evidence based public health
Note for the writer: Please provide my assignment on time as I cannot provide any extension. Make sure that you cover all the points accurately and make it too the point. Please read the instructions carefully as it carries very huge amount of marks.
Instructions:
Option 1: Essay Title:
Cochrane review applicability discussion: Structured applicability of the Cochrane review by Oyo-Ita and colleagues on ‘Interventions for improving coverage of childhood immunisation in low- and middle-income countries’ to [insert name of the country you have chosen].
The review is here: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008145.pub3/full and also on the LMS.
Or
Option 2: Essay Title:
Cochrane review applicability discussion: Structured applicability of the Cochrane review by Saeterdal and colleagues on ’Interventions aimed at communities to inform and/or educate about early childhood vaccination’ to [insert name of the country you have chosen].
The review is here:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD010232.pub2/full and also on the LMS.
INSTRUCTIONS
The perspective you will take as the author of the essay and the country you choose:
Imagine you are working in a health department in a country of your choosing. In your work, you have been asked to consider the applicability of the findings of a Cochrane review for your health system.
The background for this request is that a new policy is being developed to improve vaccination rates and the head of the Vaccination Section needs information about the effectiveness of various interventions in order to decide where investment should happen.
It is not your job to make a recommendation – only to consider the applicability of the interventions to your context, health system and society.
First, select which country you are in. It is sensible to choose a country and health system you know well or where you can get reliable information about vaccination. This can be from grey literature, that is, in government reports or articles which provide data on what is happening in your country.
Tips:
If you are doing Option 1 essay, it may be easier to choose a low or middle income country.
If you are doing Option 2, it is fine to choose a low and middle income country but it is also possible to choose a high income country. In other words, it is a much harder essay to write if you choose a high income country for Option 1.
If you choose a large country such as India, you may find it more sensible to choose a state or region, because discussing country-wide applicability issues would be challenging.
If you chose Option 1, you may only want to select some of the interventions types included in this review because discussing the applicability of all the different types would be too complicated.
DETAILS FOR WHAT GOES IN THE ESSAY
1. Brief introduction outlining what your essay will be doing
2. A section which outlines the childhood vaccination issues for your country of choice
Please provide a section to set the context for your essay, ie outlines the childhood vaccination issues for the government/people living in your country of choice: rates, coverage, efforts to improve rates so far, etc. The information in this section must be derived from reports or articles that you find yourself, and that refers to data from your country of choice. However, if you have difficulty getting up-to-date data, you could use this World Bank site which has country data for DPT: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SH.IMM.IDPT.
3. A short summary of the findings of the Cochrane review you have chosen
Provide a short summary of the findings of the Cochrane review.
You may find additional useful information about the interventions in the Characteristics of Included Studies tables.
You do NOT need to go and find other evidence about effectiveness to support your choice of interventions.
4. A structured discussion of the five SUPPORT questions
This is the main part of the essay.
I would like you to conduct a structured assessment of the applicability of the Cochrane review, using the five-question SUPPORT check list to guide your structured assessment.
The five questions come from this open access article:
Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A. 2009. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Research Policy and Systems 7 (Suppl 1): S9, https://www.health-policy-systems.com/content/7/S1/S9
The five questions are:
1. Were the studies included in the systematic review conducted in the same setting or were the findings consistent across settings or time periods?
2. Are there important differences in on-the-ground realities and constraints that might substantially alter the feasibility and acceptability of an option?
3. Are there important differences in health system arrangements that may mean an option could not work in the same way?
4. Are there important differences in the baseline conditions that might yield different absolute effects even if the relative effectiveness was the same?
5. What insights can be drawn about options, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation?
Please address all five questions.
Please read the whole of the Lavis SUPPORT article first, because it has clear instructions and some guidance (see Tables 1 & 2) on how to conduct a structured assessment of applicability of the evidence from the review to your setting.
In preparing your answers to these five questions, you must draw on relevant literature provided in the subject, including at least two of the following:
• Issues with public health evidence: see Frommer M & Rychetnik L (2003) ‘From Evidence-Based Medicine to Evidence-Based Public Health’ In V. Lin and B. Gibson (eds) Evidence-Based Health Policy: Problems and Possibilities Oxford: Oxford University Press, p56-69. This will be on the LMS.
• Issues in the knowledge to action cycle: see Graham ID, Logan J, Harrison MB, Straus SE, Tetroe J, Caswell W, Robinson N. (2006) Lost in knowledge translation: time for a map? J Contin Educ Health Prof: 26(1):13-24. Publicly available here: https://pram.mcgill.ca/seminars/i/Graham_2006_Lost_in_Knowledge_Translation.pdf
• Issues in systematic reviews and drawing conclusions: see Petticrew M (2003) Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ 326. Publicly available here: https://www.bmj.com/content/326/7392/756.1.long
• Issues in relating evidence to policy decisions: see Bowen S & Zwi AB (2005) Pathways to “Evidence-informed” policy and practice: a framework for action. PLoS Medicine 2(7). Available here: https://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020166
The essay must be around 3500 words including tables. It must not exceed 3750 words (excluding references).
Essay submission instructions
• You must submit your essay via Turnitin.
LEARNING RESOURCES
The La Trobe site is a good one with many links to learning materials: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/learning.
If you are out of practice with writing essays and need a simple guide on writing paragraphs, paraphrasing and summarising, then this RMIT resource is very good: https://emedia.rmit.edu.au/learninglab/content/writing-skills.
The La Trobe library site has a good guide for referencing in the APA style. https://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/referencing-tool/
Essay 2 marking matrix
50-59% – D 60-69% – C 70-79% – B 80-100% – A
Addressing the Topic Provides some evidence of having read and thought about the assessment requirement.
Has some understanding of key issues and concepts.
Has not completely grasped the issue of how the findings can be applied to policy or practice. Shows some independent thinking about the assessment requirement.
Demonstrates a reasonable understanding of key issues and concepts.
Has some understanding of the issues associated with the application of the findings to policy or practice.
Responds thoughtfully to the assessment task.
Demonstrates a good understanding of key issues and concepts.
Demonstrates awareness of how the review question has been framed and the implications for the findings applied to policy or practice.
A sophisticated approach to the assessment task.
Demonstrates a solid understanding of key issues and concepts.
Demonstrates awareness of the scope of the review, and the implications for the findings applied to policy or practice.
Secondary
reading Has partial understanding of the relevant literature. Has some understanding of the relevant literature. Has good understanding of the relevant literature. Has excellent understanding of the relevant literature.
Expression Intelligible, although frequent errors in word choice, accuracy, expression or style may cause some strain for the reader. There are some errors in word choice and/or grammar, expression or style but these do not interfere with understanding. Shows confidence in academic writing; contains only minor errors in spelling and grammar.
Clear and concise written expression.
Formatting& referencing Limited ability to paraphrase &/or overuse of direct quotes.
Little evidence of ability to reference correctly. There are some problems with paraphrasing &/or over use of direct quotations.
Demonstrates a basic understanding of referencing conventions. Selected source material is most incorporated correctly and appropriately and the author’s voice is clear. There may be minor errors in referencing.
Selected source material is incorporated seamlessly and effectively into the writing and referenced correctly.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Academic integrity means being honest in academic work and taking responsibility for learning the conventions of scholarship. La Trobe University views this seriously as evidenced by the following extract:
Academic honesty is a fundamental principle in teaching, learning, research and scholarship. The University requires its academic staff and students to observe the highest ethical standards in all aspects of academic work and it demonstrates its commitment to these values by awarding due credit for honestly conducted scholarly work, and by penalising academic misconduct and all forms of cheating.
Academic Integrity Procedures (2010, p. 1 of 6)
Academic misconduct includes poor referencing, plagiarism, copying and cheating. You should familiarise yourself with your responsibilities in relation to Academic Integrity and if you have any questions, direct them to your Course Coordinator. Information can be found on the website at: https://www.latrobe.edu.au/students/academic-integrity
