Using the template provided, select a public health issue, and prepare a business case for a project to address health inequalities and improve population health in a specific community or vulnerable group. HEP 700: Project Planning and Public Health Practice COURSEWORK 1 (75%) A Business case for a public health project (4000 Words) Using a pre-defined template, students will select a public health issue and prepare a business case for a project that will address the health issue while aiming to reduce inequalities and improve population health.
Assignment Sections
Weightage
Background and context to the business case
20%
Details of the proposed intervention and project plan
20%
Project constraints, implementation, and sustainability strategies
15%
Project performance and dissemination strategies
12%
Structure, grammar, spelling, typos, referencing, and references Two-page curriculum vitae (CV) added as an appendix
8%
Guidance Note for Students: You are required to develop a public health project proposal that demonstrates your understanding of project planning and implementation within a real-world context. Your submission should be structured into four sections, addressing the following components:
Section 1: Background and Context Provide a clear overview of the public health issue your proposed project aims to address. Identify the at-risk population and support your discussion with relevant epidemiological data. Explain how the issue aligns with current health and well-being priorities and policies. Clearly state the project aim and ensure your objectives are Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, and Time-bound (SMART). Support your rationale with appropriate and up-to-date literature.
Section 2: Project Plan and Proposed Intervention Present a detailed and logically structured description of your proposed intervention. Justify your choice of intervention with supporting evidence and identify the health promotion theory and approach guiding your project. Conduct a stakeholder analysis and outline the key partners and resources required. Identify relevant ethical considerations and explain how they will be addressed.
Section 3: Constraints, Implementation, and Sustainability Assess potential risks and challenges using a SWOT analysis and outline practical mitigation strategies. Present a realistic and coherent implementation plan, including communication strategies. Outline your timeline and provide strategies to support long-term sustainability, drawing on appropriate academic sources.
Section 4: Evaluation and Dissemination Describe your project evaluation strategy, including the methods and tools you will use to measure outcomes and impact over time. Justify your choices with relevant evidence. Explain how you will disseminate findings to various audiences, using appropriate channels and approaches.
Your proposal should be supported by relevant academic and policy literature and should reflect critical thinking and practical understanding of public health project planning.
Coursework 1 – Assessment Rubric / Marking Proforma | HEP 700 – Business Case (75%)
SECTION 1 | Background and Context to Business Case [20 marks]
Criteria
Distinction
Commendation
Pass
Marginal Fail
Significant Fail
Band
70–100%
60–69%
50–59%
45–49%
0–44%
Marks
14–20
12–13.9
10–11.9
9–9.9
0–8.9
Background and Context to Business Case [20]
Provided an extensive overview of the scope and magnitude of the public health issue the proposed project aims to address. An excellent connection was made between the public health issue and a specific at-risk population demonstrated by supporting epidemiological data. A detailed explanation of how the identified public health priority was closely aligned with current health and well-being priorities and policies. Strongly rationalised the potential benefit of the project to the selected population with convincing supporting evidence in terms of health and well-being outcomes and reduction in health disparities. The aim of the proposed project was coherently and concisely stated and the objectives are SMART. Included highly relevant up-to-date discipline-specific literature to support writing.
Provided a very good overview of the scope and magnitude of the public health issue the proposed project aims to address. A clear connection was made between the public health issues and a specific at-risk population demonstrated by supporting epidemiological data. Very good explanation of how the identified public health priority was closely aligned with current health and well-being priorities and policies. Effectively rationalised the potential benefit of the project to the selected population with good supporting evidence in terms of health and well-being outcomes and reduction in health disparities. The aim of the proposed project was clearly stated, and the objectives are connected to the aim and are SMART. Included relevant up-to-date discipline-specific literature to support writing.
Provided an acceptable overview of the scope and magnitude of the public health issue the proposed project aims to address. A good connection was made between the public health issue and a specific at-risk population demonstrated by supporting epidemiological data. Alluded to some explanation of how the identified public health priority was closely aligned with current health and well-being priorities and policies. Rationalised was good enough to highlight the potential benefit of the project to the selected population with some supporting evidence in terms of health and well-being outcomes and reduction in health disparities. The aim of the proposed project was present, however, some objectives overlap and/or are only partly connected to the aim and/or some are not measurable. Included literature to support writing, however, was not always relevant and/or up to date.
Provided a poor overview of the scope and magnitude of the public health issue the proposed project aims to address. Lack of clarity impeded understanding of the connection between the public health issue and the identified at-risk population. Lacked clarity and evidence for some explanation of how the identified public health priority was closely aligned with current health and well-being priorities and policies. Rationalisation was weak and unable to highlight the potential benefit of the project to the selected population with supporting evidence in terms of health and well-being outcomes and reduction in health disparities. The stated aim and/or objectives of the proposed projects were unclear. Most objectives were not measurable. Relevant information and/or literature to support writing was sparse. What was included was not always up to date.
Provided a very poor overview of the scope and magnitude of the public health issue the proposed project aims to address. Very poorly explained/missing connection between the public health issue and the identified at-risk population. No connection was made between the public health issue and a specific at-risk population. Unable to rationalise the potential benefits of the project to the selected population with supporting evidence in terms of health and well-being outcomes and reduction in health disparities. The aim and objectives of the proposed project was missing or unmeasurable. Relevant information and/or literature to support writing was missing.
Assignment task: Using the template provided, select a public health issue, and prepare a business case for a project to address health inequalities and improve population health in a specific community or vulnerable group.
HEP 700 • Coursework 1: Business Case • Assessment Rubric
SECTION 2 | Details of Project Plan and proposed Intervention [20 marks]
Criteria
Distinction
Commendation
Pass
Marginal Fail
Significant Fail
Band
70–100%
60–69%
50–59%
45–49%
0–44%
Marks
14–20
12–13.9
10–11.9
9–9.9
0–8.9
Details of Project Plan and proposed Intervention [20]
An excellent detailed description of the proposed project and intervention plan was provided in a clear and logical manner. Included highly relevant justification for why the proposed intervention was selected. Included convincing and up to date evidence to justify why a specific health promotion theory and approach were selected to guide the proposed intervention. Completed a stakeholder analysis and identified and justified all possible partners and key resources required for planning and implementation of the project which fully considered the nature and complexity of the project. Demonstrated high awareness of the ethical issues that need to be considered and provided suggestions on how these would be addressed.
A very good description of the proposed project and intervention plan was provided in a clear and logical manner. A clear justification for why the proposed intervention was selected. Included relevant and up-to-date evidence to justify why a specific health promotion theory and approaches were selected to guide the proposed intervention. Completed a stakeholder analysis and identified and justified most of the partners and key resources required for planning and implementation of the project which considered the nature and complexity of the project. Demonstrated awareness of the ethical issues that need to be considered and provided suggestions on how these would be addressed.
A description of the proposed project and an intervention plan was provided, however, not always in a clear and logical manner. Some justification was provided for why the proposed intervention was selected. The provided evidence was not always up to date and/or relevant to justify why a specific health promotion theory and approach were selected to guide the proposed intervention. Identified and justified most of the stakeholders and resources required to plan and implement the project. Some key resources missing. Demonstrated awareness of most ethical issues that need to be considered and provided suggestions on how these would be addressed.
Description of the proposed project and intervention plan lacked relevant information. Poorly justify the selection of proposed intervention. The evidence was not up-to-date and unable to justify why a specific health promotion theory and approach was selected to guide the proposed intervention. Identified some stakeholders and resources required to plan and implement the project. The reason for resources is not always justified and some key resources missing. Demonstrated limited awareness of the ethical issues that need to be considered. For those identified, there were some suggestions on how these would be addressed.
Due to the lack of detail, it was difficult for the reader to comprehend what was the proposed project and intervention. No justification was provided to justify why a specific health promotion theory and approach was selected to guide the proposed intervention. Poor identification and justification of the necessary stakeholders and resources required to plan and implement the project. Most key resources are missing. There was very poor awareness of the ethical issues and limited/no suggestions on how any ethical issues identified would be addressed.
HEP 700 • Coursework 1: Business Case • Assessment Rubric
SECTION 3 | Project Constraints, Implementation and Sustainability Strategies [15 marks]
Criteria
Distinction
Commendation
Pass
Marginal Fail
Significant Fail
Band
70–100%
60–69%
50–59%
45–49%
0–44%
Marks
10.5–15
9–10.4
7.5–8.9
6.7–7.4
0–6.6
Project Constraints, Implementation and Sustainability Strategies [15]
Thoroughly considered and analysed potential risks that could affect the project using the SWOT analysis process. Clearly outlined to mitigate/overcome the challenges identified. Designed an implementation strategy which included a convincing communication strategy. Presented a detailed logically planned and realistic timeline. Provided very persuasive strategies to increase project sustainability. Included highly relevant literature from primary sources to support strategies.
Considered significant potential risks that could affect the project using a SWOT analysis process. Developed options to mitigate/overcome the challenges identified. Designed an implementation strategy which included a detailed communication strategy. Presented a logically planned and realistic timeline. Developed strategies to increase project sustainability. Included relevant literature from mainly primary sources to support strategies.
Considered most potential risks that could affect the project partially utilising the SWOT analysis process. Some options to mitigate/overcome the challenges identified. Some key risks were omitted. Described the implementation strategy which included a communication strategy; however, parts of the processes were not always clear to the reader. Presented a somewhat realistic and achievable timeline. The explanation of project sustainability was appropriate. Included literature to support strategies, however, was not always relevant and/or up-to-date, and/or was mainly from secondary sources.
Many of the key risks that could affect the project were omitted. SWOT analysis was not properly utilised. For the risks that were mentioned, it was not clear how these could be mitigated/overcome. The process for implementing the project was poorly described. Details about the communication strategy were also poor or absent. The timeline presented was not realistic and was somewhat ambitious. It was not convincing to the reader how the proposed project would be sustained. Literature included to support strategies were often irrelevant and/or not up-to-date, and/or was all from secondary sources.
No or incomplete risks and SWOT analysis of the proposed project. The process for implementing the project was not clear to the reader. The timeline was not included or was incomplete. How the project was going to be sustained was poorly explained or missing. Included limited/no literature to support strategies.
HEP 700 • Coursework 1: Business Case • Assessment Rubric
SECTION 4 | Project Performance and Dissemination Strategy [12 marks]
Criteria
Distinction
Commendation
Pass
Marginal Fail
Significant Fail
Band
70–100%
60–69%
50–59%
45–49%
0–44%
Marks
8.4–12
7.2–8.3
6–7.1
5.4–5.9
0–5.3
Project Performance and Dissemination Strategy [12]
Provided a comprehensive description of the project evaluation plan to clearly justify the selection of data collection methods and approaches to monitor project impact with supporting evidence. Selected and logically explained the appropriate data collection tools and approaches to assess the process of designing and implementing the project outcomes and short, mid and long-term impact. With explanation and elaboration, demonstrated excellent knowledge of how results of the project evaluation could be disseminated to different target audiences via various channels.
Provided a detailed description of the project evaluation plan with justification of the selection of data collection methods and approaches to monitor project impact with supporting evidence. Selected appropriate data collection tools and approaches to assess the process of designing and implementing the project outcomes and short, mid and long-term impact. With explanation, demonstrated very good knowledge of how the results of the project evaluation could be disseminated to different target audiences via various channels.
Provided a description of the project evaluation plan which explained, with some supporting evidence, data collection tools and approaches to monitor project impact with supporting evidence. Selected some data collection tools and approaches to assess the process of designing and implementing the project outcomes and short, mid and long-term impact. Demonstrated knowledge of how results of the project evaluation could be disseminated to different target audiences via various channels.
The project evaluation plan was described in minimal detail. A poor rationale was provided for the data collection tools and/or approaches that would be used to evaluate the process of designing and implementing the project and its outcome and impact. Poor knowledge of the various channels that could be used to disseminate the results of the project evaluation to different target audiences was demonstrated.
Insufficient detail of the project evaluation plan. The data collection tools and approaches that would be used to evaluate the process used for designing and implementing the project and its outcomes and impact were missing and/or not appropriate. Very poor/no knowledge of the various channels that could be used to disseminate results of the project evaluation to different target audiences was demonstrated.
HEP 700 • Coursework 1: Business Case • Assessment Rubric
FINAL CRITERION | Structure, grammar, spelling, typos references and referencing [8 marks]
Criteria
Distinction
Commendation
Pass
Marginal Fail
Significant Fail
Band
70–100%
60–69%
50–59%
45–49%
0–44%
Marks
5.6–8
4.8–5.5
4–4.7
3.6–3.9
0–3.5
Structure, grammar, spelling, typos references and referencing [8]
Outstanding, logically and coherently structured proposal. Negligible misspellings/typos and/or grammatical errors. The reference section is complete and comprehensive. Included both discipline-specific literature from primary and secondary sources. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences referencing system used with no errors. CV included – formatting and style are very professional and to a very high standard.
Sentences were structured, and words were chosen to communicate ideas clearly. Minor misspellings typos and/or grammatical errors. Reference sections were complete and comprehensive. Included literature from both primary and secondary sources. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences referencing system used with 5 or less different referencing errors. CV included – formatting and style developed to a high standard.
Sentence structure and/or word choices sometimes interfere with clarity. Needed to improve the sequencing of ideas within parts of the proposal to make the writing easy to follow. A few misspellings typos and/or grammatical errors. Mostly secondary references were used. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences referencing system used with more than 5 but less than 10 different referencing errors. CV included – formatting and style developed to a good standard.
Sentence structure and word choices lack transitions and/or sequencing of ideas throughout much of the proposal made reading and understanding difficult. Numerous misspellings, typos and/or grammatical errors. Tendency to rely on internet sites. Inconsistent or illogical referencing system. Inadequate list of references. More than 10 different reference errors. Faculty of Health and Life Sciences referencing system not used. CV included – some formatting has been done but needs some re-working.
No structure. Numerous misspellings, typos and grammatical errors. Sentences were not concise/succinct. No reference system was used. Too much reliance on internet sites. No CV included.
Formatting note: Two visibly malformed numeric ranges in the supplied text have been standardised as 0–8.9 and 0–6.6; other rubric wording has been retained
You can also explore more resources on our website.