OFFERS!
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Get Expert-crafted assignments
Save 51%
Get Expert-crafted assignments
| Category | Assignment | Subject | Science |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Auckland | Module Title | POPLHLTH 102 Population Health |
Describe the SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS (SES) related inequalities relating to CIGARETTE SMOKING and LUNG CANCER in developed (high income) countries, then apply the explanations from class to describe why these inequalities exist.
Part 1: Introduction (6 pts)
Part 2: Briefly describe the nature of the inequalities. (16 pts)
Part 3: Apply the FOUR explanations used in class (Material/Structural Resources, Social Selection/Discrimination, Culture/Behaviour, and Historical Context) to demonstrate your understanding of how these factors work separately and together to produce SES-related inequalities in cigarette smoking and lung cancer. (35 pts)
Part 4: Focusing on the non-physical structural resources of cigarette smoking-related legislation and regulations: (30 pts)
Need Expert Help for Your POPLHLTH 102 Population Health Essay Assignment?
Request to Buy AnswerThis list of readings is just to get you started. You will hopefully find many of these useful but you do not need to use all of these in your assignment. You will need to find and use at least FIVE additional readings that are not on this list, PLUS at least FOUR news articles for your assignment. The FOUR news articles must only be used for Part 4 of the essay.
Asthana, S., & Halliday, J. (2006). Researching health inequalities. In What works in tackling health inequalities: pathways, policies and practice through the lifecourse (Chap 2, pp. 21-56). Bristol: Policy Press. (see CANVAS Reading List)
Graham, H. (2007). Health inequalities and inequities. In Unequal lives: Health and socioeconomic inequalities (pp. 3-18). New York: Open University Press. (see CANVAS Reading List)
Baum, Fran. (2015) Chapter 13: The Social Determinants of Health Inequity, in The New Public Health, Oxford University Press, 2015. (see CANVAS Reading List)
Ministry of Health. 2014. Tobacco Use 2012/13: New Zealand Health Survey. Wellington: Ministry of Health. (Available on Ministry of Health website)
Hay D. The rise and fall of smoking in New Zealand. Journal of the Royal College of Physicians, London. 1993 Jul;27(3):315-9. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
Sutherland TJ, Aitken D. Ethnic and socioeconomic inequalities in lung cancer in a New Zealand population. Respirology. 2008 Jun;13(4):590-3. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
Teng AM, Atkinson J, Disney G, Wilson N, Blakely T. Changing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer incidence and mortality: Cohort study with 54 million person-years follow-up 1981-2011. Int J Cancer. 2017 Mar 15;140(6):1306-1316. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
Laugesen M, Swinburn B. New Zealand's tobacco control programme 1985-1998. Tobacco Control. 2000 Jun;9(2):155-62. (Available through UoA library catalogue search) Hiscock, R., Bauld, L., Amos, A., Fidler, J. & Munafo, M. (2011). Socioeconomic status and smoking: a review. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Vol.1248 (1), p.107-123. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
Beaglehole, R. & Yach, D. (2003). Globalisation and the prevention and control of non-communicable disease: the neglected chronic diseases of adults. The Lancet, 362. 903 – 908. (Available through UoA library catalogue search) Bray, F. I., & Weiderpass, E. (2010). Lung cancer mortality trends in 36 European countries: secular trends and birth cohort patterns by sex and region 1970–2007. International Journal of Cancer, 126(6), 1454-1466. (Available through UoA library catalogue search) Kuper, H., Adami, H. O., & Boffetta, P. (2002). Tobacco use, cancer causation and public health impact. Journal of internal medicine, 251(6), 455-466. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
Brownell, K. & Warner, K. (2009). The Perils of Ignoring History: Big Tobacco Played Dirty and Millions Died. How Similar Is Big Food? The Milbank Quaterly. 87,1:259-294. (Available through UoA library catalogue search) Moodie, R., Stuckler, D., Monteiro, C., Sheron, N., Neal, B., Thamarangsi, T., Lincoln, P., Casswell, S. (2013). Profits and pandemics: prevention of harmful effects of tobacco, alcohol, and ultra- processed food and drink industries. The Lancet. 381,9867 pp.670-679. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
Bond, Laura and Daube, Mike and Chikritzhs, Tanya. 2010. Selling addictions: Similarities in approaches between Big Tobacco and Big Booze. Australasian Medical Journal. 3 (6): pp. 325-332. (Available through UoA library catalogue search)
|
Description - General |
Part 1: Introduction (6 pts) |
Part 2 (16 pts) |
Part 3 (35 pts) |
Part 4 (30 pts) |
Part 5: Conclusion (8 pts) |
Spelling, presentation and referencing (5 pts) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
A range 90–100 85–89 80–84 |
Work is of high to exceptionally high quality showing excellent knowledge and understanding of subject matter and appreciation of issues. Arguments are well formulated and based on strong and sustained evidence. Relevant literature is referenced. There is a high level of critical thinking. |
Excellent communication and presentation skills are evident. Excellent flow and structure. Links between parts are made throughout. |
Excellent introduction (including signposting). Topic has been introduced and explanation of why lung cancer is important has been provided. Main causes of lung cancer have been described. Purpose and structure (signposting) of essay has been outlined. |
Clear, deep and detailed description of the relationship between SES and both smoking and lung cancer is presented and supported by excellent use of evidence, including statistics. A number of different measures of SES are presented and some critical comparison is made. Excellent use of evidence/resources to back up all arguments. |
The four explanations are used to explain causes of SES-related inequalities in smoking and lung cancer. The relevance of each explanation is provided, including a justification for why or why not each explanation is relevant to understanding these inequalities. Examples are included in the explanation. Critical thinking is evident and application of the models shows great understanding. Arguments are clear and well supported with evidence. |
Historical trends in developed countries are described. The influence of lobby groups is explored in detail. There is evidence of critical thinking and application of legislation and regulations on non-physical structural resources. All components have been answered, including a brief personal reflection. Arguments are clear and well supported with examples and evidence. High-quality sources have been cited as well as four news articles to support your answer. |
Clear and concise summary of key points of the essay, and implications discussed. Excellent flow and structure. Links between questions are made throughout. Free of grammatical or punctuation errors. Accurate referencing using sufficient resources. At least 5 new references of high quality are used. News articles are only cited in Part 4. |
|
B range 75–79 70–74 65–69 |
Work shows a good to strong grasp of subject matter and understanding of major issues, though not necessarily of the finer points. Arguments are clearly developed and based on convincing evidence. Relevant literature is referenced. There is evidence of critical thinking. Good communication and presentation skills are evident. Arguments and paragraphs are structured clearly; good links between parts. |
Introduction provided. Key components need strengthening. |
A clear description of how smoking and lung cancer relates to SES is made and supported by some good evidence. Discussion of different ways of measuring SES is presented and is clear and detailed. Good use of evidence and some demonstration of critical thinking is made. |
The four explanations are used to understand the causes of SES-related inequalities in smoking and lung cancer; all explanations are discussed but may lack detail or application. Arguments are supported with evidence but may lack development or clarity. |
Historical trends in developed countries are described but may be lacking detail. The influence of lobby groups is discussed. Arguments are supported with evidence but may lack development or clarity. All components have been answered, including a brief personal reflection but may be lacking detail, explanation, or examples. |
Summary of key points is provided, but may be lacking detail. Some key points or implications are missing. |
Arguments and paragraphs are structured clearly; good links between questions; referencing accurate. At least 5 new references of high quality are used. |
|
C range 60-64 55-59 50-54 |
Work shows someknowledge of subject matterand appreciation of mainissues, though possibly withsome lapses andinadequacies. Arguments aredeveloped and supported bysome evidence andreferences. Critical thinkingis present but limited.Adequate communicationand presentation skills areevident. Structure lackssome clarity, little linkagebetween parts; does notflow well. | Introduction provided but may be missing key components. | he relationship betweenSES and both smokingand lung cancer isdescribed, but in littledetail and/or with lackingevidence. Explanation ofthe different ways ofmeasuring SES isattempted but lacksdetail or does notdemonstrateunderstanding of thetopic. Limited use ofevidence/resources | The key arguments of the fourexplanations are made with anunderstanding of their relevancein smoking and lung cancerinequalities. Little detail is givenor are unclear/inaccurate. Littleor no evidence is used to supportarguments. |
Historical trends in developed
countries are inaccurate or missing.
Influence of lobby groups is
attempted but lacking development
and clarity. Little or no evidence is
used to support arguments.
Components of this part of the essay
are missing, including personal
reflection. A lack of detail,
explanation or examples are
provided.
|
Summary of key points lacks clarity. No implications are provided | Structure lacks some clarity, little linkage between questions; does not flow well. Referencing lacks accuracy and/or insufficient. New resources used are lacking in number or quality. |
|
D range 45-49 40-44 0-39 |
Work lacks breadth anddepth. Work generally hasgaps. Frequently work of thisgrade takes a simple factualapproach andunderstanding, and coverageof material is inadequate.Does not attempt tointerpret the material. At thelower end, it indicates aneed for considerable effortto achieve improvement.Communication andpresentation skills are poor.Highly unsatisfactory. Workshows a lack of knowledgeabout, and understanding of,the topic. Inadequate indegree of relevance,completeness, or both.Communication andpresentation skills are weak.Structure and flow ofarguments unclear.Inappropriate writing style isused. | No introduction provided. | Poor or no description of the relationship between SES and both smoking and lung cancer. Incomplete, inaccurate or lacking use of resources/evidence. Little to no discussion of how SES is measured. |
Incomplete or unclear description
of the four explanations and how
they can be used to understand
smoking. Poor or non-existent
discussion of lobby groups and
their role in the social
environment. Little or no critical
thinking is demonstrated.
|
Historical trends in developed countries are missing. Poor or non-existent discussion of lobby groups. Components of this part of the essay are missing. No personal reflection. Little or no critical thinking is demonstrated. No examples are provided. | No conclusion provided. | Structure and flow of arguments unclear. Inappropriate writing style is used. Grammatical or punctuation errors make essay difficult to comprehend. Poor/limited referencing. Insufficient/poor quality new resources used. |
Hire Experts To Solve This POPLHLTH 102 Population Health Essay Assignment Before Deadline
Buy Non Plagiarized AssignmentNZ assignment help is now available for POPLHLTH 102 Population Health Assignment - Essay! Struggling with your Assessment? We've got you covered. Our experts provide affordable Assignment Help, ensuring 100% human-written content – no AI. Get A+ guaranteed, with plagiarism-free content and on-time delivery. We provide free assignment samples. Enjoy affordable, high-quality services and stress-free learning as you receive top-notch assistance with your assignments. Let us help you excel in your course!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
