HSN705 Public Health Nutrition Assignment 2 The Project brief: Write a proposal (Policy Brief) for your State Health Minister addressing one of the following areas to indicate what the problem is and what should be done about it (based on the available evidence):  micronutrient deficiency;  metabolic disease; or  food insecurity. This assignment comprises three parts. Part A (15%): Provide an introduction to your topic by clearly articulating the problem at the state level – what is the prevalence, who is affected, what are the determinants etc. Select a subgroup within the population which has a particular issue with the problem – provide evidence of the problem, how it affects the subgroup and what the determinants are. A clear description of determinants will help you to then provide a rationale for the public health approaches most likely to improve the issue. You will need to choose a circumscribed topic under the broad heading you’ve selected from above. For example, under metabolic disease you might choose childhood obesity; under food insecurity you might choose a focus on a subgroup like homeless youth; under micronutrient deficiencies you might choose iron deficiency in remote indigenous children. These are just some of many potential examples – please follow your interests here. Your assignment should be a pleasure to undertake, providing you with an opportunity to expand on your passions and interests. Part B (60%): Propose to the Federal Health Minister the public health approach (or combination of approaches) you would recommend the Government adopt to address this issue. This section needs to be evidence based and provide a clear argument for why you’d propose this approach over another. Some pointers:  Be specific to your target group here – you may want to outline a whole of population approach to begin with but the emphasis here is on what approach you’d propose for your target group specifically.  You will need to show evidence of having read widely and deeply on your chosen topic. You are expected as a post-graduate student to show evidence of your skills at critical appraisal of literature - so write to illustrate this.  We anticipate the inclusion of at least three studies, preferably more, that will provide support for your approach. Avoid repeatedly citing one paper.  Discuss the likely advantages and disadvantages of this approach or program (s).  Write this with conviction – this is the advice to a Minister and they need to have the facts as best they stand. Ask yourself what you’d need if you were in their shoes. This should be a high quality review with a well-balanced analysis of what to do and why; of what the strengths and limitations (advantages and disadvantages) of this approach are going to be; and of what the political ramifications are likely to be (see Part C).  You do not need to detail specific program objectives, methods or evaluation – the main emphasis is on providing evidence for the approach, for example you may propose that conducting a social marketing campaign is the most appropriate approach. You don’t need to detail the key messages, the timetable of media releases and the media monitoring you would use. But you do need to use the evidence to show that this would be appropriate and the best approach – eg, it has been used previously in xxx communities and it has been successful in changing behaviour/increasing awareness/whatever by zz%. You might want to go into some details about elements of the approach that are shown to be more effective than others, eg TV ads at prime time have a better reach and effectiveness than print media (ref) and hence that is why you would be suggesting TV ads over print media. Part C (15%): Discuss the political sensitivities that may arise from this proposal and discuss ways in which these might be approached/dealt with. For example, the banning of smoking in public outdoor areas, or the setting of limits on liquor licences provide some nice topical examples in the media of the sorts of responses arising – and from where – when public health strategies are mooted. These provide you with some tangential examples that might stimulate your thinking around this part of the assignment. You might also like to reflect back on some of the issues raised in module 1. The supplementary readings around sociology and the various ‘isms’ may help your thinking here too. Writing style and presentation – 10% Some further explanatory notes:  This is a 2000 word assignment (no plus or minus 10%). Use the proportion of marks allocated to a task to guide the number of words used – e.g.15% equates to around 300 words. Words in tables, figures, headings and references are not included in the word limit. The exception is if a table is word content-heavy (i.e. full of paragraphs).  A formal university cover sheet is not required however please do create a front page indicating the title of your assignment and the Unit code, your name, student ID and word count.  Assignments in this unit must use Vancouver referencing style. The Vancouver style consists of the following elements: (1) citations in the body of the paper, using consecutive numbers in parentheses. Note that some journals use superscript (raised) numbers rather than numbers in parentheses. (2) a numbered reference list at the end of the paper giving the details of each source referred to. For more information go to: Referencing using Vancouver style  There is no example assignment provided for this unit given this would be highly likely to answer the questions posed. As with all written assignments it is key that you answer the questions posed in a succinct, coherent way and provide the assessor with evidence of your knowledge and understanding. For example – the comment “this shows the engagement of public health principals” is very different to the comment – “this shows the engagement of public health principles and is evidenced by…….”. The latter provides the reader with evidence of your knowledge – the former does not.  I have put some examples of Policy briefs in Cloud Deakin – so you have a bit of a guide to writing your own. You can format your own work in any way you like – either like some of the examples I have provided or more like an essay format.  Assignments must be submitted via CloudDeakin in either word or PDF format by 11.59 pm (AEST) on Monday June 5th, 2017.  Remember your writing style is worth investing in. If you find writing difficult, do take time to hone your writing skills. The investment in writing skills will save huge amounts of time across your academic life and ensure your marks are as good as they can be. Remember there are Self-Help Resources around reading and writing to be found on the Deakin website at http://www.deakin.edu.au/library/help/getting-started/help  Please take time to address feedback provided in your first assessment task.  Do use the marking rubric to continually assess your own progress and to ensure you have addressed all of the relevant assignment criteria. Feedback from previous years General feedback  Following the rubric is essential to ensure you have covered all relevant assignment criteria – easy marks were lost by not addressing simple criteria Part A  Generally, this section was written well  Improvements could be made on some assignments by introducing the overarching topic first, before concentrating on their particular subgroup  Expanding more broadly on key determinants relating to the issue would have been beneficial (e.g. obesity is multifactorial, can be influenced by a, b, c, d, e etc) before focusing on the most relevant determinant/driver related to your issue to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of the issue Part B  There was some confusion in this area. Often there was a lack of clarity in describing the proposed approach, rather this section became a broad presentation of potential ways to influence the issue, rather than being specific and persuasive in convincing the reader (i.e. Federal Health Minister) to implement a specific approach  Some students presented rather generalised evidence in this section  Some students listed an extensive list of what might impact the issue – all very broad-brushed and not very detailed, with no clear indication of which approach/strategy they were choosing, or which was considered to be the best approach  Some students did not present advantages or disadvantages of their approach  Critical evaluation of the evidence could be improved. Many just summarised the evidence and didn't elaborate any further. Additionally, some students thought listing the advantages and disadvantages provided the critical appraisal  Students who did well in this section explained their approach followed by evidence from the literature to back it up  Some students did a fantastic job of pulling together the evidence and comparing and contrasting between studies/pieces of evidence, however some students listed summary after summary of the evidence, without linking in the studies Part C  Lack of consideration or limited consideration of the political sensitivities – this section was often confused with advantages/disadvantages of the approach  Some students could describe the political sensitivities but couldn't provide ways in which they could be overcome. Others made great connections and articulately described the issues  The students who missed marks were vague and skimmed on depth and clarity Part D  There was a lack of writing with a persuasive tone  The use of subheadings improved the flow of assignments, particularly if they aligned to those within the rubric  Some structure was quite poor and made it very hard to read and understand  Formatting of assignments could be improved (e.g. table/figure titles, referring to tables/figures in text)  Assignments should have been written in the third person, not the first person  Some students could write more succinctly and clearly  Some assignments lacked cover sheets  Ensure careful proof reading for grammar and spelling mistakes  Students who did really well used the RUBRIC and proposed subheadings. Writing had definitely improved from the last assignment  Some students still didn't know how to do Vancouver referencing correctly