Health Project: Plan - Design

Health Promotion Project: Planning, Designing, and Evaluation

At the start of the module, you will gain information about the relevant theories in the lectures and directed pre and post session guided independent tasks. The knowledge and understanding gained from these experiences are key to explaining your planning, designing and evaluation of your interventions. Â Several of the post session activities relate directly to your intervention plan and you will be given feedback on your progress through out the module. As the assessment is one large piece of academic work, this approach to the task will ensure that you donâ€™t leave all the work till the end of the module, but instead tackle it as an ongoing project.Â

1.Discuss the role of health needs assessment and the influence of a range of agents and agencies on health behaviour.

2.Analyse and appraise National Curriculum Guidance and government-led health promotion initiatives.

3.Analyse a range of health campaigns in areas such as substance use and misuse, sex education, family life education, safety, health-related exercise, food and nutrition.

4.Plan a health promotion project for a specific target population, applying theory around design, implementation, evaluation and ethics.

The full marking criteria are in the module handbook, so make sure that you understand what is expected and think about how you can make sure that your work meets the criteria. Â
Guidance on writing styles and presentation of data are to be covered during the module.

Element of Assessment	Criteria	Outstanding 1^stÂ Class 100, 95, 92	Excellent 1^stÂ Class 88, 85, 82	1^stÂ Class 78, 75, 72	2:1 68, 65, 62	2:2 58, 55, 52	3^rdÂ Class 48, 45, 42	Fail 38, 35, 32	Abject Fail 25, 20, 10, 0
Rationale 20%	Justification of target audience, health issue and planning approach	Outstanding rationale provided, showing detailed and perceptive analysis and application of evidence to the health challenge selected. Planning approaches evaluated and selected for appropriateness, relevance and practicality.	Excellent rationale provide for health issue and target group, showing very good analysis of the available evidence. Planning approaches have a strong justification and evaluation shows strong engagement with the literature base.	Excellent rationale provided for health issue and target group, with evidence of detailed and specific research, and discerning analysis of the evidence in formulating the focus. Planning approaches analysed and good rationale for selected approach provided.	Very good rationale for health issue and target group. Evidence is broad and relevant, showing discernment in selection. Planning approach clearly justified, and some explanation of why alternative approaches were rejected.	Good rationale provided for both health issue and target group. Evidence is up to date and is analysed and applied. Planning approaches clearly explained and chosen approach is justified.	Target group and health issue justified, using some evidence. Theoretical understanding of planning approaches shown in description of approach, with some limited engagement and discernment in their selection and justification.	Some attempt at providing a justification for the focus and the target group but lacking in supporting evidence. Planning approaches mentioned but little understanding shown.	Target group and health issue is described with little if any supporting evidence. Rationale lacks academic robustness and very basic understanding of planning approaches shown.
Needs Assessment 20%	Plan for needs assessment process, building on existing evidence base.	An outstanding evidence-based needs assessment showing nuanced evaluation and application of theory, alongside an excellent and justified selection of stakeholders and agents. Needs assessments integrates analysis and evaluation throughout.	An excellent, evidence based needs assessment which shows very strong understanding of needs assessment theories. Approach taken is justified with strong analysis and evaluation of different approaches. Key stakeholders are considered and reflect the breadth of understanding of potential agents and beneficiaries of interventions.	A robust needs assessment with a solid evidence base. Key stakeholders are identified and their influence on programme design is evaluated. Justification of the approach taken to needs assessment identified strengths and weakness of different approaches and provides a clear conclusion on the reasons for the eventual approach chosen	A robust needs assessment that draws on evidence well to present a coherent approach to engaging the target audience in the intervention design. Theory of needs assessment clearly integrated and some evidence of how evaluation of different approaches to needs assessment might affect the intervention design.	Needs assessment shows a good understanding of theory and application to practice. Relevant key stakeholders identified and their influence on intervention design shows analytical thought. Some integration of supporting evidence around effective needs assessment practice.	Needs assessment shows awareness of theory. Some application of theory to the needs assessment and basically accurate identification of key stakeholders and engagement strategies. Some analysis of the impact of stakeholder in intervention design, but limited in scope.	Needs assessment shows basic understanding of theory but limited if any application to the needs assessment process. Limited or basic identification of key stakeholders and engagement strategies, with gaps that would constitute a serious flaw in the subsequent intervention design.	Principles of needs assessment shown but little if any application to the intervention planning process. Limited considered of stakeholders and little if any supporting evidence provided.
Intervention Design 20% Â	Explanation and justification of intervention.	The intervention aims and objectives are sophisticated and highly challenging but supported by an outstanding and far reaching intervention plan. Theoretical thinking, and evaluation of the evidence based is evident throughout and the plan could be presented as it stands, for implementation.	The intervention aims and objectives are sophisticated and highly challenging. However, the subsequent intervention plan provides a robust responses to these, with a strong theoretical framework. Evidence in support of chosen activities is consistent and shows broad reading and understanding.	The intervention sets challenging, practical and realistic aims and objectives, and may integrate a range of design approaches with justification for this. Theory is embedded throughout and the justification of activities shows consistent analysis and evaluation of available evidence.	The intervention sets challenging but practical, realistic aims and objectives that show consideration of sustainability and breadth of reach. Intervention design theory and evidence is embedded, with some justification for chosen approaches and methods, demonstrating emerging analysis and evaluation of the evidence base.	The intervention has a clear and well thought out set of aims and objectives, clearly aligned to the target group and issue. The design shows strong application of theory, and integrates evidence from existing successful interventions. The intervention shows some originality.	The intervention has a clear, but relatively simple set of aims and objectives, which are appropriate to the target group and issue selected. The design shows application of theory, and draws on evidence from existing campaigns and interventions.	The intervention aims and objectives are brief, and somewhat confused. The link to the target group and issue may be tenuous and lacking in evidence. Some existing campaigns and interventions drawn on but it would be difficult to see this plan working in practice.	The intervention aims and objectives are brief, overly simple or may be absent. The intervention plan lacks structure and does not provide evidence of learning from theory. Without significant improvement, work, this intervention would not work in practice.
Evaluation Strategy 20%	Presentation and justification of evaluation strategy.	An outstanding evaluation strategy that seamlessly aligns with the intervention aims and objectives and provides a nuanced and sophisticated evidence based approach to demonstrating effectiveness. What marks this evaluation out is this breadth of understanding shown in terms of measuring impact.	An excellent evaluation strategy that shows complex decision making and excellent alignment with intervention aims and objectives. The evaluation strategies are multi-layered and show consistent analysis and evaluation of the evidence base.	A very strong evaluation strategy showing complexity in decision making on how to measure impact from the intervention aims and objectives. The evaluation strategy is realistic, feasible and shows breadth of analysis and understanding of the existing evidence base. The strategy is theoretically grounded and would provide robust evidence of intervention effectiveness.	A strong evaluation strategy, clearly aligned with intervention aims and objectives. Evaluation paradigm is nicely justified, drawing on supporting evidence. The evaluation strategy offers breadth and would provide evidence to inform evaluation of intervention effectiveness.	A clearly thought out evaluation strategy with clear alignment to intervention aims and objectives. Evaluation paradigms are considered and some justification provided. The strategy provided would provide evidence of intervention effectiveness but may be limited in breadth and scope.	The evaluation strategy is aligned to the aims and objectives of the intervention, and provides a basic means of evaluating the impact. There may be some lack of detail and the methods chosen may be simplistic, but will draw on some evidence in support. Some basic identification of evidence paradigms.	The evaluation strategy is overly simplistic and loosely aligned to the aims and objectives of the intervention. It would be difficult to see how the evaluation methods chosen would generate evidence of intervention effectiveness.	Little if any evaluation strategy. If present, alignment with the aims and objectives of the intervention is lacking. No theoretical consideration of evaluation and evidence paradigms. The evaluation proposed would not generate evidence of intervention effectiveness.
Ethics 10%	Level of understanding and integration of ethical principles across the plan.	Outstanding and nuanced consideration and integration of ethics into the intervention design. Where ethical principles are breached, strong and clear justification for this is provided and negatives are mitigated against, showing excellent application of ethics in practice.	Very strong integration of ethics across all aspects of intervention design. Analysis is both theoretically and pragmatically driven, and it is clear to see how the intervention has been shaped by the consideration of ethics.	Strong, consistent and robust integration of ethics in the intervention design. Analysis is astute and ethical decision making shows evaluation and balance.	Ethics firmly embedded in the intervention design. Analysis shows how intervention design has been shaped or informed by ethical considerations. Some emerging evaluation of merits and drawbacks of adoption of different ethical positions.	Ethics considered across each stage of intervention design. Accurate identification of key ethical issues, some analysis and discussion of how consideration of these has shaped the intervention design.	Some consideration of ethics in intervention design, including description of key ethical principles, and some attempt at application of these to the intervention planning process. Consideration of ethics not consistent across all stages of intervention planning.	Limited consideration of ethics within the intervention plan. Mainly descriptive and little application to the specific intervention plan.	Very little consideration of ethical principles in intervention planning. Some mention of ethics but not applied in relation to the intervention plan.
Academic Writing 10%	Report structure and flow, use and breadth of sources, referencing and citations.	The report could be presented as an intervention plan to an employer or a public health body. The writing is professional and the evaluation of the evidence base is consistent. Reading is appropriate, up to date and discerning. Referencing is flawless.	The report has excellent structure and has very good academic fluency and flow throughout. Evaluation builds consistently on analysis and is evidence informed. Reading shows consistent discernment. Referencing is accurate.	The report is well structured and shows very good academic fluency and flow. Analysis is consistent and evaluation is frequent. Evaluation is informed by use of a broad and appropriately selected evidence base. Referencing is accurate.	The report is well structured and writing shows good academic fluency and flow. Analysis is consistent throughout and there are good attempts at evaluation. Evidence base is broad and use of evidence shows some discernment. Referencing is accurate.	The report is clearly structured with appropriate headings and sub-headings. Writing is grammatically correct and sentence construction shows fluency and flow. Writing is broadly analytical, with some description. Reading is relevant and up to date but could be broader. Referencing is mostly accurate and consistent.	The report is clearly structured, with appropriate headings and sub-headings. Spelling, sentence construction and grammar are broadly correct. Writing is analytical in places, but has a tendency towards description. Referencing is present throughout with some errors. Evidence base may be limited.	The report is structured with headings and sub-headings but may lack organisation. Spelling, sentence construction and grammatical errors may be common. Writing is predominantly descriptive with only occasional analysis. Referencing is present but with errors and very limited evidence used to support the report.	The report is poorly structured. Headings and subheadings may be present but lack organisation. Frequent spelling, sentence construction or grammatical errors. Writing is descriptive, with little if any analysis. Referencing is inconsistent and contains errors, and reading is extremely limited.