You are a health policy officer working for a national or international health agency of your choice. You have been given a task to write a policy brief, supported by evidence, for a Ministry of Health or Finance and Economic Development, or Prime Minister in a particular setting, on an issue related to global health and economic development.1. Select an organisation (international or national) to represent eg. Ministry of Health2. Select a setting eg. Financing for health is very low3. Select an issue related to global health and economic development eg. Increasing burden of AIDS, but low funding for it. (Please do this policy brief on non-communicable diseases in some way.)4. Conduct rigorous research to locate credible sources of information about your issue and summarise what is known about your global health issue5. On the basis of this research – propose an intervention intended to reduce the incidence/impact of the health issue6. Use the policy brief template provided to write your report.
Due: Thursday 21 May 2020 (12:00 pm) via Turnitin Your Task: You are a health policy officer working for a national or international health agency of your choice. You have been given a task to write a policy brief, supported by evidence, for a Ministry of Health or Finance and Economic Development, or Prime Minister in a particular setting, on an issue related to global health and economic development. Getting Started: 1. Select an organisation (international or national) to represent eg. Ministry of Health 2. Select a setting eg. Financing for health is very low 3. Select an issue related to global health and economic development eg. Increasing burden of AIDS, but low funding for it. 4. Conduct rigorous research to locate credible sources of information about your issue and summarise what is known about your global health issue 5. On the basis of this research – propose an intervention intended to reduce the incidence/impact of the health issue 6. Use the policy brief template provided to write your report. Elements Detail Purpose Inform, persuade and make recommendations Context Employee of national or international health agency of your choice Text type Explanation and advocacy Roles and relationships (Audience and your role) Your role Policy advisor Audience Ministry of Health or Finance and Economic Development, or Prime Minister. Mode and Medium Written report Conditions Word count: Must not exceed 3 single-sided A4 pages (excluding the cover sheet and reference list); margins >1.25cm; font >11 point Referencing style: Vancouver Individual or Group Task: Individual Criteria 1. Understand the components of health and development and explain the ways in which they are linked. 2. Comprehend the role of health for economic development from macro- and micro- economic perspectives. 3. Understand the effects of climate change, gender and migration on health and development in the context of globalisation. 4. Identify, synthesise and critically evaluate qualitative and quantitative information about health and development in a given context. 5. Demonstrate skills in written and oral communication, and skills in group work including collaboration, teamwork and group negotiation. PUBH 7113 Global Health and Development Task 2: Policy Brief (35%) PUBH7113 Semester 1 2020 Policy Brief Template A Policy Brief is a “short, neutral summary of what is known about a particular issue or problem. It is designed to facilitate policy-making”. The main purpose is to “succinctly evaluate policy options regarding a specific issue, for a specific policy-maker audience”. Policy-makers need to make practical decisions under time-constraints, so the brief should provide evidence and actionable recommendations. The review should be properly referenced throughout and a full reference list must be provided. You should as much as possible use references from published literature. You can use diagrams and figures to support your work but please reference where they have come from. Vancouver referencing style preferred. Point 1 (Heading/Title): Provide an informative heading for your policy brief. Your heading must describe the content of the brief concisely. Point 2 (Executive summary): This is a synthesis of the entire brief. It aims to provide a short summary of the brief and makes its significance (the “why”) clear. It should clearly reflect the objectives of the brief, define and describe the problem (What is the problem? What is the root cause? Why is it important?) and concisely evaluate the alternatives and main conclusions or recommendations (What can you do about it? What are the key messages for noting by the Health Minister?). Point 3 (Introduction): Introduces the content of the brief. Describes the issue and context of the policy topic. Include the overall context and nature of the policy issue and the basic background of the research. Point 4 (Context): Direct and specific context of the problem analysed. Provide a compelling argument of the importance of your issue in the context of your region. Point 5 (Problem definition): Convince the reader (for instance, the Health Minister) that your problem is both relevant and urgent, and that this document will provide possible solutions. Develop a response consistent with the policy options that will be introduced later in the brief. You may consider questions such as: How is your chosen issue impacting human health? Who is affected and to what degree? Convince the reader that the problem requires urgent action. Point 6 (Options and evidence): Provide policy options and convincing arguments to support the preferred action - make a clear and consistent link between the problem, conclusions and recommendations and outline any ethical issues that need to be considered. Point 7 (Conclusions and Recommendation): Provide a concise synthesis of the most relevant findings, practical and realistic recommendations, and steps necessary to implement the recommendations. Point 8 (Implications): Consider the significance of the policy brief to the public / policy makers. You may consider questions such as: What are the ramifications of this issue? How applicable and useful are the findings of your policy brief to the context of your issue? How, why and in what way are the findings of the policy brief important to people making decisions, such as the Health Minister? Appendices: Literature search strategy, Reference list Policy brief: Marking Matrix Marking Matrix<50% 50-64%="" 65-74%="" 75-84%="">=85% Relation to published work Not for dissemination Not publishable, but could be an internal report Publishable with substantial revisions after re-review Publishable with some significant revisions Publishable with minor revisions Structure and Organisation 25% Policy brief is unstructured or over structured with mostly lists. Introduction, sections and conclusion are lacking or indistinct. Information is poorly organized and does not flow logically. (<12.5) policy="" brief="" has="" some="" structure.="" introduction,="" sections="" and="" conclusion="" are="" distinct.="" some="" information="" is="" poorly="" organized="" and="" at="" times="" does="" not="" flow="" logically.="" (12.25-16)="" policy="" brief="" structure="" is="" generally="" good.="" introduction,="" sections="" and="" conclusion="" are="" distinct.="" most="" information="" is="" well="" organized="" and="" generally="" logical.="" (16.25-18.5)="" policy="" brief="" has="" a="" good="" structure.="" clear="" introduction,="" sections="" and="" conclusion.="" information="" is="" well="" organized="" and="" logical.="" (18.75-21.25)="" policy="" brief="" is="" very="" well="" structured.="" clear="" and="" well="" organized="" introduction,="" sections="" and="" conclusion.="" flow="" of="" the="" policy="" brief="" is="" logical.="" (="">21.25) Content: evidence and argument 50% The policy brief is not defined in concept and scope and the proposed policy solution is not feasible in the given context. Does not address the question or topic. Crucial omissions in information. Serious misinterpretation of data. Serious errors in deduction. Argument is weak or non-existent. No original observations. (<25) the="" policy="" brief="" is="" not="" clearly="" defined="" in="" concept="" and="" scope="" and="" the="" proposed="" policy="" solution="" is="" not="" very="" feasible="" in="" the="" given="" context.="" some="" parts="" of="" the="" question/topic="" are="" addressed.="" some="" major="" omissions="" in="" information="" and="" misinterpretation="" of="" data.="" some="" errors="" in="" deduction.="" some="" cohesion="" of="" argument.="" few="" original="" observations.="" 25.5-32="" the="" policy="" brief="" is="" defined="" in="" concept="" and="" scope="" and="" the="" proposed="" policy="" solution="" is="" reasonable="" in="" the="" given="" context.="" the="" brief="" addresses="" the="" question/topic.="" some="" minor="" omissions="" in="" information.="" data="" is="" mostly="" interpreted="" correctly.="" looks="" at="" strengths="" and="" weaknesses="" of="" data="" information.="" argument="" is="" cohesive="" and="" backed="" up="" with="" some="" evidence.="" some="" original="" observations.="" 32.5-37="" the="" policy="" brief="" is="" clearly="" defined="" in="" concept="" and="" scope="" and="" the="" proposed="" policy="" solution="" is="" feasible="" in="" the="" given="" context.="" the="" brief="" addresses="" key="" aspects="" of="" the="" question/topic.="" few="" omissions="" in="" information.="" data="" is="" interpreted="" well.="" argument="" is="" strong="" and="" backed="" up="" with="" some="" relevant="" evidence.="" well="" synthesized="" and="" coherent="" argument="" and="" evidence.="" some="" novel="" observations="" and="" original="" thinking.="" 37.5-42.5="" the="" policy="" brief="" is="" very="" clearly="" defined="" both="" in="" concept="" and="" scope="" and="" the="" proposed="" policy="" solution="" is="" feasible="" in="" the="" given="" context.="" the="" brief="" thoroughly="" addresses="" all="" aspects="" of="" the="" question/="" topic.="" all="" relevant="" information="" is="" included="" in="" the="" policy="" brief.="" data="" is="" well="" analysed="" and="" interpreted="" correctly.="" extensive="" critical="" appraisal="" of="" evidence="" and="" argument.="" strong,="" cohesive="" argument="" backed="" up="" with="" evidence.="" original="" and="" novel="" observations.="">42.5 Style and Format 10% Large number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. Format is not relevant to a policy brief and style is inappropriate for the audience. Policy brief contains English construction that is incomprehensible.<5 a number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. format is not very relevant to a policy brief and style is not generally appropriate for the audience. many problems with english construction. 5.5-6.4 policy brief is well written. format is generally relevant to a policy brief and style is generally appropriate for the audience. some grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. english is sound. 6.5-7.4 policy brief is well written. format relevant to a policy brief and style appropriate for the audience. some minor grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. good use of english language. 7.5-8.5 policy brief is cohesively written. clear format relevant to a policy brief and style very appropriate for the audience. very few grammatical, a="" number="" of="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" format="" is="" not="" very="" relevant="" to="" a="" policy="" brief="" and="" style="" is="" not="" generally="" appropriate="" for="" the="" audience.="" many="" problems="" with="" english="" construction.="" 5.5-6.4="" policy="" brief="" is="" well="" written.="" format="" is="" generally="" relevant="" to="" a="" policy="" brief="" and="" style="" is="" generally="" appropriate="" for="" the="" audience.="" some="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" english="" is="" sound.="" 6.5-7.4="" policy="" brief="" is="" well="" written.="" format="" relevant="" to="" a="" policy="" brief="" and="" style="" appropriate="" for="" the="" audience.="" some="" minor="" grammatical,="" spelling="" and/or="" punctuation="" errors.="" good="" use="" of="" english="" language.="" 7.5-8.5="" policy="" brief="" is="" cohesively="" written.="" clear="" format="" relevant="" to="" a="" policy="" brief="" and="" style="" very="" appropriate="" for="" the="" audience.="" very="" few="">5 a number of grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. format is not very relevant to a policy brief and style is not generally appropriate for the audience. many problems with english construction. 5.5-6.4 policy brief is well written. format is generally relevant to a policy brief and style is generally appropriate for the audience. some grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. english is sound. 6.5-7.4 policy brief is well written. format relevant to a policy brief and style appropriate for the audience. some minor grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation errors. good use of english language. 7.5-8.5 policy brief is cohesively written. clear format relevant to a policy brief and style very appropriate for the audience. very few grammatical,>25)>12.5)>50%>