Hello, if you have any need, please feel free to consult us, this is my wechat: wx91due
MSc Module in Public Health Data Science ASSESSMENT
England's National Health Service (NHS) has been trialling an innovative programme of targeted lung health checks (TLHC), including lung function tests and chest screening, to improve lung cancer detection and outcomes. The initial results were positive, not just for detecting lung cancer but for diagnosing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and supporting people with smoking cessation. This programme is expected to run nationally, covering all areas of England by 2029, with general practitioners (GPs) inviting people over 55 but less than 75 years who have smoked cigarettes to attend lung screening in mobile units.
This is usually done through letters posted to existing patients. However, targeting geographical regions with the greatest risk of lung cancer and improving uptake is crucial to the programme's cost-effectiveness.
For your assignment, we would like you to imagine you are a public health scientist working at the lower tier local authority (LTLA) you were assigned on Day 2 of the face-to-face sessions. Your Integrated Care Board (ICB) has requested an intelligence report to inform the implementation of TLHC in your local area. Specifically, they have asked the report , in the style of a short scientific article, to cover the following three components:
1. The ICB must decide how many screening units to allocate to your LTLA. To help them with this allocation, they have requested a short descriptive analysis of lung cancer incidence and/or mortality for your LTLA. Use indicators you can describe by sex, age, time, geography or a combination of at least two factors. Part of your analysis should be benchmarked against indicators for other LTLAs and/or England overall. You do not need to recommend the number of screening units. Rather you should generate an analysis to help the ICB make that decision.
2. The ICB must decide where to locate screening units within your LTLA. To help them decide, they have asked for the following:
a. A descriptive analysis of two TLHC-relevant indicators available for GPs in your LTLA (e.g. smoking rates, COPD diagnoses, lung cancer referrals). See the mapping file on Moodle (x-boundary-mapping-2023-24) to determine your LTLA GP practices/codes).
b. A recommendation of four different locations for the mobile screening units within your LTLA. The recommendations should be guided by GP-level analysis in task 2 (a) and considerations around accessibility, such as transport. You can use mapping websites for this step to help you (e.g. Google maps). Whilst this section does not have to be in your R code, you should clearly outline your methods so the reader can broadly replicate your steps here.
3. Earlier pilot studies of TLHCs have found uptake to be very low. Therefore, the ICB has asked for a short engagement/dissemination strategy to influence the stakeholders in your LTLA who have the most to gain from TLHCs.
Your assessment could be based on a range of publicly available data sources, but we suggest you start by examining data available from the Public Health Profiles on the Fingertips site (https://fingertips.phe.org.uk/). There is documentation on the API for these data here.
On Day 2 of the face-2-face sessions, we will introduce and review the assignment. You will then get the chance to work on the assignment in your groups for Days 2 and 3. Whilst you will work on this problem in groups, it is essential that your final code and report submitted is entirely your own work.
Please see the handbook for guidance on Achieving Anonymity, late submission penalties and excess word count penalties.
Assessment Submission Deadline: 03 July 2024 at 17.00 BST
Submissions will be made via Moodle. We would like you to submit three documents as part of this assignment:
1. An R Markdown file or R script that contains the analysis that we can run to reproduce your analysis
2. A PDF of the R Markdown file or R script
3. A Report that has a maximum of 1,500 words of text (not including analytical code, tables, or Figures) and contains the following sections:
• Background
o A statement of the context and setting with references
• Aims
o A description of the aim for the analysis you have developed
• Methods:
o Description of data items included in the analysis
o Description of the methods for creation of the analysis
• Results (maximum six tables or figures)
o Presentation of the overall results
o Presentation of disaggregated results
• Discussion with references
o Interpretation of results, including their strengths and weaknesses
o How the results could be used to improve the health of the public by media engagement and dissemination
• Reference list in Harvard format
List of acronyms:
NHS - National Health Service
TLHC - Targeted Lung Health Checks
COPD - Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease GP - General Practitioner
LTLA - Lower Tier Local Authority ICB - Integrated Care Board
API - Application Programming Interface BST - British Summer Time
Marking Criteria
The report you write should be concise, interesting and informative. It should have a clear structure using the sections as suggested above. During the Face-to-Face days you will work on the assignment task in groups, however, for this assignment, the work you submit must be your own. As discussed during the Face-to-Face sessions, it is acceptable that some of the scripts used within your R code align with others, but final decisions on which data to include and how to combine and analyse these data must be decisions you make alone. Please be extremely careful to appropriately acknowledge the work of others included in your assessment and within your R scripts and you should indicate in the comments which sections are taken from code shared by others. You will have marks deducted and will be reported to the organiser of your MSc if we find that you have copied material written by others without appropriate acknowledgement. The text in your report and rest of your R Scripts, including all descriptive comments on the code, must be entirely original and the marks awarded will only be for original content written by you.
The marking sheet below will be used by the examiners to assess your assignment and you should carefully review this when undertaking this task. The percentage in brackets below indicates how much weight of the final mark will be awarded for each section.
Background (10%) A statement of the context and setting. This section should be used to place the study in the context of available evidence
|
0-1 |
Insufficient |
Insufficient understanding, arguments are mainly trivial or irrelevant. |
|
2-3 |
Limited |
Justifications adequate but incomplete. Little use of literature. Some valid arguments but poorly organised or under developed. Repetition. |
|
4-5 |
Reasonabl e |
Organised justification of the approach. Arguments are mostly valid but underdeveloped and/or are organised in a list-wise fashion. |
|
6-7 |
Good |
Coherent justification of the standpoint. Valid arguments mainly linked into narrative. Good use of literature but mainly descriptive or comparative. |
|
8-9 |
Very good |
Critical use of the literature or careful overview of existing research. Good development of arguments. |
|
10 |
Excellent |
Considerable evidence of independent thought. Sustained justification of the standpoint. Excellent, critical use of literature. |
Aims of your analysis (5%) A description of the aim for the analysis you have developed. This section should be used to define the primary aim of the assessment and to explain why creating one is important
|
0-1 |
Insufficient |
Little or no rationale. Insufficient justification, arguments are mainly trivial. Little to no link with background section. |
|
2-3 |
Limited |
Justifications adequate but incomplete. Link with the background section lacks clarity or relevance. |
|
4-5 |
Reasonabl e |
Reasonable justification for the assessment but ambiguous or unrealistically broad. Some link to the background section. |
|
6-7 |
Good |
Strong justification, link to background section and answerable, specific research question(s). |
|
8-9 |
Very good |
Very good extension of literature to lead to its own rationale. Flows well from the Background into an answerable and specific research question(s). |
|
10 |
Excellent |
An excellent outline of why the question is worth asking and why this is worthwhile to participants or wider service delivery. A contextual framing of the research question/aim(s) in relation to relevant policy and practice and/or literature bases which flows well from the Background. |
Data items included in the analysis (15%): This section should be used to state what data
items were included, why these are appropriate and a justification of the choice of data and any limitations or special requirements.
|
0-1 |
Insufficient |
Majority of relevant information is incomprehensible/incomplete. |
|
2-3 |
Limited |
Data appropriate but some information irrelevant, incomplete or not justified in terms of project and/or stated aims. |
|
4-5 |
Reasonabl e |
Data relevant and reasonable choice. Most relevant elements are included and comprehensible but some omissions or not fully justified in terms of project and/or stated aims. |
|
6-7 |
Good |
Data relevant and strong choice. Only minor omissions and justifications. |
|
8-9 |
Very good |
Good level of detail on all elements of data, strong approach taken to data used which is well justified and tied strongly to aims. |
|
10 |
Excellent |
Excellent data choices with a well justified approach tied strongly and clearly to aims |
Methods (20%): This section should be used to describe the methods used in the analysis and justification for the methodological approach taken.
|
0-1 |
Insufficient |
Majority of relevant information is incomprehensible/incomplete. |
|
2-3 |
Limited |
Basic outline included, but replication problematic or design weak |
|
4-5 |
Reasonabl e |
Some omissions, but the key elements are generally included, and comprehensible and design is described. |
|
6-7 |
Good |
All elements are included but partial omissions or inaccuracies. Replication possible with minor clarification. Some justification and referencing. |
|
8-9 |
Very good |
Good level of detail. Replication possible. Well referenced and justified. |
|
10 |
Excellent |
Complete and correct replication possible. Fully referenced and strongly justified approach. |