Policy Brief Outline and Rubric_W24
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
McMaster University *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
HLTHAGE 2G
Subject
Health Science
Date
Feb 20, 2024
Type
Pages
5
Uploaded by ProfessorIronMantis3
Winter 2024 HLTH 370 1 HLTH 370: Ecological Determinants of Health University of Waterloo Winter 2024 Final Policy Brief Due Date: April 4, 2024 at 11:59PM via Dropbox on LEARN Course Weighting:
32% of total final grade Description: Four topics have been identified by the Region of Waterloo Public Health. You will need to answer one question in greater depth: Health communication 1.
How can public health effectively communicate about the connections between climate change and health in a way that motivates action and encourages hope rather than creates despair or ecoanxiety? Climate change adaptation 2.
What adaptation measures can be undertaken to address extreme heat waves? Emergency response 3.
What considerations should be made when preparing a local collaborative emergency heat response plan for community implementation? Vulnerability and equity, diversity, and inclusion 4.
What interventions could be implemented to ensure that vulnerable populations are supported amid current and projected climate-health risks? Mental health 5.
What interventions could be implemented to support mental health through current and projected climate-health risks? Assignment Instructions
: You will write a 5-page policy brief answering one of the questions indicated by colleagues at the Region of Waterloo Public Health. You will be evaluated on the content of your policy brief as well as your ability to integrate feedback from the proposal into the final submission.
Winter 2024 HLTH 370 2 You can work alone or in groups of two (2) or three (3) members (maximum group size is 3 members). Groups must be formed prior to the submission of the Policy Brief Proposal. Once a group is formed, it cannot be changed. All members of the group will receive the same grade on both the proposal and the final policy brief (i.e., no peer assessment). Remember, policy makers and public health officials are often very busy and do not have time to read the entire body of literature when answering a specific question. Your audience is the Region of Waterloo Public Health, a group of highly educated professionals. Each policy brief should include the following headings/sections. You may choose to provide further subsections within your policy brief (in addition to these main headings/sections): •
Background o
Define the problem and provide background information as needed to understand the recommendations that follow. Include relevant historical and social context as appropriate. o
Your background should also clearly describe and explain what idea/solution you are proposing through your policy brief in response to the question asked by the Region of Waterloo Public Health. •
Evidence o
Provide a summary of evidence to inform and/or support your recommendations. You may choose to include one or two case studies or examples to either inform and/or support your recommendations. •
Recommendations and Implementation Plan o
Clearly state the recommendations for the Region of Waterloo Public Health that build on the background and evidence you have provided. Use this space to defend your recommendations. Provide information and a concrete plan for how the Region of Waterloo Public Health would implement your recommendations (e.g., potential partnerships, resource implications). Consider the strengths and limitations of the recommendations and implementation plan (including consideration of how limitations or challenges could be mitigated) •
Conclusions o
Provide a final summary of the brief, including a persuasive argument for your recommendations. •
References (not included in the 5-page maximum) o
Provide a reference list at the end of your document, with all sources consistently referenced (Vancouver style or APA style). Note that policy briefs include more than simply text. Your brief should include at least one figure or table to support your case. If you do not create the figure or table, be sure to cite the original source correctly (Vancouver style or APA style).
Winter 2024 HLTH 370 3 In a separate file, please prepare one paragraph (maximum 300 words) outlining how you incorporated feedback from your proposal into the final brief. This should be submitted separately (i.e., in a separate file, not a new page), at the same time as the policy brief. The top policy briefs may be shared with colleagues from the Region of Waterloo Public Health. You will be notified if your policy brief will be shared following the submission of final grades. If your policy brief is selected, we will ask for your permission prior to sharing your policy brief. You may also be asked to make revisions to your policy brief prior to sharing it with colleagues at the Region of Waterloo Public Health. Format: Each proposal should •
Be a maximum of 5 pages (not including references). o
You can format your 5 pages any way you want (e.g., line spacing, font size, and margins are up to you). •
Use the following headings/sections to divide the policy brief: ‘Background’; ‘
Evidence
’; ‘
Recommendations and Implementation Plan
’; ‘Conclusions’; ‘References’
. •
Integrate at least one figure or table into the text. If you do not create the figure or table yourself, it must be correctly cited. •
Include the full citation of the peer-reviewed articles and grey literature sources included in the ‘References’ section (
Vancouver style or APA style). •
Look visually appealing and engaging o
You can use the line spacing (e.g., single, 1.5, double spacing) and font size that works best for your policy brief. You may choose to use subheading, boxes, tables, charts, bold, italics, etc. to organize content •
Include your name and student ID (or group member names and student IDs) in the header along with a title for the document •
Include a separate document (max 250 words) outlining how you incorporated feedback from the proposal into the final submission. Rubric: Criteria Level 4 Level 3 Level 2 Level 1 Background (out of 16) Thoughtful, insightful, relevant, and interesting background and context information is provided in a clear and concise way. Clearly describes the importance of the idea/solution and Relevant background and context information is provided in a clear way. A description of the idea/solution and the relevance to the Region of Waterloo Public Health and the Relevant background information is provided. A partial description of the idea/solution and the relevance to the Region of Waterloo Public Health and Background information is not provided and/or is not relevant and/or is hard to follow. The relevance of the idea/solution to the Region of Waterloo Public Health and/or the Region of
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Winter 2024 HLTH 370 4 relevance to the Region of Waterloo Public Health and the Region of Waterloo context. Region of Waterloo context. the Region of Waterloo context. Waterloo context is unclear or missing. Evidence (out of 24) The evidence is clearly summarized, supports the recommendations, and the relevance to the brief is thoughtful and evident. If a case study/example is provided, it is clearly summarized and makes an insightful contribution to the overall brief The evidence is summarized, supports the recommendations, and the relevance to the brief is evident. If a case study/example is provided, it is adequately summarized The evidence is summarized. The relevance to the brief is unclear. Weak evidence is provided and/or is poorly summarized, and/or the relevance to the brief is not present. Recommendations and Implementation Plan (out of 24) Clear and relevant recommendations are made. A strong plan of action is outlined for the Region of Waterloo Public Health implement the recommendations, supported by literature, examples, and easy to follow steps. Clear and critical consideration is given to partnerships and resources needed to implement plan. Limitations and challenges are critically evaluated together with a strategy to mitigate challenges. Recommendations are made. A plan of action is outlined for the Region of Waterloo Public Health to implement the recommendations, supported by literature, examples, and steps. Consideration is given to partnerships and resources needed to implement plan. Limitations and challenges are evaluated together with a strategy to mitigate challenges. Recommendations are made. Some information is missing and/or is incomplete. A plan of action is outlined for the Region of Waterloo Public Health to implement the recommendations with some supporting evidence. Some consideration is given to partnerships and resources needed to implement plan. Limitations or challenges are stated. A recommendation is not made and/or does not address the question and/or large gaps in information remain. A plan of action is not outlined for the Region of Waterloo Public Health and/ or is not supported by literature, examples or steps. Limited consideration is given to partnerships and resources needed to implement plan. Limitations and challenges are not fully considered and/or a mitigation strategy is unclear or missing. Conclusions (out of 16) Key points are clearly summarized, recommendations are reinforced, and evidence supporting the Key points are summarized, recommendations are reinforced, and evidence supporting the Key points are poorly summarized. Some new information is presented. Key points are not summarized. The statements are unclear and/or new information is presented.
Winter 2024 HLTH 370 5 recommendations is reviewed. The statements are clear, concise, and insightful, and no new information is presented. recommendations is reviewed. No new information is presented. Figures and Layout (out of 8) Meaningful, appropriate, and useful figure(s) and/or table(s) were included in the policy brief adding depth, clarity. Design of policy brief is well executed and visually appealing. Useful figure(s) and/or table(s) were included in the policy brief. Design of policy brief is well done overall. Figure(s) and/or table(s) were included in the policy brief; however, their contribution to the policy brief is unclear. Design is adequate. Figure(s) and/or table(s) were not included in the policy brief. Overall design is poor. Writing Style, Formatting, and References (out of 8) Writing is clear, articulate, and grammatically correct. All formatting guidelines were followed carefully. Meaningful and useful references were selected and accurately cited. Writing is clear and has minimal errors. Guidelines were followed with minimal errors. References added to the proposal and cited with minimal errors. Writing is somewhat unclear and/or has some errors. Guidelines were followed with some errors. References did little to add to the brief and/ or were cited with errors. Writing is unclear and/or has many errors. Guidelines were not followed. References did not add to the brief and/or were not used and/or were cited with many errors. Incorporation of Feedback (out of 4) Feedback from the proposal is clearly incorporated. Feedback from the proposal is incorporated. Feedback from the proposal is somewhat incorporated. Feedback from the proposal is minimally incorporated or is not incorporated at all. Overall: out of 100 marks