Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.
Major Report – Equity Focused Health Impact Assessment
Assessment Type Report
To facilitate students in gaining prac cal and work-integrated experience in a core area of public health prac ce, all students will undertake a desk-based research project applying equity-focused health impact assessment (EFHIA) of a program/ policy/ strategy/ proposal/ plan (i.e., an ‘ini a ve’) from the list provided or of their own choice (must be approved by Course Coordinator).
As part of the project, students will screen, scope, iden fy, and assess poten al impacts of their chosen ini a ve and form dra recommenda ons from an equity and health focus. Throughout this project, students will learn and apply the key skills of cri cal reading, cri cal appraisal, academic reading and academic wri ng, researching ar cles, evidence-based impact assessment, and preparing evidence-based and ac on focussed recommenda ons.
This is an amazing opportunity for students to prac cally apply the knowledge and skills that they have acquired during the course and their program to an exis ng public health issue. Their project report can then be forma ed as a manuscript and submi ed to a peer-review journal for publica on or converted into a policy brief and submi ed to relevant ministries.
A er the comple on of the report, students may also add this research project to their CVs or resumes as their research project in applied EFHIA.
Descrip on
This will be a ‘Desk-based Rapid EFHIA’, where the chosen ini a ve will be assessed on how it may differen ally impact different vulnerable groups, especially whether nega ve impacts (e.g., loca ng a new factory, removing transport subsidies for school children) may be experienced more strongly by one group than others.
More details about the EFHIA are present in Week8 – 9
The framework for conduc ng EFHIA is also given in the above learning materials.
Length
4000 words, exclusive of references and tables
Due Date
20-Augest @11:59 pm Australian Eastern Daylight Time (AEDT)
Submission Method
Online, via Turnitin AI detector will be used
Assessment Criteria
Rubric
PUBH 6302 Major Report on health Impact Assessment
PUBH 6302 Major Report on health Impact Assessment
CriteriaRatingsPoints
1. Screening (7 marks)
view longer description
7 to >6 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the ‘Screening’ process to identify potential equity focused health impacts. Addresses ALL the core questions, while discussing the context & content of policy/prog, target population, stakeholders, with emphasis on equity dimensions. Appropriately identifies opportunities for change & justifies recommendations.
6 to >4.5 pts
Meets Expectation
Demonstrates a good understanding ‘Screening’ process to identify potential equity focused health impacts. Gives some information about content & context of the policy/ prg. Addresses SOME key core questions: identifying differentially distributed, potential health impacts in a target population. Appropriately discusses Equity issues and justifies the recommendations.
4.5 to >3 pts
Satisfactory
Demonstrates a reasonable attempt to discuss the ‘Screening’ process to identify potential equity focused health impacts. Discusses equity dimensions of health impacts and addresses at least ONE core question.
3 to >0 pts
Not Satisfactory
An unacceptable effort, including non-completion. Step does not include any equity focus of health impacts
/ 7 pts
2. Scoping (7 marks)
view longer description
7 to >6 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the ‘Scoping’ process to establish the scope of health impacts by discussing ALL the components of ‘WHAT’, ‘WHO’ & ‘HOW’. Also, addresses ALL the core questions and presents their project plan and methods comprehensively.
6 to >4.5 pts
Meets Expectation
Demonstrates a good understanding of the ‘Scoping’ process to establish the scope of health impacts by discussing SOME components of ALL 3 – ‘WHAT’, ‘WHO’ & ‘HOW’. Presents answers to SOME key core questions using their equity lens: Proposing causal pathways for health impacts, defining core values, steering committee and methods used to gather information.
4.5 to >3 pts
Satisfactory
Demonstrates a reasonable attempt to discuss the ‘Scoping’ process. Answers at least ONE core question using the equity lens. Of WHAT, WHO & HOW, discusses at least TWO of them
3 to >0 pts
Not Satisfactory
An unacceptable effort, including non-completion. Step does not include any component of WHAT, WHO & HOW.
/ 7 pts
3. Impact Identification (10 marks)
view longer description
10 to >9 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the process of analysing the chosen policy/ prog with focus on target population. Presents thoroughly researched evidence base discussing relationship b/w policy/prg, target population and health impacts. Critically appraises this information and other information sources outlined in previous step. Discusses ALL the components of policy analysis while keeping equity as a focus throughout this step.
9 to >7.5 pts
Meets Expectation
Demonstrates a good understanding of the process of analysing the chosen policy/ prog with focus on target population. Presents some form of critically appraised evidence base to demonstrate relationship between health impacts and the target population. Discusses at least TWO components of policy analysis (in addition to profiling population) while keeping equity as focus in this step.
7.5 to >4.5 pts
Satisfactory
Demonstrates a reasonable attempt to discuss this step. Presents SOME evidence-based information in addition to profiling population. However, in-depth discussion (with evidence) about relationship between policy, impact and population is missing.
4.5 to >0 pts
Not Satisfactory
An unacceptable effort, including non-completion. Step does not include any evidence- based research and target population profiling.
/ 10 pts
4. Impact Assessment (10 marks)
view longer description
10 to >9 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the process of critically assessing information gathered in Step 3, by addressing ALL the required components. Makes decision about implications of the collected evidence using the equity perspective. Maps/ assesses these findings thoroughly & in a clear way. Also prioritizes the impacts accordingly, while maintaining the equity focus throughout this step.
9 to >7.5 pts
Meets Expectation
Demonstrates a good understanding of the process of critically assessing information gathered in Step 3. Presents SOME assessment on impacts of policy from the equity perspective. Maps / critically assesses the evidence and answers at least SOME core questions. Demonstrates a good attempt at prioritizing the impacts.
7.5 to >4.5 pts
Satisfactory
Demonstrates a reasonable attempt to discuss this step, by critically assessing evidence gathered in Step 3. Addresses at least TWO core questions, in addition to prioritizing the impacts. Keep a focus on equity.
4.5 to >0 pts
Not Satisfactory
An unacceptable effort, including non-completion. Step does not include any impact assessment and prioritizing.
/ 10 pts
5. Recommendation (6 marks)
view longer description
6 to >5 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of this step by presenting solution based recommendations for the chosen policy/ program. Addresses ALL the components of this step and delivers practical, clear & achievable priority actions, strongly supporting the claims made throughout the HIA. ALL the recommendations are based on evidence collected from national /global resources.
5 to >4 pts
Meets Expectation
Demonstrates a thorough understanding of this step by presenting SOME solution based recommendations for the chosen policy/ program. Presents at least ONE evidence- based recommendation for each health impact. However may not have recommendations for each target group (e.g. 3 identified health impacts in 3 target groups 3 recommendations for 2 target groups).Recommendations are evidence-based and have a potential to limit inequality issues identified throughout HIA.
4 to >3 pts
Satisfactory
Demonstrates a reasonable attempt to present ONE recommendation for >50% of identified health impacts for at least ONE target population group (e.g. 3 identified impacts for 3 target groups 1 recommendations for 1 target group)
3 to >0 pts
Not Satisfactory
An unacceptable effort, including non-completion.
/ 6 pts
6. Structure, clarity & Referencing (5 marks)
view longer description
5 to >4 pts
Exceeds Expectation
Presents a perfectly prepared report with ALL the required components.
4 to >3 pts
Meets Expectation
Presents a good report with clear structure and proper referencing. Has MAJORITY of required components. Marks deducted for exceeding word limits and copy pasting.
3 to >2 pts
Satisfactory
Presents a reasonable report with SOME structure and clarity. Uses references properly. Marks deducted for exceeding word limits and copy pasting.
2 to >0 pts
Not Satisfactory
An unacceptable effort, including non-completion. Marks deducted for exceeding word limits and copy pasting.
/ 5 pts
Total points: 0
Order from us for quality, customized work in due time of your choice.