social analysis, some key questions explored and some attempt to critically discuss topic. has addressed the main purpose of the assignment, but flow is not seamless. good social analysis, key questions explored and critically discussed. has addressed the purpose of the assignment coherently. evidence of good critical thought; however lacks depth of analysis and thinking. good synthesis of the literature throughout the argument, but could be more active in the use of the literature and in presenting the argument excellent well -developed social analysis, key questions addressed in sophisticated manner and critically discussed. logical and interesting. has addressed the purpose of the assignment comprehensively and imaginatively. outstanding. all questions are addressed thoroughly and critically. very active and highly polished academic writing. evidence of critical analysis (20%) no evidence of critical analysis largely descriptive. some critical analysis may be present but difficult to follow solid critical analysis but limited, still descriptive in parts good critical analysis but lacking in originality well-developed critical analysis, some originality and confidence. evidence of literature that is relevant, and supports the argument (20%) no literature described limited literature used in presenting the argument. few references, often not of high academic standard (eg reliance on websites) some literature searched and presented but the use is still relatively descriptive. good engagement with the literature. demonstrates some breadth of reading. excellent and thorough literature search presented. references are used well and interwoven throughout. literature is used, critically considered and synthesised. scholarly presentation 10% large number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. english construction is incomprehensible. very poor formatting. no literature cited or referencing style is very poor. incomplete acknowledgement of work of others (plagiarism). a number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. some problems with english expression. not well formatted. some literature cited, but not enough, not used effectively, lack of current literature or not relevant. some grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. english expression is sound. well formatted. some appropriate literature cited, but some points not supported by citations. presentation is well written. some minor grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. good use of english language. very well formatted. most content relevantly cited. presentation is cohesively written. clear format. very few grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. excellent use of english language. excellent formatting. polished. all relevant essay content is referenced appropriately comments: page 1 of 1 page 2 of 1 pass="" (50-64%)="" credit="" (65-74%)="" distinction="" (75-84%)="" high="" distinction="" (≥85%)="" assignment="" responds="" directly="" to="" the="" assessment="" task="" and="" addresses="" questions="" outlined="" for="" the="" social="" analysis="" (50%)="" poor="" or="" no="" application="" to="" assessment="" task="" some="" evidence="" of="" social="" analysis="" of="" health="" issue="" but="" difficult="" to="" follow="" and/or="" few="" points="" made.="" some="" work="" is="" focused="" on="" the="" aims="" and="" themes="" of="" the="" assignment,="" but="" not="" all="" questions="" are="" followed.="" largely="" descriptive="" accounts.="" not="" terribly="" cohesive.="" solid="" social="" analysis,="" some="" key="" questions="" explored="" and="" some="" attempt="" to="" critically="" discuss="" topic.="" has="" addressed="" the="" main="" purpose="" of="" the="" assignment,="" but="" flow="" is="" not="" seamless.="" good="" social="" analysis,="" key="" questions="" explored="" and="" critically="" discussed.="" has="" addressed="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" assignment="" coherently.="" evidence="" of="" good="" critical="" thought;="" however="" lacks="" depth="" of="" analysis="" and="" thinking.="" good="" synthesis="" of="" the="" literature="" throughout="" the="" argument,="" but="" could="" be="" more="" active="" in="" the="" use="" of="" the="" literature="" and="" in="" presenting="" the="" argument="" excellent="" well="" -developed="" social="" analysis,="" key="" questions="" addressed="" in="" sophisticated="" manner="" and="" critically="" discussed.="" logical="" and="" interesting.="" has="" addressed="" the="" purpose="" of="" the="" assignment="" comprehensively="" and="" imaginatively.="" outstanding.="" all="" questions="" are="" addressed="" thoroughly="" and="" critically.="" very="" active="" and="" highly="" polished="" academic="" writing.="" evidence="" of="" critical="" analysis="" (20%)="" no="" evidence="" of="" critical="" analysis="" largely="" descriptive.="" some="" critical="" analysis="" may="" be="" present="" but="" difficult="" to="" follow="" solid="" critical="" analysis="" but="" limited,="" still="" descriptive="" in="" parts="" good="" critical="" analysis="" but="" lacking="" in="" originality="" well-developed="" critical="" analysis,="" some="" originality="" and="" confidence.="" evidence="" of="" literature="" that="" is="" relevant,="" and="" supports="" the="" argument="" (20%)="" no="" literature="" described="" limited="" literature="" used="" in="" presenting="" the="" argument.="" few="" references,="" often="" not="" of="" high="" academic="" standard="" (eg="" reliance="" on="" websites)="" some="" literature="" searched="" and="" presented="" but="" the="" use="" is="" still="" relatively="" descriptive.="" good="" engagement="" with="" the="" literature.="" demonstrates="" some="" breadth="" of="" reading.="" excellent="" and="" thorough="" literature="" search="" presented.="" references="" are="" used="" well="" and="" interwoven="" throughout.="" literature="" is="" used,="" critically="" considered="" and="" synthesised.="" scholarly="" presentation="" 10%="" large="" number="" of="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" english="" construction="" is="" incomprehensible.="" very="" poor="" formatting.="" no="" literature="" cited="" or="" referencing="" style="" is="" very="" poor.="" incomplete="" acknowledgement="" of="" work="" of="" others="" (plagiarism).="" a="" number="" of="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" some="" problems="" with="" english="" expression.="" not="" well="" formatted.="" some="" literature="" cited,="" but="" not="" enough,="" not="" used="" effectively,="" lack="" of="" current="" literature="" or="" not="" relevant.="" some="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" english="" expression="" is="" sound.="" well="" formatted.="" some="" appropriate="" literature="" cited,="" but="" some="" points="" not="" supported="" by="" citations.="" presentation="" is="" well="" written.="" some="" minor="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" good="" use="" of="" english="" language.="" very="" well="" formatted.="" most="" content="" relevantly="" cited.="" presentation="" is="" cohesively="" written.="" clear="" format.="" very="" few="" grammatical,="" spelling="" or="" punctuation="" errors.="" excellent="" use="" of="" english="" language.="" excellent="" formatting.="" polished.="" all="" relevant="" essay="" content="" is="" referenced="" appropriately="" comments:="" page="" 1="" of="" 1="" page="" 2="" of="">50%) pass (50-64%) credit (65-74%) distinction (75-84%) high distinction (≥85%) assignment responds directly to the assessment task and addresses questions outlined for the social analysis (50%) poor or no application to assessment task some evidence of social analysis of health issue but difficult to follow and/or few points made. some work is focused on the aims and themes of the assignment, but not all questions are followed. largely descriptive accounts. not terribly cohesive. solid social analysis, some key questions explored and some attempt to critically discuss topic. has addressed the main purpose of the assignment, but flow is not seamless. good social analysis, key questions explored and critically discussed. has addressed the purpose of the assignment coherently. evidence of good critical thought; however lacks depth of analysis and thinking. good synthesis of the literature throughout the argument, but could be more active in the use of the literature and in presenting the argument excellent well -developed social analysis, key questions addressed in sophisticated manner and critically discussed. logical and interesting. has addressed the purpose of the assignment comprehensively and imaginatively. outstanding. all questions are addressed thoroughly and critically. very active and highly polished academic writing. evidence of critical analysis (20%) no evidence of critical analysis largely descriptive. some critical analysis may be present but difficult to follow solid critical analysis but limited, still descriptive in parts good critical analysis but lacking in originality well-developed critical analysis, some originality and confidence. evidence of literature that is relevant, and supports the argument (20%) no literature described limited literature used in presenting the argument. few references, often not of high academic standard (eg reliance on websites) some literature searched and presented but the use is still relatively descriptive. good engagement with the literature. demonstrates some breadth of reading. excellent and thorough literature search presented. references are used well and interwoven throughout. literature is used, critically considered and synthesised. scholarly presentation 10% large number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. english construction is incomprehensible. very poor formatting. no literature cited or referencing style is very poor. incomplete acknowledgement of work of others (plagiarism). a number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. some problems with english expression. not well formatted. some literature cited, but not enough, not used effectively, lack of current literature or not relevant. some grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. english expression is sound. well formatted. some appropriate literature cited, but some points not supported by citations. presentation is well written. some minor grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. good use of english language. very well formatted. most content relevantly cited. presentation is cohesively written. clear format. very few grammatical, spelling or punctuation errors. excellent use of english language. excellent formatting. polished. all relevant essay content is referenced appropriately comments: page 1 of 1 page 2 of 1>