PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
Introduction
For Assessment task 1, students will work as an independent population health consultant contracted
by the Victorian Government’s Department of Health to perform a health inequality audit for a specific
geographic zone within Victoria. Students will apply an internationally recognised audit tool used in
public health practice to provide their analysis of inequality within their assigned zone, and then
prepare a report on their findings for submission to the Department of Health.
Assessment specifications
| Due date | Friday 23 March 2018 11.59pm AEST |
| Weighting | 40% |
| Length and/or format | 2,000 words |
| Purpose | (1) To apply knowledge of health inequality through use of a tool used by public health practitioners; and (2) to make a determination about population health and inequalities based on available data |
| Learning outcomes | 1, 3 and 4 |
| Submission | Turnitin (via the PUBH610 LEO page) |
| Feedback | Marks and feedback will be provided via LEO |
| Assessment criteria | See marking rubric below |
Background and resources
This task is situated within the overall PUBH610 Assessment simulation. Your role is as an
independent Population Health Consultant, contracted by the Victorian Government’s Department of
Health, to produce a health inequalities report on a designated zone within the state.
Specification
Your contract with the Department of Health specifies the following requirements for your health
inequalities audit:
• Conducting an audit of your assigned Kingdom, with reference to the 14-15 sub-zones that
constitute that Kingdom.
• Use of the UK National Health Services’ Health Equity Audit tool, with your final audit report
constituting Step 2 of the standard audit cycle.
• Your audit report should detail 3-4 major health inequalities within the assigned Kingdom, and
consider multiple inequality types (e.g. socioeconomic, gender, age…). Data should be
represented visually (as appropriate) or in tabular form, and described clearly.
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
• Your audit report should provide a summary of the health inequalities identified within the Kingdom.
Working definition of inequalities and inequities
For the purposes of consistency, please refer to the VicHealth Fair Foundations Framework for
definitions of inequalities and inequities in relation to health. With the data provided to you it is
expected that you will consider 3-4 inequalities in relation to health indicators; whether or not you deem
them to be inequities is to be explained in your report. You should refer to the Fair Foundations
Framework and other sources in doing so.
Population health consultant role
Working in private consultancy firms is an often-overlooked role for those with postgraduate public
health and/or health administration degrees. Consultancy (of any kind) is a highly competitive industry
involving “bids” (tenders, proposals) for work outsourced by government or health services.
Consultancy firms come in all shapes and sizes, from those with global scale (Deloitte) through to selfemployed persons working from a home-office. As examples, you may wish to look examine the work
of/opportunities with the following international consultancy firms working in public health:
• McKinsey & Company (US)
• Dr Foster Intelligence (UK; now part of T-Health)
• RAND Europe (UK/EU)
• John Snow Inc (US)
• Booz Allen Hamilton (US)
For a localised audit report such as this, successful bidders may include larger Australian consultancy
firms (e.g. AHA Consulting, ACIL Allen Consulting or Ipsos) or smaller, local consultancy firms such as:
• Manning Consulting
• LMH Consulting
• Ehpic Consulting Group
• Keleher Consulting
Example consultancy report
The last consultancy firm, Keleher Consulting, specialises in performing work on behalf of local
governments or health services/networks around Victoria. This consultancy firm was commissioned by
the Frankston/Mornington Peninsula Primary Care Partnership to compile a population health atlas of
their “catchment” (i.e., the geographic area they are responsible for). This population health atlas, the
Frankston/Mornington Peninsula Population Health Atlas, is an example of a population health
consultant’s work on health data from multiple geographic areas that you should consider in preparing
your own report.
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
This population health atlas is not a health inequalities audit; rather, it is a descriptive summary of
available health data for the region. The profile does provide some comparison between health
indicators, but not generally according to markers of inequality or inequity. Instead, the focus is
generally on internal geographic comparisons (e.g. smaller areas within the overall catchment) or state
averages (i.e. overall Victorian data). Although not necessarily according to inequality markers, the
analysis and reporting it still a useful guide. For example, rather than reporting an indicator across
contiguous geographical areas (“Frankston East”, “Frankston West” etc), it could instead be “Group A”,
“Group B” or “Group C” where sub-zones are grouped based on socioeconomic status (i.e. lowestranked five sub-zones as “Group A”).
In relation to this task, you should take special note of the following sections of the population health
atlas (and their structure):
• The reporting structure used in sections 4 (child health), 5 (adolescent health) or 6 (adult health)
are reasonable models for your health inequalities report. Each of these sections considers
separate elements relevant to each (e.g. section 5.3: health behaviours, as a part of overall
adolescent health), with introduction/summary for each.
• As above, the profile is primarily focused on reporting differences by geographic region and
(mostly) comparison with state averages, with all data presented in tabular form. Your health
inequalities audit must provide greater consideration of inequalities, and display data in more
interesting ways.
Data
You have been provided with an edited version of the Social Health Atlas of Australia. Your assigned
Kingdom (zone) consists of 14-15 sub-zones, with data supplied for each of these sub-zones. You are
also provided with Victorian and Australian averages.
In working through this data, you should consider the following steps/hints:
• You may wish to calculate the average values for your Kingdom overall (and possibly others, if of
interest). This can be used in the same way as discussed in the Seminar on health inequalities
(last example, ranking of sub-zones and comparison with state/national average)
• For health indicators, consider whether they are measures of need, services or outcomes. When
you have classified them as such, you can look at their connection with each other (e.g. risk factors
to preventive services, disease prevalence to disease outcome…)
• Every sub-zone has an IRSD value that reflects overall socioeconomic status (Australian average =
1000). Lower values denote greater levels of disadvantage. You may choose to use IRSD as a
continuous variable (e.g. in a scatterplot as “x”) or classify into categories. For 15 sub-zones, you
are advised to keep any IRSD categorisation at three levels (five most disadvantaged sub-zones,
then the next five disadvantaged sub-zones, then four-five least disadvantaged sub-zones). More
information about IRSD is available at the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ website.
• See LEO for short video tutorials on using Microsoft Excel in your analysis.
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
Health equity audit tool
In relation to the HEA tool as part of the simulation, please remember the following:
• This assessment task concerns only “Step 2” of the process. Step 1, agree partners and issues, is
implicit in the fact that the Department of Health is commissioning these audits for each zone.
• Within the HEA tool document (page 6; diagram) the broad description of Step 2 is to: (i) use data
to compare service provision with need, access, use and outcome measures including proxies for
disadvantage, social class, ward [sub-zone] in the bottom quintile, BME, gender or other population
group; and (ii) focus on the third of the population with poorest health outcomes.
o This description is your starting point: comparison of need, access, use and outcomes (in
whatever combination) with measures of inequalities/inequities.
o Due to the obvious constraints with this task (2,000 words), you should focus on 3-4
major/significant (however you define this) examples of health inequalities (and discuss if
they are inequities)
o The tool’s stated focus on the third of the population with poor health outcomes can
potentially be translated into this task as the five sub-zones with poorest health outcomes
(or service use, or highest prevalence etc). Across the 3-4 health inequalities that you are
auditing, are these last five sub-zones the same every time?
• Please refer to the documentation on LEO regarding the HEA tool, particularly the Health Equity
Audit – A Guide for the NHS (from which the seminar examples were drawn).
Marking criteria
Marking criteria for this task are available in the Extended Unit Outline, and as an appendix to this
document. In preparing your audit report, you should consider the following:
• Application of audit tool: one of the most critical elements of this marking criterion is that of
“variety of means” to demonstrate inequalities/inequities. “Social inequalities” is a broad category,
and can be demonstrated in several ways from the data available. Although composite measures
like the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage (IRSD) are useful, you should use more
than this when discussing inequality/inequity in your audit report.
• Rationale and relationships between indicators: your audit report must detail
inequalities/inequities in health that would be widely recognised as such. It is critical that there be
an established and recognisable relationship between the indicators that you are considering: for
example, need, service and inequality. You may wish to use the VicHealth Fair Foundations
Framework to assist with describing these relationships; otherwise, you will need to provide
references to support them. As examples:
o Prevalence of cancer in area (need); hospital admissions for cancer (service); level of
educational attainment (inequality) = acceptable
o Prevalence of cancer in area (need); hospital admissions for cancer (service); percentage of
households with internet connection (inequality) = not acceptable
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
• Findings in relation to public health principles: discussion of this element is best placed in your
summary section, rather than in relation to each separate element you have looked at.
• Professionalism and overall report quality: the last two criteria relate to the document and
analysis as a whole. Your audit report should state, up front, that it will look at 3-4 aspects of health
inequalities, and that these will be related somehow: either very closely (all about cancer) or loosely
(all about chronic disease or risk factors) or all completely separate (cancer, injury, dietary…). Any
approach is acceptable: the first is focused, the second is themed and the third is broad—just so
long as it is justified. This justification should be stated up front, and revisited in the discussion.
Your focus/theme or choices may be “higher than average” for Australia, or highly imbalanced
across the zone (or higher than other zones). There are many different ways to do this, and doing
so sets up your entire report.
Referencing
APA6 is the required referencing style for this assessment task. Please ensure that you are familiar
with the formatting and usage requirements for this style. Aside from the ACU Library materials
provided, you may wish to use the Academic Referencing Tool from the La Trobe University Library.
Turnitin: Turnitin is a tool used to assist in the detection of referencing problems and/or plagiarism.
Turnitin generates a similarity index for a document: that is, what percentage of the document
contains material that is matched to accessible sources. Presence of similarity does not necessarily
indicate plagiarism: there are many reasons why similar text is discovered in student documents.
Turnitin often classifies reference lists themselves as “similar”—this is similarity, but not plagiarism.
Principles for referencing and skills self-assessment
For any given referencing style, there are two major elements:
• Citation: a citation appears within your work: it identifies that a certain element (e.g. a sentence or
direct quote) within the work is not “yours” – it is being cited from that source. Your in-text citation
must then match the reference list.
• Reference: a reference provides the full bibliographic information necessary for another person to
find the original source material (e.g. journal article, website, book). Each listed reference must be
cited at least once in your work. APA6 uses a reference list (i.e. a listing of the reference details of
all sources used), and not a bibliography (which includes sources consulted, but not cited in the
document)
The ability to cite other material correctly is fundamental to academic (and professional) honesty: it
must be clear to the reader what is your work (ideas, arguments, opinions, comments) and what
elements are from elsewhere (supporting statistics, research study findings, different opinions that you
are discussing).
To support you in developing your skills in referencing, please consider the following referencing
standards in relation to a previous assessment task. To what extent does your previous assessment
task meet these standards?
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
Use of multiple sources
Was your assessment task supported by multiple sources overall, and in each section/part? It is
always necessary to draw upon multiple sources of evidence or other material. Over-reliance on a
single source is not appropriate: it demonstrates poor academic standards and leaves your own work
vulnerable to any errors/problems that may exist with that source.
The need for multiple sources applies to your work overall, and for each individual part (or even
paragraph). Repeated use of the same source is never appropriate, even with citations: it is mere
reproduction of that source. Academic work requires integration of source material with your own
arguments/ideas, not reproduction of one source.
Paraphrasing and integrating
Do not cut-and-paste text from any source and reproduce it in your work (even if accompanied by a
citation). With the limited exception of direct quotation (see later), this is plagiarism.
Paraphrasing is part of integrating source material into your work. You must identify what it is you want
to draw upon from the source material (e.g. a particular statistic), where it “fits” in your own work, and
then how to fit it in with everything else present.
As an example, consider the following “source” material, and the paraphrased text beside it. The
“source” is a descriptive case study by Wilkin (2016), describing a University Lecturer obsessed with
his cats. The paraphrased text is a student paper on the topic of “Eccentricities of University
Lecturers”, and the student is using the cat-Lecturer case study as a source. The student draws on two
main points contained in the case study (see highlights):
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
| Case study (Wilkin, 2016) | Student paper |
| Dr Taylor owns a magnificent ragdoll cat named Marco. In his lectures, Dr Taylor makes frequent references to Marco irrespective of whether they are appropriate to the content of the lecture. Dr Taylor always shows a picture of Marco at the beginning of each lecture, and offers commentary on it. Students generally try to laugh or pretend that it is interesting; however, the majority believe that it is sad. Final-year students, who have seen the same pictures over and over again, think that Dr Taylor’s obsession with “that cat” is a product of severe social isolation. Final-year students refer to Marco as “that cat” because they are sick to death of hearing about him, his cat-toys, eating habits and faecal accidents. |
University Lecturers are well-known for demonstrating eccentric behaviours. For example, Wilkin (2016) describes a case of a Lecturer who was so obsessed with his own cat that all his lectures began with its picture. Cats are but one example of such inappropriate personal content in higher education. The impact of Lecturer eccentricities on student learning is not as well described as the eccentricities themselves. In the cat obsessed Lecturer case, students were expressing concern for the Lecturer’s mental health and general welfare (Wilkin, 2016). It does not seem much of a conceptual leap to say that concern for a lecturer’s wellbeing during a lecture probably interferes with their learning process during that same lecture. That, in turn, raises issues of consumer protection: what are students paying for? |
Two elements of the case study were paraphrased in the student paper: one about pictures in lectures,
the other about student concern for the Lecturer’s mental health. Both were referenced to the source
(as part of the sentence, or at the end of the sentence). There was linking text or commentary around
both and in the last section, the student draws an inference from cited material regarding student
concern for his mental health.
Developing your argument with source material
Academic writing is an exercise in developing, supporting, defending and concluding an “argument” of
some type. You must ensure that your argument (or topic, question, hypothesis etc) is clear to you
before you proceed.
The argument should be yours throughout, but it should engage with others and your citations indicate
where you have engaged with the work of others. Academic writing should never be an assemblage of
the work of others. You should be interpreting that other work and using it to illustrate your argument;
sources should not replace your own argument.
Cited material should always be relevant to your argument. Relevant does not mean “for” or “against”
your argument: it means connected. Some source material will be more connected than others; this
may be a function of your particular topic.
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
Consider an example involving an assessment task on the public health significance of depression with
comorbid anxiety. Many prevalence estimates for mental health conditions exist: from the Australian
Institute for Health & Welfare (AIHW), from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) and from other
research studies and reports. Depression with comorbid anxiety is highly specific topic, so prevalence
on mental illness generally will not be especially helpful alone (insufficiently connected). At the same
time, highly specific information about depression with comorbid anxiety may be very connected to the
topic, but needing context.
A useful approach is to move in a step-by-step fashion from the general to the specific. In this case,
it runs from mental illness to depression to depression with comorbid anxiety. It may also be necessary
to follow this pattern for other relevant aspects: for prevalence (and comorbidity), it will also be a
question of population: general population to population with depression. For example:
| Example text | Mental illness | Population |
| In Australia, the overall prevalence of mental illness (of any type) is 25% (AIHW, 2009). Depression is the most prevalent form of mental illness, with estimates of depression prevalence ranging from 10-20% of all Australians (ABS, 2010; AIHW 2009). Depression treatment and recovery is often complicated by comorbid anxiety: approximately 40% of people with depression will have a comorbid anxiety disorder (Someone, 2011). Men with depression are almost twice as likely to experience comorbid anxiety as women with depression (Another, 2016). |
Any mental illness Depression Depression with anxiety |
Total population Total population People with depression Men or women with depression |
Pinpoint
Citations indicate where your work includes the work of others, with an emphasis on where. A citation
must pinpoint exactly where this occurs within your work. Simply including citation(s) at the end of the
paragraph is insufficient: where exactly in the paragraph was it? At a minimum, a citation must
pinpoint the source material at the end of the sentence; sometimes, they will even appear within the
sentence. For example:
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
| Appropriately pinpointed | Inappropriately pinpointed |
| Depression treatment and recovery is often complicated by comorbid anxiety: approximately 40% of people with depression will have a comorbid anxiety disorder (Someone, 2011). Men with depression are almost twice as likely to experience comorbid anxiety as women with depression (Someone-Else, 2016). |
Depression treatment and recovery is often complicated by comorbid anxiety: approximately 40% of people with depression will have a comorbid anxiety disorder. Men with depression are almost twice as likely to experience comorbid anxiety as women with depression (Someone, 2011; Someone-Else, 2016). |
You should also be conscious that citations form part of the sentence for the purposes of punctuation.
A citation should appear before the full stop, like this (Hello, 2016). If it appears within a sentence like
this (Hello, 2016), then it probably has a comma (or semi-colon) associated with it. This should never
happen, (No-no, 2016) and don’t do this. (No-no, 2016)
The style guides available to you clearly indicate how to punctuate and how to format citations. With so
many easy-to-use guides, it is simply not acceptable to see basic errors in citation, such as that
associated with the use of two citations:
• Correct: “…was found in two studies (First, 2009; Second, 2011).”
• Incorrect: “…was found in two studies (First, 2009) (Second, 2011).”
Direct quotation
Think before you direct quote. There are very limited grounds for including direct quotes in academic
work, and if you do so you are highly likely to fail your assessment.
In general, direct quotation from a source is used only where the original arrangement of the words
has a particular meaning (to your work, or in general). An example of appropriate direct quotation is
where you include a small portion of a text, and then analyse it. The direct quote is attributed to the
source, and your analysis is wrapped around it. Without that analysis, that direct quotation has no
relevance to your work. The “original arrangement of the words” is usually only relevant to speeches,
works of literature and other major texts. In literary analysis, direct quotation is frequently seen
because of the nature of the source material. Government websites and academic papers are not
great works of literature and direct quotation of substantial portions of these is not acceptable.
Another example is where you are quoting something back as evidence. This is usually where
someone has made a particular speech or statement, and you quote this back to them as evidence of
having done so, or for the purposes of replying to it.
If direct quotation is used, then it should always be the minimum required to make the point. A large
passage of text directly quoted from a source, irrespective of citation, is not appropriate. Where several
such large passages of text are included in an assessment task, even with citations, it is a fail.
PUBH610: History & Principles of Public Health
Assessment Task 1: Health inequalities audit
What not to do
• Do not incorporate large sections of text from another source in your academic work. Even when a
citation is included at the end, this is plagiarism because no interpretation was involved.
Pressing Ctrl-C in the source, and Ctrl-V in your work, is not interpretation.
• For the same reason, “thesaurus bashing” is also unacceptable. Thesaurus bashing involves
cutting and pasting text from the source, then using the thesaurus function in your word processor
to simply substitute words in the original text with synonyms. Again, no interpretation was
involved, and the end product is typically unreadable. To demonstrate, consider this example of a
sentence before-and-after a thesaurus bash:
Dr Taylor makes frequent references to Marco irrespective of whether they are appropriate to the
content of the lecture.
Dr Taylor types common orientations to Marco notwithstanding of whether they are fitting to the
gratified of the sermon.
• As per the above discussion about multiple sources, do not rely on one/few sources. Repeatedly
citation of the same source (from one sentence to the next) is extremely obvious to the reader.
While it is common for a single source may be cited twice in a row (statistic X, then statistic Y),
further citation should be considered carefully.
• Ignore the APA6 style guide. Often this is the result of cut-and-paste of reference details from a
website (e.g. PubMed) of the bibliographic details. These may or may not be set out in APA6
format: you should not make the assumption that they are.
• Include initials in the in-text citations. Initials are never used in APA6 in-text citations.
Marking rubric
In line with section 5.1 of ACU’s Assessment Policy, all assessment marking and grading must be
criterion-referenced and use standards-based grading. Assessment criteria and standards are related
to unit learning outcomes. Student performance on a task is evaluated against each criterion, and
according to the set standards of achievement for that criterion.
Assessment criteria and standards for this task are provided in the following rubric. Each criterion is
marked according to a five-point standard, from “poor” to “excellent”, with a descriptor for each
standard. Within each standard there is a small marking range that further differentiates performance.
Your final mark for the task reflects evaluation against all criteria, with some criteria being doubleweighted.
PUBH610: Assessment Task 1 marking rubric
| Marking criteria and relevant unit learning outcome(s) |
Weight | Standard achieved | ||||
| Excellent | Very good | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| 1. Application of audit tool to simulation Audit tool (including guidance) is appropriately applied and adapted to the simulation data, with a variety of means used to demonstrate inequalities/inequities |
Audit tool is comprehensively applied and suitably adapted to the simulation data, with a variety of means used to demonstrate inequalities/inequities |
Audit tool is well applied and adapted to the simulation data, with a variety of means used to demonstrate inequalities/inequities |
Audit tool is satisfactorily applied and adapted to the simulation data, with a variety of means used to demonstrate inequalities/inequities |
Audit tool is not well applied or not adapted to the simulation data, or few means are used to demonstrate inequalities/inequities |
Audit tool is either misapplied or not adapted to the simulation/data, with little attempt to demonstrate inequalities/inequities |
|
| LO4: critically evaluate public health problems with tools used in practice |
1 | (4½–5 marks) | (3½–4 marks) | (2½–3 marks) | (1½–2 marks) | (0–1 marks) |
| 2. Rationale for health inequalities/inequities analysed Audit report’s analysis includes population health indicators with established, evidence-based relationships between them |
Audit report’s analysis considers indicators with well established health inequality relationships, all of which are soundly supported by reliable evidence |
Audit report’s analysis considers indicators with established health inequality relationships, all of which are supported by reliable evidence |
Audit report’s analysis considers indicators with established health inequality relationships, all of which are partly supported by reliable evidence |
Audit report’s analysis considers indicators with questionable health inequality relationships and/or are supported by unreliable evidence |
Audit report’s analysis considers indicators with little (or no) health inequality relationships and/or are unsupported by any type of evidence |
|
| LO4: critically evaluate public health problems with tools used in practice |
2 | (4½–5 marks) | (3½–4 marks) | (2½–3 marks) | (1½–2 marks) | (0–1 marks) |
| 3. Framing of audit results within public health principles Audit report makes appropriate findings about health inequalities/inequities within zone, and appropriately relates these to public health principle(s) |
Audit report makes several findings about health inequalities/ inequities within zone, and provides a comprehensive discussion of inequalities/ inequities in relation to public health principles |
Audit report makes several findings about health inequalities/inequities within zone, and provides a sound discussion of inequalities/inequities in relation to public health principles |
Audit report makes few findings about health inequalities/inequities within zone, and provides a satisfactory discussion of inequalities/inequities in relation to public health principles |
Audit report makes few findings about health inequalities/inequities within the zone and/or a limited discussion of inequalities/inequities in relation to public health principles |
Audit report contains very limited (or no) findings about health inequalities/inequities and/or does not discuss public health principles in a meaningful way |
|
| LO3: critique role of public health principles in improving health |
2 | (4½–5 marks) | (3½–4 marks) | (2½–3 marks) | (1½–2 marks) | (0–1 marks) |
PUBH610: Assessment Task 1 marking rubric
| Marking criteria and relevant unit learning outcome(s) |
Weight | Standard achieved | ||||
| Excellent | Very good | Good | Fair | Poor | ||
| 4. Professionalism of audit report Audit report is of the professional standard expected from a consultant in terms of being: presented in appropriate format; suitable for intended purpose and audience; coherent; and adheres to conventions of writing (spelling, grammar etc) and appropriately referenced |
Audit report is of a high professional standard in every respect: formatting, suitability for intended purpose and audience, coherent expression, free of spelling/grammatical errors and referencing |
Audit report is of a high professional standard in most respects: formatting, suitability for intended purpose and audience, coherent expression, free of spelling/grammatical errors and referencing |
Audit report is of an acceptable professional standard, but requires minor changes with respect to one or more of the following: formatting, suitability for intended purpose and audience, coherent expression, spelling/grammatical errors and referencing |
Audit report approaches a professional standard, but requires major changes or improvements with respect to one or more of the following: formatting, suitability for intended purpose and audience, coherent expression, spelling/grammatical errors or referencing |
Audit report not of a professional standard, requiring extensive revision due to problems with one or more of the following: formatting, suitability for intended purpose and audience, coherent expression, spelling/grammatical errors or referencing |
|
| LO1: demonstrate advanced knowledge/inform practice |
1 | (4½–5 marks) | (3½–4 marks) | (2½–3 marks) | (1½–2 marks) | (0–1 marks) |
| 5. Overall evaluation of health inequalities/inequities and relevance to practice Audit report provides a clear evaluation of health inequalities/inequities, is based on rigorous analysis of available data, and is relevant to public health practice and commensurate with actual consultancy reports in the public health sector |
Audit report meets all required elements to a high degree: (i) very clear evaluation of health inequalities/inequities; (ii) very rigorous analysis of available data; (iii) highly relevant to public health practice; and (iv) at (or above) the level of actual consultancy reports in the public health sector |
Audit report meets all required elements to an appropriate degree: (i) clear evaluation of health inequalities/inequities; (ii) rigorous analysis of available data; (iii) relevant to public health practice; and (iv) at the level of actual consultancy reports in the public health sector |
Audit report meets most required elements to an satisfactory degree: (i) clear evaluation of health inequalities/inequities; (ii) rigorous analysis of available data; (iii) relevant to public health practice; and (iv) at the level of actual consultancy reports in the public health sector |
Audit report requires some revisions in order to meet one (or more) of the required elements to a satisfactory degree |
Audit report requires substantial revisions in order to meet one (or more) of the required elements to a satisfactory degree |
|
| LO1: demonstrate advanced knowledge/inform practice |
1 | (4½–5 marks) | (3½–4 marks) | (2½–3 marks) | (1½–2 marks) | (0–1 marks) |
Total marks available: 35 (LO1 = 10 marks; LO3 = 10 marks; LO4 = 15 marks)
Unit weighting: 40%