| Category | Assignment | Subject | Nursing |
|---|---|---|---|
| University | University of Bedfordshire | Module Title | PUB015-6 Public Health Intelligence |
| Word Count | 3000 Words |
|---|---|
| Assessment Type | Report |
| Assessment Title | Assignment 1 |
Demonstrate a critical understanding of the principles, analytical techniques, tool kits and methods in health intelligence, and their application to improving public health practice.
Critically assess and synthesise the role of public health intelligence in terms of translating evidence into public health policy through synthesising, appraising, interpreting, and communicating intelligence that measures the health status, risks, needs and health outcomes of defined populations.
Your assignment will be marked according to the threshold expectations and the criteria on the following page. You can use them to evaluate your own work and consider your grade before you submit.
|
|
70%+ (1st Class) |
60-69% (2:1) |
50-59% (2:2) |
40-49% (3rd Class) Threshold Standard |
35-39% (Fail) |
0-34% (Fail) |
|
|
1. Written expressio n and structure . (10%) |
Excellent or outstanding presentation of publication standard. Written expression is concise, accurate and articulate. Excellent, coherent in-depth discussion. Report appropriately utilized secondary dataset and tightly focuses on and successfully addresses the assessment question. Minor spelling and grammatical errors |
Presentation of the epidemiological report, including figures and tables is very good. Report has a clear structure and information is well organized and relevant secondary dataset used. Very good, detailed and coherent discussion. Demonstrates very good understanding and use key terminology. Focuses on addressing assessment question and avoids the inclusion of irrelevant secondary dataset/data sources. Minimal spelling and grammatical errors |
Good, well presented epidemiological report but figures and/or tables lack informative titles or are poorly presented. Report has a good, appropriate secondary dataset used, well- organized structure and points are explained coherently Good, correct use of key terminology, but explanations are relatively basic. Attempts to address the assessment question well, but report includes some irrelevant information. Some spelling and grammatical errors. |
Overall presentation of the epidemiological report is satisfactory but lacks informative figures and/or tables. Most points are explained coherently, but the structure and organization of the report are very weak. Satisfactory use of key terminology, but explanations are vague and over-simplistic. The assessment question is addressed superficially; report includes interesting but irrelevant datasets used throughout. Many spelling and grammatical errors throughout the report. |
Presentation of the report has sections with clear errors in formatting. The report is poorly organized with some sections absent. Incorrect use of some terminology. The question is not addressed satisfactorily. The datasets chosen are not suitable to answer the question. Poor spelling and grammar throughout the report. |
Presentation of the report is poor. Constant use if inappropriate terminology. No evidence of addressing the question. No evidence of the choice of secondary dataset or the dataset chosen is not one of the options provided. Numerous and repeated spelling and grammatical errors. |
|
|
|
70%+ (1st Class) |
60-69% (2:1) |
50-59% (2:2) |
40-49% (3rd Class) Threshold Standard |
35-39% (Fail) |
0-34% (Fail) |
|
2. Use of literature , Harvard referenci ng and academic style. (10%) |
An excellent, comprehensive range of current primary literature is used effectively to support discussion. An excellent search strategy is used to identify relevant risk factors present in the chosen secondary dataset. The association of risk factors with the condition chosen are reported appropriately with effect statistics and confidence intervals. References and citations are consistently formatted in the UoB Harvard style. |
Very good range of evidence cited including current peer-reviewed primary literature. A very good search strategy is used to identify relevant risk factors related to the chosen condition. Risk factors are synthesised using effect statistics and confidence intervals. References and citations are consistently formatted, with most in the UoB Harvard style. |
Good range of evidence cited including current peer-reviewed primary literature. A good search strategy is used that identifies risk factors for the chosen condition. Statistics are reported from the studies in the literature review. Most references and citations are formatted in the UoB Harvard style, but some inaccuracies remain. |
Has identified essential literature but a minimal range of literature is cited. A search strategy is used to identify risk factors. Evidence of these risks for the chosen condition is reported. References and citations are included but UoB Harvard style is not used consistently. |
Insufficient relevant literature is used. The search strategy used is not suitable for the risk factors chosen. The results of the chosen articles are not reported satisfactorily. The literature that is used is not always relevant to the research question. References and citations are often incorrect and don’t use UoB Harvard style. |
No relevant literature has been used in the report. No evidence of a search strategy to identify risk factors. No results from any studies are reported. Any literature used is not related to the research question. References and citations are insufficient and and never use UoB Harvard style. |
|
3. Applicati on of knowled ge and understa nding. (30%) |
Report highlights a broad range of strategies and presents an excellent detailed description of the epidemiological report. Discusses and analyses a broad range of strategies implemented to improve quality of data within a specified area. |
Report highlights the key topic related to the epidemiology of a particular cause of mortality or morbidity of the disease or condition using appropriate suitable secondary datasets. Highlights a broad range of strategies to improve quality of data within a specified area. |
Report identifies the key topic related to the epidemiology of a particular cause of mortality or morbidity of the disease or condition using suitable secondary dataset. Includes good, detailed description of key strategies implemented to improve quality of data within a specified area. |
Report identifies the key topic related to the epidemiology of a particular cause of mortality or morbidity of the disease or condition using suitable secondary dataset. Highlights limited strategies implemented to improve quality of data within a specified area. |
Report uses secondary datasets that are not suited to answer the research question. Limited evidence of any strategies that could be used to improve data quality. |
Report does not clearly identify any secondary datasets used. No evidence of any strategies to improve data quality. |
|
|
70%+ (1st Class) |
60-69% (2:1) |
50-59% (2:2) |
40-49% (3rd Class) Threshold Standard |
35-39% (Fail) |
0-34% (Fail) |
|
4. Critical evaluatio n of the secondar y dataset/ data sources you have used (30%) |
Presents an excellent, in-depth, and insightful report. Statistical analysis uses recommended methods and is reported using effect sizes and confidence intervals. Demonstrates excellent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the secondary dataset you have used. |
Demonstrates a very good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of secondary dataset you have used. Statistical analysis uses suitable methods with results reported correctly. Very good, detailed critical analysis of effectiveness of the interventions based on evidence synthesized from multiple data sources of good quality information. |
Statistical analysis of the chosen dataset provides key results. Demonstrates a good understanding of strengths and weaknesses of secondary dataset you have used. |
Limited statistical analysis or one that does not use the recommended methods. A limited attempt to identify and understand the strengths, limitations, and weaknesses of the secondary dataset you have used. |
Statistical analysis is poor and does not use suitable methods. A poor attempt to identify and understand the strengths, limitations, and weaknesses of the secondary dataset you have used. |
No statistical analysis is presented. No attempt to identify and understand the strengths, limitations, and weaknesses of the secondary dataset you have used, or no dataset used. |
|
5. Evidence -based recommendations to improve public health. (20%) |
Recommendations proposed are insightful and supported by sound datasets. |
Recommendations proposed are well-thought-out and are likely to strengthen strategies identified as being sub-optimal within the specified location. Recommendations are explained in detail and are supported by strong datasets. |
Recommendations proposed are sensible and could feasibly strengthen strategies identified as being sub-optimal. Recommendations are described clearly and supported by sound datasets. |
Recommendations proposed are sensible but lack clear links with specific findings of the report. Recommendations are evidence-based but are not novel for the specified area having already been proposed in published datasets. |
Any recommendations proposed are not suitable for the condition. Recommendations are not linked to the evidence of the report. |
No recommendations proposed. |
Get the Solution of this PUB015-6 Assessment
Order Non-Plagiarised AssignmentAre you having trouble completing your PUB015-6 Public Health Intelligence? Our Nursing Assignment Help service is the best for you. You can even check our free assignment samples before placing your order. We promise on-time delivery and 24/7 support, no matter your academic needs. From Business Management to technical subjects, we cover it all. We also provide University of Bedfordshire Assignment Samples that have been written by the phd expert writers. Contact us now!
Let's Book Your Work with Our Expert and Get High-Quality Content
