Assessment Specification: Social Determinants of Health
Assessment Brief: Use systematic review methods to evaluate interventions that attempt
to reduce health inequalities and then draw your own evidence-based conclusions.
Within this brief you are free to select any public health issues from the topics taught on the
module or from your wider reading. There are three elements that you will need to consider
when deciding on the focus of the essay:
(i.) the ‘exposure’ variable (e.g. SES; gender; ethnicity)
(ii.) the outcome variable (e.g. mortality, quality of life, cardiovascular disease, dental
caries)
(iii.) the intervention
Before you begin your assignment it is strongly recommended that you conduct some
preliminary scoping searches to ensure that your research question will be answerable.
The word count for the assignment is 2,500 words (maximum, excluding refeerences).
If you are unsure about whether a topic is suitable or you would like to discuss potential topics,
please contact the module leader, Dr Martin Cartwright (martin.cartwright.1@city.ac.uk).
Please also read the Assessment Criteria (below) carefully.
Assessment pattern
Assessment
component
Assessment type Weighting
Page | 2
Minimum
qualifying
mark
Written essay Written assignment 100% 50% No
Important notes
It is vital that you follow the principles of good academic practice. All submitted assignments
are checked using plagiarism detection software (Turnitin). Please ensure you have read and
complied with the guidelines on academic misconduct and plagiarism avoidance set out in
your Programme Handbook. You must ensure that you correctly reference (using the Harvard
system) all the sources you have used, and that all direct quotations (even if only a few words)
are enclosed within double quotation marks. See also the information at
http://www.city.ac.uk/about/education/ldc/resources/studywell
Your work must be submitted electronically (to Moodle) in Microsoft Word format. Only one
file in total may be submitted (maximum size 8MB). Please ensure that the Coursework
Submission Documents (available on Moodle) are completed and included as the first pages
of the file containing your assignment. The filename of your assignment should be in the
format: “John Smith PHM004”
Pass/Fail?
PHM004 Assessment Brief 2016/17 (v1.1)
Presentational aspects:
As part of good academic style you need to pay careful attention to how you present your
work, for example:
State the title of the assignment clearly at the beginning.
All references used in the text must be included in the reference list, and vice versa.
Avoid paragraphs that are very long or very short.
Use bulleted / numbered lists sparingly.
Use a sans-serif font (e.g. Arial, Verdana, Calibri) with a font size of 11.
Use single line spacing, leaving a blank line between paragraphs.
Include a page number at the bottom of each page.
Deadline
The deadline for submission of this assessment (via the drop box on Moodle) is 14.00hrs on
Mon 17
Page | 3
th
April 2017.
Pass Mark
The pass mark for this assessment is 50%. You are required to achieve the minimum pass mark
in each assessment.
Assessment Criteria
Please find the assessment criteria below. They are descriptions, based on the module’s learning
outcomes of skills, knowledge and attributes that you need to demonstrate in order to complete
an assessment successfully. Your feedback will be based on these assessment criteria.
Please also consult the Grade Related Criteria (below) for descriptions of the level of skills,
knowledge or attributes you need to demonstrate to achieve a certain grade or mark in an
assessment.
PHM004 Assessment Brief 2016/17 (v1.1)
PHM004 Assessment Criteria (2014-15)
Page | 4
Domain
Assessment Criteria
In this piece of work you will be expected to:
1. Presentation
Write clearly, concisely and accurately in academic
style;
2. Problem definition &
research question
Structure the assignment in a coherent and logical
manner, using sub-headings as appropriate.
Observe the conventions of Harvard referencing;
Present a clear research question (RQ) with a robust
rationale drawing on influential and up-to-date
literature;
Use appropriate theoretical frameworks to explore the
RQ;
Demonstrate that your review is addressing a
knowledge gap.
3. Search strategy
Demonstrate an understanding of systematic review
methods;
4. Analysis of results
& evidence-based
recommendations
Report an explicit, systematic and replicable search
strategy describing how appropriate empirical studies
were identified, selected and appraised, and justify this
strategy;
Present a PRISMA flow diagram;
Present a narrative and tabular summary of the key
findings from the selected studies;
Critically appraise the individual studies;
Synthesise the evidence into a logical and coherent
overarching narrative;
Draw evidence-based recommendations for policy,
practice, research or theory, and justify these
recommendations;
Consider the broader implications of the
recommendations (ethical, cost, feasibility etc.)
Indicative
weighting (%)
10
20
30
40
PHM004 Assessment Brief 2016/17 (v1.1)
Grade-related Criteria
For Postgraduates programmes:
Class % Literary Description
Distinction 85-100 Outstanding
Work that demonstrates a comprehensive knowledge of
the subject area and addresses the learning
outcomes/assessment criteria in full. Where relevant, it
will show evidence of independent reading, thinking and
analysis and strong critical ability. It will be wellconstructed
and
demonstrate
a professional
approach
to
academic
practice.
It
will
be
of
a professional
standard.
Page | 5
80-84 Excellent
75-79 Very good
Work that demonstrates strong knowledge of the subject
area and addresses the learning outcomes/assessment
criteria well. Where relevant, it will show evidence of
wide and comprehensive reading and critical ability. It will
be clearly written and adhere to the principles of good
academic practice.
70-74
Merit 67-69 Good
Work that demonstrates a sound level of knowledge of
the subject area and makes a good attempt to address
the learning outcomes/assessment criteria, realising all to
64-66
60-63
some extent and some well. There will be evidence of
thorough research of the topic(s) but some answers may
not be complete or arguments sufficiently explored. It will
be well-structured and logically written and will
demonstrate good academic practice. Some critical
ability will be evident.
Pass 57-59 Satisfactory
Work that demonstrates knowledge of the subject area
and provides some level of response to the learning
outcomes/assessment criteria but only realises these
outcomes and criteria to some extent and may not include
important elements or information that is fully accurate.
Where relevant, development of ideas is limited but
attempts will be made to analyse materials critically.
Expression and structure may lack clarity and evidence of
academic practice will be limited.
54-56
50-53
Fail 47-49 Poor
Unsatisfactory work that demonstrates very limited
knowledge of the subject area and which does not
succeed in grasping the key issues. Learning
outcomes/assessment criteria will not be realised. There
will be no real development of ideas and critical analysis
will be very limited. Presentation is confused or lacks
coherence.
44-46
40-43 Very poor
Work that demonstrates no real knowledge of the subject
area and which demonstrates a totally inadequate
attempt to address the learning outcomes/assessment
criteria. No critical ability will be displayed.
20-40
0-20
___________________________________