HPRO6715 Foundations of Health Promotion Assignment 2.
\nThe purpose of Assignment 2 is for you to review, reflect on, and critique a large-scale health promotion plan, in line with concepts and methods covered in Module 3 and also leveraging relevant concepts and methods covered in Modules 1 and 2. Many health promotion interventions \u2013 including the ones you selected for Assignments 1A and 1B \u2013 correspond with a particular area of action. That area of action, in turn, is often one part of a broader plan comprising many actions. So we can see here the necessity of large-scale plans in health promotion \u2013 they contextualise and guide a range of actions in specific areas, with specific groups or populations, addressing specific issues, over a specific period of time.
\nSTEP 1. Choose one of the following health promotion goals. (links will take you to website)
\n\u2022 The National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan
\n\u2022 NSW HIV Strategy 2021-2025
\n\u2022 National Action Plan for the Health of Children and Young People 2020-2030 \u2022 NSW Healthy Eating and Active Living Strategy 2022-2023
\nNOTE: The plan may include content that extends beyond the scope of health promotion (e.g., direct clinical care, recommendations for legal reform, etc.). This is often the case with large-scale plans, as it is vital to contextualise health promotion actions and to link them with other areas of practice. We recommend you develop your response with clear acknowledgement of this, but with a primary focus on actions as they relate to health promotion.
\nSTEP 2. Address each of the following questions in a succinct, thoughtful and evidence-informed manner.
\n– – Note: Please adhere to the following instructions for your responses.
\n– Answer all questions in a single document (e.g., word document) and upload this to Canvas.
\n– In your responses, be sure to refer to peer-reviewed evidence and other reliable sources to support what you are arguing and these need to be adequately cited and referenced. This includes relevant theories, models, frameworks or policies.
\n– Ensure you appropriately cite and reference your responses \u2013 the reference list DOES NOT count towards word limit.
\n– Word limits are provided for each question, this is the overall word count for the question. For example, if the question has a word count of 500 words \u00b1 10% and asks you to address three elements, your overall response should be 500 words \u00b1 10%, NOT 1500 words \u00b1 10%. Information provided outside of the prescribed word limits may not be considered when assessing your assignment
\nQuestion 1. (word limit 800 words \u00b1 10%)
\nWe have learned about the key elements of a well-written, rigorous health promotion plan (as below), what each of these elements should include, and why they are important.
\n1. a rationale for action;
\n2. a statement of intent;
\n3. a – description of proposed action;
\n4. governance;
\n5. evidence of community consultation; and
\n6. evaluation.
\nSuperior Paper Help – Outline and discuss how well your chosen health promotion plan has included and addressed each of these key elements.
\nQuestion 2. (word limit 400 words \u00b1 10%)
\nHealth promotion does not occur in a vacuum, and therefore is not without its conflicts and challenges. These issues can arise in the initial stages of our planning, right through implementation and towards impact and outcomes that we perhaps didn\u2019t expect or intend to begin with.
\nAs such, consult and read through relevant health promotion literature in relation to the health issue\/s discussed in your chosen plan. Reflecting on what the literature tells you, and considering what your chosen plan aims to achieve, comment on what you perceive to be the potential conflicts and challenges.
\nQuestion 3. (word limit 200 words \u00b1 10%)
\nBased on your reflections from responding to the above questions, and on your general critical appraisal of the plan you chose, comment on the overall quality and likely effectiveness of the plan.
\nIf you happen to have criticisms, comment on what you would recommend be changed in order to improve the document and why.
\nTIP\/ADVICE: As with Questions 1 and 2, be sure to adopt an evidence-informed approach for this response \u2013 avoid simply presenting your own personal opinion. We want to see that you have thought about strategic planning in health promotion with due attention paid to peer-reviewed literature and other reliable sources of evidence. We encourage you to research widely \u2013 including looking at similar plans that focus on the same health issue\/s as your chosen plan, to provide a point for comparison.<\/p>\n
Assignment 2: Marking Rubric – grade miners score
\nFail
\nPass Satisfactory Credit Good Distinction Excellent High Distinction Outstanding
\nQuestion 1
\nPaper Writing 0-9.9 10-12.8 12.9-14.8 14.9-16.8 16.9-20.0
\nCritical analysis of the plan content
\nreflecting established approaches to planning health
\npromotion
\ninitiatives \u2022 Links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks not made
\n\u2022 Information provided not linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Unclear – description of how plan reflects all\/most elements of planning approaches \u2022 Where appropriate makes links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks that are satisfactory
\n\u2022 Information provided with some links to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Somewhat clear – description of how plan reflects few elements of planning
\napproaches \u2022 Where appropriate makes links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks that are somewhat clear
\n\u2022 Information provided somewhat linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Somewhat clear – description of how plan reflects most elements of planning approaches \u2022 Where appropriate makes links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks that are mostly clear
\n\u2022 Information provided mostly linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Mostly clear – description of how plan reflects all elements of planning
\napproaches \u2022 Demonstrates outstanding knowledge of relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks in understanding the topic
\n\u2022 Information provided clearly linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Outstanding and clear – description of how plan reflects all elements of planning approaches
\n0-9.9 10-12.8 12.9-14.8 14.9-16.8 16.9-20.0
\nUnderstanding of how the plan reflecting established approaches to planning health
\npromotion
\ninitiatives \u2022 Demonstrates little ability to critique selected plan and the alignment with none\/few very elements of planning
\napproaches \u2022 Demonstrates
\nsatisfactory ability to critique selected plan and the alignment with few elements of
\nplanning approaches
\n\u2022 Somewhat clear in the critique of selected plan and the alignment with most elements of
\nplanning approaches
\n\u2022 Mostly clear in the critique of selected plan and the alignment with all elements of planning
\napproaches
\n\u2022 Demonstrates outstanding ability to critique selected plan and the alignment with all elements of planning
\napproaches
\n0-4.9 5.0-6.4 6.5-7.4 7.5-8.4 8.5-10
\nWriting style \u2022 Responses are not within word limits
\n(\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Poorly written, with limited use of peerreviewed evidence and other reliable sources \u2022 Some responses are within word limits
\n(\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Reasonably well written, with some use of peer-reviewed evidence and other
\nreliable sources
\n\u2022 Few responses are within word limits (\u00b1~10%) with some clearly above\/below
\n\u2022 Adequately well written, with good use of peerreviewed evidence and other reliable sources \u2022 Responses are mostly within word limits
\n(\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Mostly well written, with excellent use of peer-reviewed evidence and other reliable sources \u2022 Responses are consistently within word limits (\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Very well written, with outstanding use of peerreviewed evidence and other reliable sources
\nQuestion 2
\n0-9.9 10-12.8 12.9-14.8 14.9-16.8 16.9-20.0
\nCritical analysis of the plan content and potential conflicts and challenges \u2022 Links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks not made
\n\u2022 Information provided not linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Unclear – description of potential conflicts and challenges of plan, none provided \u2022 Where appropriate makes links to relevant
\nguidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks that are satisfactory
\n\u2022 Information provided with some links to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Satisfactory – description of potential conflicts and challenges of plan \u2022 Where appropriate makes links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks that are somewhat clear
\n\u2022 Information provided somewhat linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Somewhat clear – description potential conflicts and challenges of plan \u2022 Where appropriate makes links to relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks that are mostly clear
\n\u2022 Information provided mostly linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Mostly clear – description of potential conflicts and challenges of plan \u2022 Demonstrates outstanding knowledge of relevant guidelines, theories, and\/or frameworks in understanding the topic
\n\u2022 Information provided clearly linked to the set tasks
\n\u2022 Outstanding and clear – description of potential conflicts and challenges of plan
\n0-4.9 5.0-6.4 6.5-7.4 7.5-8.4 8.5-10
\nWriting style \u2022 Responses are not within word limits
\n(\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Poorly written, with limited use of peer- \u2022 Some responses are within word limits
\n(\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Reasonably well written, with some use \u2022 Few responses are within word limits (\u00b1~10%) with some clearly above\/below \u2022 Responses are mostly within word limits
\n(\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Mostly well written, with excellent use of \u2022 Responses are consistently within word limits (\u00b1~10%)
\n\u2022 Very well written, with outstanding use of peer-
\nreviewed evidence and other reliable sources of peer-reviewed evidence and other
\nreliable sources
\n\u2022 Adequately well written, with good use of peerreviewed evidence and other reliable sources peer-reviewed evidence and other reliable sources reviewed evidence and other reliable sources
\nQuestion 3
\n0-9.9 10-12.8 12.9-14.8 14.9-16.8 16.9-20.0
\nCritical analysis of the plan to achieve aims \u2022 Demonstrates little understanding of strengths & weakness of plan to achieve aims
\n\u2022 Issues identified not relevant\/ limited relevance to plan to achieve aim
\n\u2022 Unsatisfactory critique and any modifications have limited justification and or not e<\/p>\n
_________________________________________________<\/p>\n
Question 1<\/p>\n
The National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan (2022-2031) is a comprehensive document that outlines the Australian Government’s strategy for improving mental health and preventing suicide. The plan includes six key priorities:<\/p>\n
Early intervention and prevention
\nSupport for people with mental illness
\nPromoting mental health and wellbeing
\nImproving access to mental health services
\nBuilding workforce capacity
\nResearch and evaluation
\nThe plan is well-written and comprehensive, and it provides a clear roadmap for improving mental health and preventing suicide in Australia. The plan is based on a strong evidence base, and it is aligned with international best practice. The plan also includes a number of innovative initiatives, such as the development of a national suicide prevention strategy and the establishment of a national mental health commission.<\/p>\n
The plan has been well-received by mental health experts and advocates. However, some have raised concerns about the lack of funding for the plan. The plan is estimated to cost $2.3 billion over the next 10 years, but the Australian Government has only committed to funding $1.5 billion. This lack of funding could make it difficult to implement the plan effectively.<\/p>\n
Overall, the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan is a comprehensive and well-written document that provides a clear roadmap for improving mental health and preventing suicide in Australia. The plan is based on a strong evidence base, and it is aligned with international best practice. The plan also includes a number of innovative initiatives. However, the lack of funding for the plan could make it difficult to implement the plan effectively.<\/p>\n
Question 2<\/p>\n
There are a number of potential conflicts and challenges that could arise in the implementation of the National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan. These include:<\/p>\n
Lack of funding: As mentioned above, the plan is estimated to cost $2.3 billion over the next 10 years, but the Australian Government has only committed to funding $1.5 billion. This lack of funding could make it difficult to implement the plan effectively.
\nLack of coordination: The plan involves a number of different government agencies and non-government organizations. It will be important to ensure that these agencies and organizations are coordinated effectively in order to implement the plan successfully.
\nResistance to change: Some people may resist change, particularly if they are comfortable with the status quo. It will be important to address this resistance and to build support for the plan among key stakeholders.
\nUncertainty about the future: The future of mental health and suicide prevention is uncertain. There are a number of factors that could affect the effectiveness of the plan, such as the economic climate and the availability of new technologies. It will be important to monitor the plan and to make adjustments as needed.
\nQuestion 3<\/p>\n
The National Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Plan is a comprehensive and well-written document that provides a clear roadmap for improving mental health and preventing suicide in Australia. The plan is based on a strong evidence base, and it is aligned with international best practice. The plan also includes a number of innovative initiatives. However, the lack of funding for the plan could make it difficult to implement the plan effectively.<\/p>\n
Overall, the plan is a positive step forward, but it is important to be aware of the potential conflicts and challenges that could arise in its implementation. These challenges should be addressed in order to ensure that the plan is successful.<\/p>\n
In addition to the above, I would also recommend the following:<\/p>\n
The plan should be regularly reviewed and updated to ensure that it is still relevant and effective.
\nThe plan should be made available to the public so that people can understand its goals and objectives.
\nThe plan should be promoted to key stakeholders, such as mental health professionals, educators, and policymakers.
\nThe plan should be evaluated to assess its effectiveness in improving mental health and preventing suicide.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
HPRO6715 Foundations of Health Promotion Assignment 2. The purpose of Assignment 2 is for you to review, reflect on, and critique a large-scale health promotion\u2026<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1482,303,4483],"tags":[4482],"class_list":["post-9961","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-health-sciences-and-medicine-assignment-help","category-healthcare-assignment-help","category-need-help-writing-healthcare-assignment-australia","tag-hpro6715-foundations-of-health-promotion-assignment-2"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9961","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9961"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9961\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9964,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9961\/revisions\/9964"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9961"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9961"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.colapapers.com\/uk\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9961"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}