Master of Public Health

HSYP8104 Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Session 1 2023

Task title Assessment Task 2: Health promotion program
Due date Week 8, Friday 28th April 5PM
Weighting 40%
Written- 2000 words (+/-10%)
Format/length
Presentation- 3 minutes (+/- 30 sec.)
Reference style Vancouver https://libguides.mq.edu.au/referencing/Vancouver
1. Explain health promotion concepts and principles in planning and
practice;
2. Analyse the range of factors that influence the health of
individuals and populations, including social determinants of
health and lifestyle behaviours;
3. Identify and critically analyse the range of theoretical and practical
Unit learning outcomes
intervention frameworks available for disease prevention and
health promotion delivery within a specific
population/community;
4. Design and evaluate health promotion strategies to demonstrate
effective application of key principles and theoretical models of
health promotion.
Submission iLearn Turnitin
Return of grade & iLearn Turnitin (individual)
feedback In class (group)

Background
The purpose of program planning is to design a program that addresses the established health issue
within available resources. Program planning and communication skills are core to health promotion
practice. Therefore, this assessment task aims to help you to develop skills required in developing and
implementing health promotion programs and advance your presentation skills. You will need to
develop a health promotion program based on the current health issue you chose for your Assessment
Task 1. In addition, you will create a video presentation- Pitch for Funding- based on your health
promotion program.
Note: If you would like to change your topic, please seek approval from the Unit Convenor.

Description
Health promotion program
First, based on the feedback provided for your health promotion program plan (AT1), adjust your health
promotion program as required. You may need to collect more information. However, you can use the
information you provided for AT1. Your health promotion program must provide the rationale and
outline the evidence base for the program that includes the following:

1. Introduction
a. Describe and justify the importance of your chosen public health issue;
b. Describe your chosen target audience.
2. Health promotion program
a. Describe your health promotion program and explain how your program is supposed
to change behaviour referring to suitable behaviour change model/framework;

Page 1 of 4
Master of Public Health

b. Include program logic model (aim, inputs, activities, outputs, impacts and outcomes).
For example:

c. Describe your action and implementation plan with timelines (use Gannt chart);
d. Identify resources needed for your program (no budget calculation is needed);
e. Describe your communication strategy.
3. References: minimum requirement ≥ 15 recent academic resources.

Pitch for funding

You will need to prepare a 3-minute presentation (pitch for funding) based on your health promotion
program (written document). The aim of your presentation is to persuade others to fund your program.
You will start by introducing your topic and why it is an important public health issue, target audience
and then you will explain how your program may help to address this issue. Also, you may emphasise
how your program is different from the other programs. You can use visuals or any other prompts, it is
your presentation and you can do with your 3 minutes as you wish. Remember, the aim is to get
‘funding’, so your speech should be persuasive! Please note that you need to be present in your
presentation not just your voice.

Once your presentation is ready, you will need to submit it via VoiceThread. Resources are provided on
how to use VoiceThread on iLearn under AT2. The teaching staff and students will provide their
constructive feedback on VoiceThread, so please engage in the discussions and provide your feedback
on other students’ presentations. When you submit your presentation on VoiceThread, make sure you
make your presentation accessible for other students by ticking appropriate box.

Page 2 of 4
Master of Public Health
Rubric/marking criteria
Assessment Task 2: Health promotion program
Assessment Component
Description & justification
of your chosen public
health issue and target
audience
(10 marks)
Explanation of how the
campaign is supposed to
change behaviour
including theoretical
context
(10 marks)
Program logic model
(10 marks)
Description of action and
implementation plan
(10 marks)
Outstanding
High Distinction
(100%-85%)
Submission demonstrates a
very high-level understanding
and justification of the public
health issue with reference to
relevant literature.
Submission demonstrates a
very high-level justification of
the target audience with
reference to relevant
literature.
Submission demonstrates
high-level understanding and
application of health
promotion theories and
frameworks in explaining and
justifying how the campaign is
supposed to change
behaviour.
Program logic model shows
an excellent understanding of
relationship between inputs,
activities, outputs, impacts
and outcomes. Aim(s) and
objectives are clear and
achievable (SMART).
Action and implementation
plan use step by step
approach. It includes tasks
required with timeframe to
achieve the campaign’s aims.
Advanced
Distinction
(84%-75%)
Submission demonstrates
very good understanding and
justification of the public
health issue with reference to
relevant literature.
Submission demonstrates
very good justification of the
target audience with
reference to relevant
literature.
Submission demonstrates
very good understanding and
application of health
promotion theories and
frameworks in explaining and
justifying how the campaign is
supposed to change
behaviour.
Program logic model shows a
very good understanding of
relationship between inputs,
activities, outputs, impacts
and outcomes. Aim(s) and
objectives are clear and
achievable (SMART) but with
minor errors.
Action and
implementation plan use
step by step approach. It
includes tasks required
with timeframe to
achieve the campaign’s
Proficient
Credit
(74%-65%)
Submission demonstrates
good understanding and
justification of the public
health issue with reference to
some relevant literature.
Submission demonstrates
good justification of the
target audience with
reference to some relevant
literature.
Submission demonstrates
good understanding and
application of health
promotion theories and
frameworks in explaining and
justifying how the campaign is
supposed to change
behaviour.
Program logic model shows a
good understanding of
relationship between inputs,
activities, outputs, impacts
and outcomes. Aim(s) and
objectives are listed and
reflect some SMART criteria.
Action and implementation
plan are included showing
some sequence between
actions required and
timeframe but with errors.
Functional
Pass
(64%-50%)
Submission demonstrates
satisfactory understanding and
justification of the public health
issue with reference to some
relevant literature.
Submission demonstrates
satisfactory justification of the
target audience with reference to
some relevant literature.
Submission demonstrates
satisfactory understanding and
application of health promotion
theories and frameworks in
explaining and justifying how the
campaign is supposed to change
behaviour.
Program logic model shows some
understanding of relationship
between inputs, activities,
outputs, impacts and outcomes.
Aim(s) and objectives are listed
but with major errors and do not
reflect all criteria in SMART
framework.
Action and implementation
plan are included showing
some sequence between
actions required and
timeframe but with major
errors throughout.
Developing
Fail
(49%-0%)
Submission demonstrates very
little (or no) understanding and
justification of the public health
issue with reference to some or
no literature.
Submission demonstrates very
little (or no) justification of the
target audience with reference
to some or no literature.
Submission demonstrates very
little (or no) understanding and
application of health promotion
theories and frameworks in
explaining and justifying how
the campaign is supposed to
change behaviour.
Program logic model is not clear
and does not show
understanding of relationship
between inputs, activities,
outputs, impacts and outcomes.
Aim(s) and objectives are not
listed or if listed they are
inappropriate and do not reflect
SMART framework.
Action and implementation plan
are not included or is not
relevant.
Page 3 of 4
Master of Public Health
Assessment Component
Identification of resources
and communication
strategy
(10 marks)
Pitch for funding
(25 marks)
Sources & references
(5 marks)
Total: 80 marks
Outstanding
High Distinction
(100%-85%)
Resources are well identified.
It includes tangible and
intangible resources.
Communication strategy is
well-thought-out.
Presentation is very well
organised and have a logic
flow. It provides a background
information such as
justification of the public
health issue, description of
the program and how it will
change behaviour of a target
audience.
Communicated clearly with a
powerful message. Captured
and held the attention
throughout using an original,
clever or creative approach.
Strong stage presence, eye
contact and vocal range.
Makes excellent use of
supporting materials, such as
audio visuals, graphics, effects
etc to enhance the pitch.
Credible and relevant
references are used. Accurate
use of Vancouver referencing
style in all instances. A
minimum requirement of
peer- reviewed references
used.
Advanced
Distinction
(84%-75%)
aims with some errors.
Most resources are identified.
It includes most tangible and
intangible resources.
Communication strategy is
described.
Presentation is organised and
have a logic flow. It provides a
background information such
as justification of the public
health issue, description of
the program and how it will
change behaviour of a target
audience.
Captured and held the
attention most of the time.
Presented an interesting
“fact”. Some stage presence,
eye contact and vocal range.
Makes good use of supporting
materials, such as audio
visuals, graphics, effects etc
to enhance the pitch.
Credible and relevant
references are used.
Accurate use of
Vancouver referencing
style on most occasions. A
minimum requirement of
peer- reviewed
references used.
Proficient
Credit
(74%-65%)
Some resources are identified
either tangible or intangible.
Communication strategy is
described but lack detail.
Presentation is somewhat
organised and have a logic
flow with some errors. It
provides some background
information such as
justification of the public
health issue, description of
the program and how it will
change behaviour of a target
audience, but more detailed
information is needed.
Captured their attention and
held it for half of the time.
Some eye contact and vocal
range.
Includes supporting materials,
such as audio visuals,
graphics, effects etc to
enhance the pitch.
Credible and relevant
references are used.
Accurate use of Vancouver
referencing style on most
occasions.
There is some variation of
in- text citation format,
and/or a few errors in the
reference list.
Functional
Pass
(64%-50%)
Few resources are identified
either tangible or intangible.
Communication strategy is (not)
included with some errors.
Presentation has some structure,
but it is not organised well and
does not have a logic flow. It
provides some background
information, but more
information is needed to fully
understand the program.
Struggled to capture or hold
audience attention. Limited eye
contact (mostly reading from
screen/paper) and vocal range.
Does not use supporting materials
or materials occasionally detract
from the pitch.
Credible and relevant
references are used. Accurate
use of Vancouver referencing
style on some occasions.
There is some variation of
in- text citation format,
and/or a few errors in the
reference list.
Developing
Fail
(49%-0%)
No or very few resources are
identified.
Communication strategy is not
included or is irrelevant.
Presentation is not organised
and have no logic flow. It does
not provide or provide very
limited information about the
public health issue and health
promotion program.
Did not capture or hold
audience attention. Did not look
at audience, vocal range varied.
Does not use supporting
materials or materials detract
from the pitch.
Not all references are credible
and/or relevant. Many
inaccuracies with the
Vancouver referencing style or
there are no references used.
Page 4 of 4