This is the second assessment that I have to complete; the first one I completed by myself, but this time, I need your help, remember to use Vancouver referencing, and if you don’t know how to use it, just use the one you feel comfortable, and I will change it by myself, the assessment you need to complete this 4 questions but should be linked back to what the topic I choose (Lung cancer in my home country: Hong Kong) also remember an Intervention study you need to use it to prove etc., please check the previous essay that I wrote before you start writing this. Thanks
Summarise the intervention study to address the health issue you selected in your assessment 2. In your summary, include the results of the research and what the study found. (250 words)
Critically review the study for its validity, results, and key findings. In your review, include how the study results are valid or not valid and whether or not the results can be used in Australia or your country of origin. Your reasoning must be supported by evidence. (500 words)
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the reported intervention to address the health problem you have selected. (500 words)
Provide a summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded by the WHO. Include your conclusions based on the results of the appraised study and your recommendation to WHO based on your review. (250 words)
Assessment 3: Critical Appraisal
In healthcare professions, you may be given a task to appraise evidence to inform policy, practice, or healthcare funding decisions. This assessment is a practical application of these skills to help you synthesise and appraise evidence based on the knowledge you have learned in this unit. This assessment supports:
Unit learning outcomes 2, 3, and 5.
Relevant graduate attributes 1, 2, and 3.
Length: 1500 words (+/- 10%)
Weight: 35%
Available: 00:00 hours Monday of week 1
Due date: 23:59 hours Friday of week 12
Referencing: Vancouver style
Cover page template: Here
Assessment formatting instruction: Here
The World Health Organisation was impressed with your essay discussing the burden and the public health significance of the health issue you selected in Assessment 2. They have given you another exciting task to critically appraise an intervention study addressing the health issue you discussed in your Assessment 2 essay. They have been kind to you and even gave you the intervention study to appraise based on the health issue you selected in your assessment 2 tasks (see table below).
Program area
Health issue
Intervention study
Nutrition and Dietetics
Overweight and obesity in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.1980
Physiotherapy
Sedentary lifestyle in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-016-9788-9
Occupational therapy
Falls in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7356.128
Speech pathology
Poststroke aphasia in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.1177/1747493020961926
Health research
Rheumatic heart disease in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2102074
Public health
Lung cancer in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.1136/thoraxjnl-2018-212506
Occupational health and safety
Needle stick injury in Australia or your home country
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2011.03.010
Your Task
Summarise the intervention study to address the health issue you selected in your assessment 2. In your summary, include the results of the research and what the study found. (250 words)
Critically review the study for its validity, results, and key findings. In your review, include how the study results are valid or not valid and whether or not the results can be used in Australia or your country of origin. Your reasoning must be supported by evidence. (500 words)
Identify the strengths and weaknesses of the reported intervention to address the health problem you have selected. (500 words)
Provide a summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded by the WHO. Include your conclusions based on the results of the appraised study and your recommendation to WHO based on your review. (250 words)
Critical Appraisal Marking Rubrics
Critical Appraisal Marking Rubrics
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeEffective communication and use of academic literacies
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
Outstanding level of application of knowledge and skills. Highly accurate and appropriate language use. Expertly written and adheres to the academic genre. Minimal, if any, errors in grammar or spelling are evident. Information, arguments and evidence are expertly presented; the presentation is logical, persuasive, and well-supported by evidence, demonstrating a clear flow of ideas and arguments. Justifies all conclusions reached with sophisticated arguments.
3 to >2.7 Pts
Distinction (D)
Highly effective level of application of knowledge and skills. Accurate and appropriate language use. Very Well written and adheres to the academic genre. Limited instances of errors in grammar or spelling are evident. Information, arguments and evidence are very well presented; the presentation is logical, clear and well supported by evidence. Justifies most conclusions reached with well-developed arguments.
2.7 to >2.3 Pts
Credit (C)
Effective level of application of knowledge and skills. Effective language use. Well written and adheres to the academic genre. Minor errors in grammar or spelling are evident. Information, arguments and evidence are well-presented, mostly clear flow of ideas and arguments. Justifies conclusions reached with mostly well-formed arguments and not merely assertions.
2.3 to >1.8 Pts
Pass (P)
Sound level of application of knowledge and skills. Satisfactory language use. Appropriate academic genre and language are often not used. Errors in grammar or spelling are frequent but do not detract from meaning. Information, arguments and evidence are presented in a way that is not always clear and logical. Does not justify all conclusions with arguments or does not justify conclusions with well-formed arguments.
1.8 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor level of application of knowledge and skills. Poor language use. Poorly written with errors in spelling, and grammar. Difficult to understand for an audience, no logical/clear structure, poor flow of ideas, argument lacks supporting evidence. Makes assertions that are not justified.
3.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeSummary of the intervention study presenting the author’s findings and the student taking a position supporting or rejecting the findings.
5.25 to >4.5 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
Outstanding summary clearly presenting the author’s findings and the student takes a position supporting or rejecting the findings. Clearly and succinctly describes the organisation and presentation of the study.
4.5 to >4.0 Pts
Distinction (D)
Highly effective summary clearly presenting the author’s findings and the student takes a position supporting or rejecting the findings. Adequately describes the organisation and presentation of the study.
4 to >3.5 Pts
Credit (C)
Effective summary presenting the author’s findings, but the student may not provide sufficient description of their positions supporting or rejecting the findings. Describe the organisation and presentation of the study but may need more details.
3.5 to >2.7 Pts
Pass (P)
Sound summary presenting the author’s findings and or the student provides insufficient descriptions of their positions supporting or rejecting the findings. Insufficient description of the study’s organisation and presentation of the study.
2.7 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor summary or no explanation presenting the author’s findings, and or the student does not describe their positions supporting or rejecting the findings. Poor or no description of the study’s organisation and presentation.
5.25 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCritical review of how well the student analyse the intervention, exhibiting clarity, complexity, perceptiveness, originality, and depth of thought about the intervention.
7 to >6.0 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
Outstanding critical review exhibiting clarity, complexity, perceptiveness, originality, and depth of thought about the intervention. Provides excellent appraisal of the intervention study’s weaknesses and strengths, and appraisal techniques are advanced, unique and interesting. Uses creativity to interpret the study’s intervention (e.g., places it in an interesting context or compares/contrasts with other relevant interventions).
6 to >5.3 Pts
Distinction (D)
Highly effective critical review exhibiting clarity, and some depth about the intervention, but lacks the qualities of complexity, perceptiveness, and originality exhibited in the left column. Provides a clear evaluation of the study’s intervention weaknesses or strengths, and appraisal techniques are unique and interesting. Puts the intervention in a meaningful context when interpreting it.
5.3 to >4.6 Pts
Credit (C)
Effective critical review exhibiting some clarity, though only minimal depth of thought about the intervention. Makes some attempt to present the weaknesses or strengths of the study, and appraisal techniques are used. Places the intervention in some context.
4.6 to >3.5 Pts
Pass (P)
Sound critical review exhibiting some inaccurate logic, and/or stereotypical or superficial thinking about the intervention. Insufficient attempt to present the weaknesses or strengths of the study, and critical appraisal techniques are unclear. Insufficient attempt to put the intervention in context.
3.5 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor critical appraisal exhibiting little or no evidence of effective thinking about the intervention. Poor to no attempt to present the weaknesses or strengths of the study, and no obvious criteria for the appraisal. Poor to no attempt to put the intervention in context.
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeCritical review of how well the student selects, summarizes and/or paraphrases supporting evidence from the intervention to demonstrate and support analysis.
7 to >6.0 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
Outstanding critical review exhibiting a command of focus, coherent organisation, and interesting development (with carefully chosen, insightful details, examples, arguments, etc.) of the intervention study.
6 to >5.3 Pts
Distinction (D)
Highly effective critical review exhibiting control of focus, organisation, and development (all of the subject matter is relevant to the topic but is not as insightfully selected as a response in the left column) of the intervention study.
5.3 to >4.6 Pts
Credit (C)
Effective critical review exhibiting some control of focus, organisation (structure may be formulaic or be organised loosely around the topic), and development (may contain some poorly chosen information, but major ideas are adequately supported).
4.6 to >3.5 Pts
Pass (P)
Sound critical review exhibiting some insufficient control of focus, organisation (way ramble, be repetitious, or locked into a formula), or development (it may be mostly descriptive or lack adequate support) of the intervention study.
3.5 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor critical review exhibiting a basic/elementary sense of organisation (may be purely descriptive or strictly formulaic), but ideas about the topic are generally undeveloped, illogical, irrelevant, or inconsistent.
7 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeOrganisation and content.
5.25 to >4.5 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
Outstanding organisation showing the critical review is very well organised, containing an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. Paragraphs contain clear topic sentences, focus on a single issue, are coherent, and are organised according to an obvious pattern of argument. Effective use of transitional expressions and other signposts that make the structure of the document clear. The student’s tone and diction enhance the argument being made about the intervention study under review.
4.5 to >4.0 Pts
Distinction (D)
Highly effective organisation showing the critical review is well organized, containing an introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion. All paragraphs contain topic sentences, focus on a single issue and are coherently structured. Some use of transitional expressions and other signposts that make the structure of the document clear. The student’s tone and diction are appropriate for the argument being made about the intervention study under review.
4 to >3.5 Pts
Credit (C)
Effective organisation showing the critical review has a separate introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, but connections among these could be improved. Most paragraphs focus on a single topic and are coherently structured. Topic sentences signal the structure of the argument but may require more focus. Transitions are present and help connect parts of the argument. The student’s tone and diction are occasionally inappropriate for the target audience.
3.5 to >2.7 Pts
Pass (P)
A sound organisation shows a critical review with a separate introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion, but the distinction among these is unclear. Paragraph structure needs improvement (some may be incomplete, focus on too many issues, or be incoherent). Topic sentences ineffectively signal the structure of the argument or lack focus/clarity. More transitions are needed to develop the argument. The student’s tone and diction are marginal. The paper is much longer or shorter than the assignment requirement.
2.7 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor organisation showing the general structure of the review is difficult to follow, and/or the student failed to follow the prescribed format. Paragraphs are unfocused, incoherent or require restructuring. Topic sentences are absent or unconnected to the paragraphs that follow. Transitions are absent or used incorrectly. The student’s tone and diction are inappropriate. The paper is unreasonably too long or too short.
5.25 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeSummary of the intervention strategy, conclusion, and recommendation.
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
An outstanding summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded, and concise conclusions and recommendations.
3 to >2.7 Pts
Distinction (D)
Highly effective summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded, and concise conclusions and recommendations.
2.7 to >2.3 Pts
Credit (C)
Effective summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded, and concise conclusions and recommendations.
2.3 to >1.8 Pts
Pass (P)
Sound summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded, and concise conclusions and recommendations.
1.8 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor summary of why or why not this intervention strategy should be further promoted and funded, and concise conclusions and recommendations.
3.5 pts
This criterion is linked to a learning outcomeUses Vancouver referencing style consistently and with care to avoid simple errors; and includes a reference list with high-quality academic or professional references.
3.5 to >3.0 Pts
High Distinction (HD)
Consistent and correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with minimal, if any, errors. The number of relevant, high-quality academic or professional references significantly exceeds expectations (approximately 9 or more) and includes wider readings.
3 to >2.7 Pts
Distinction (D)
Consistent and correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with limited errors. The number of relevant, high-quality academic or professional references exceeds expectations (7 or less than 9) and includes wider readings.
2.7 to >2.3 Pts
Credit (C)
Consistent and mostly correct use of in-text referencing and includes a reference list with a few errors. The number of relevant, high-quality academic or professional references meets expectations (four or less than 7).
2.3 to >1.8 Pts
Pass (P)
Inconsistent use of correct in-text referencing and includes a reference list with several errors. The number of relevant, high-quality academic or professional references does not meet expectations (2 or less than four).
1.8 to >0 Pts
Fail (N)
Poor and incorrect use of referencing and may not include a reference list. The number of relevant academic or professional references does not meet the minimum requirements (approximately 1 or none).
3.5 pts
Total points: 35
