Cost of living crisis and mental health What is the impact of the cost-ofliving crisis on mental health in the UK and how are health and social care s

ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Assessment Coursework (Research report)
This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.83 of the Academic Regulations.

Assessed Learning Outcomes 3.Critically appraise and evaluate the evidence in relation to the project topic to draw relevant conclusions.
4.Present and discuss research findings, justifying their relevance in developing or advancing current health and social practice within the scope of the topic

Submission Deadline:
Please refer to the deadline on the VLE

WRITING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
• This assignment must be completed individually.
• All courses of study must use the ARU Harvard referencing system for written assessments, apart from LLB/LLM courses where OSCOLA should be applied.
• Your work must indicate the number of words you have used. Written assignments must not exceed the specified maximum number of words. When a written assignment is marked, the excessive use of words beyond the word limit is reflected in the academic judgement of the piece of work which results in a lower mark being awarded for the piece of work (regulation 6.74).
• Assignment submissions are to be made anonymously. Do not write your name anywhere on your work.
• Write your student ID number at the top of every page.
• Where the assignment comprises more than one task, all tasks must be submitted in a single document.
• You must number all pages.

SUBMITTING YOUR ASSIGNMENT:
• In order to achieve full marks, you must submit your work before the deadline. Work that is submitted late – if your work is submitted on the same day as the deadline by midnight, your mark will receive a 10% penalty. If you submit your work up to TWO working days after the published submission deadline – it will be accepted and marked. However, the element of the module’s assessment to which the work contributes will be capped with a maximum mark of 40%.
• Work cannot be submitted if the period of 2 working days after the deadline has passed (unless there is an approved extension). Failure to submit within the relevant period will mean that you have failed the assessment.
• Requests for short-term extensions will only be considered in the case of illness or other cause considered valid by the Director of Studies Team. Please contact DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. A request must normally be received and agreed by the Director of Studies Team in writing at least 24 hours prior to the deadline. Students will need to provide evidence to support their extension request. See rules 6.64-6.73:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf
• Exceptional Circumstances: The deadline for submission of exceptional circumstances in relation to this assignment is no later than five working days after the submission date of this work. Please contact the Director of Studies Team – DoS@london.aru.ac.uk. Students will need to provide evidence to support their EC claim. See rules 6.112 – 6.141:
http://web.anglia.ac.uk/anet/academic/public/academic_regs.pdf

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION
Use a literature review as a research method to respond to a research question about a health or social care topic. The topic areas and questions are:
Topic Question
Cost of living crisis and mental health What is the impact of the cost-ofliving crisis on mental health in the UK
and how are health and social care services responding to this?
Health and Social Care services for offenders What support services are available for people leaving the criminal justice system and how do these impact reoffending rates?
Healthcare for gypsy traveller communities What are the experiences of gypsy travellers in accessing healthcare and how can services become more inclusive to these communities?

Choose ONE topic and the related question
Write ONE aim for your project and TWO objectives.
Present your findings in a REPORT format (see details below).
The Report of the literature review must include the following sections: a) Abstract
b) Introduction
c) Presentation of data
d) A critique of the findings and data from the literature
e) Discussion
f) Conclusion
g) Recommendations
h) Reference list

ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
LO 3 Critically appraise and evaluate the evidence in relation to the project topic to draw relevant conclusions.
a) Analyse and critique the quality of the sources you have used (LO3).
b) Draw conclusions about the quality of the source and about the quality and relevance of the information produced (LO3).
LO 4 Present and discuss research findings, justifying their relevance in developing or advancing current health and social practice within the scope of the topic.
a) Identify and discuss the key findings from your research (LO4).
b) Say how these findings relate to an area of practice or service provision (LO4).
c) Make a recommendation for a change that would have a positive impact on professional practice or service delivery in the area you have studied LO4).

READING REQUIREMENT

Core Reading
Aveyard, H. 2019. Doing a Literature Review in Health and Social Care: A Practical Guide, 4th Ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Available through ARU Library.
Bell, J. & Walter, S., 2018. Doing your Research Project: A Guide for First-Time Researchers, 7Ed. London: McGraw-Hill Education. Available through ARU Library.
Moule, P., 2021. Making Sense of Research in Health and Social Care, 7th Edition. London: Sage. (Kortext)

Additional Reading
Burls, A., 2009. What is Critical Appraisal? Evidence Based Medicine, 2nd Ed. What is…? Series. Available through ARU Library.
Clark, T., Foster, L., Sloan, L., Bryman, A., 2021. Bryman’s Social Research Methods, 6th Ed. Oxford University Press. Available through ARU Library.
Denscombe, M., 2021. The Good Research Guide: Research methods for small scale social research projects, 7th ed. London: Open University Press. Available through ARU Library.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., 2007. Step by Step Guide to Critiquing
Research, Part 1: Quantitative Research. British Journal of Nursing, 16 (12). Available through ARU Library.
Ryan, F., Coughlan, M., Cronin, P., 2007. Step by Step Guide to Critiquing
Research, Part 2: Qualitative Research. British Journal of Nursing, 16 (12). Available through ARU Library.

AT LEAST ten sources for your literature review assessment, of which AT LEAST six sources should be peer reviewed journal articles.
You will learn throughout the course how to effectively find credible sources of evidence for your assessment.

Please note that the sources listed are expected for your written assessment. These sources will be part of the module and their content is deemed necessary to produce a relevant assessment. Module markers will expect to see them integrated into your work and appropriately referenced.
Failure to include these sources may result in a “Viva Voce” meeting during which you would be required to explain your work and your reasons for not including these key sources.

Criteria/
Grade 0-29
Little evidence of understanding the requirements of the assessment. Little evidence of
academic
application and total failure to gather and analyse evidence. Little understanding or application of critical interpretation. 30-39
Limited evidence of understanding the requirements of the assessment. Limited evidence of academic application and limited materials collected with limited analysis. Limited understanding or application of critical interpretation. 40-49
Adequate
understanding of the requirements of the assessment. Adequate academic application. Some materials collected and some analysis provided. Adequate evidence of critical interpretation. 50-59
Sound understanding of the requirement of the assessment. Sound academic application.
Acceptable volume
of materials collected and analysis performed. Some evidence of
critical interpretation. 60-69
Good understanding of the requirements of the assessment. Good academic application. Good volume of materials collected and good analysis performed. Good grasp and
application of critical interpretation. 70-79
Excellent understanding of the requirements of the assessment. Excellent academic application. Excellent volume of materials collected and very good analytical application. Excellent grasp and application of critical interpretation. 80-89
Outstanding academic
application. Extensive materials collected and analysed with sophistication. Critical interpretation is visible throughout and novel insights are provided. 90-100
Exceptional academic application. Extensive materials collected and analytical sophistication demonstrated. Critical interpretation is visible throughout and the work is nearing publishable standard.
Critical
Engagement
(40 marks) 0-5
Little or no understanding of
critical
interpretation. No evidence of application and total lack of novel insight. 6-10
Limited understanding of critical interpretation. Application is limited and/or inconsistent. No identifiable novel insight. 11-15
Adequate understanding of
critical interpretation however application is limited and/or inconsistent. Some novel insight although could be poorly articulated and/or lacking in clarity. 16-20
Sound understanding
of critical interpretation however application is limited and/or inconsistent. Some novel insight provided. 21-25
Good understanding
of critical interpretation
Application is broadly and consistent. some
novel insight provided. 26-30
Excellent
understanding of critical interpretation
Application is consistent and thought provoking with novel insight provided and wellarticulated. 31-35
Outstanding understanding of critical interpretation Application is consistent and thought provoking with novel insight provided. Highly sophisticated synthesis of literature and a very good level of engagement with the material Very well-articulated. 36-40
Exceptional understanding and application of critical
interpretation. Visible
connection made between evidence base presented and range of novel insights provided. Evidence is intelligently reflected on and literature review is fully justified.
DM_July_2022_V1
Discussion/R ecommendat
ions (50 marks) 0-6
Little to no cohesion between evidence presented and points developed in the discussion. Inability to articulate
recommendations and no identifiable connection between evidence base and implications for future research. 7-12
Limited cohesion between evidence presented and points developed in the discussion. Poorly articulated recommendations and limited connection between evidence base and implications for future research.
13-19
Adequate links made between evidence presented and points developed in the discussion. Broadly developed recommendations and adequate connection between evidence base and implications for future research.
20-26
Sound cohesion between evidence presented and points made in discussion. Evidence of analytical framework attempted however this may be lacking in quality or
effectiveness. Sound evidence of connection between evidence presented and implications for future research. 27-33
Good cohesion between evidence presented and points made in discussion. Evidence of analytical framework attempted in a way which is broadly effective. Good evidence of connection between evidence presented and implications for future research. 34-40
Excellent cohesion between evidence presented and points made in discussion. Evidence of understanding and successful application of analytical framework. Excellent evidence of connection between evidence presented and implications for future research. 41-45
Outstanding cohesion between evidence presented and points made in discussion. Evidence of sophisticated understanding and highly effective application of analytical framework. Outstanding evidence of connection between evidence presented and implications for future research. 46-50
Exceptional links made between evidence presented and points made in discussion.
Exceptional level of clarity and very interesting reflection on the evidence base presented. High level knowledge and use of analytical frameworks. Implications for future research/development in field are feasible, well thought out and very well evidenced.
Formatting (10 marks) 1
Little to no evidence provided and work is very poorly presented. Referencing is largely absent and/or incorrect. 2
Very limited or inadequate evidence provided, and work is poorly presented. Referencing is largely absent or incorrect. 3
Basic evidence provided and work is generally poorly presented. Referencing is absent/inconsistent/ incorrect. 4
Adequate evidence provided and work is inconsistently presented.
Referencing is visible yet inconsistent. 5
Broadly acceptable level of evidence provided. Adequate presentation and references are generally consistent. 6
Sound level of evidence provided. Sound presentation and references are largely consistent. 7
Good level of evidence provided. Good presentation and references are largely consistent. 8-10
Excellent level of evidence provided, and work is very well presented.
References are almost all accurate and correctly presented.

DM_July_2022_V1

ARU GENERIC ASSESSMENT CRITERIA AND MARKING STANDARDS: LEVEL 6 – the Depth stage

Level 6 is characterised by an expectation of students’ increasing autonomy in relation to their study and developing skill sets. Students are expected to demonstrate problem solving skills, both theoretical and practical. This is supported by an understanding of appropriate theory; creativity of expression and thought based in individual judgement; and the ability to seek out, invoke, analyse and evaluate competing theories or methods of working in a critically constructive and open manner. Output is articulate, coherent and skilled in the appropriate medium, with some students producing original or innovative work in their specialism.
Mark Bands Outcome Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic
Regulations, Section 2)
Knowledge & Understanding Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and Transferable Skills
90-
100% Achieves module outcome(s) Exceptional information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with extraordinary originality and autonomy. Work may be considered for publication within ARU Exceptional management of learning resources, with a higher degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. Exceptional structure/ accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Exceptional team/practical/professional skills. Work may be considered for publication within ARU

80-
89% Outstanding information base exploring and analysing the discipline, its theory and ethical issues with clear originality and autonomy Outstanding management of learning resources, with a degree of autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds the assessment brief. An exemplar of structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual originality and imagination. Outstanding team/practical/professional skills
70-
79% Excellent knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with considerable originality Excellent management of learning resources, with degree of autonomy/research that may exceed the assessment brief. Structured and creative expression. Excellent academic/ intellectual skills and practical/team/ professional/ problem-solving skills
60-
69% Good knowledge base that supports analysis, evaluation and problem-solving in theory/ practice/ethics of discipline with some originality Good management of learning resources, with consistent self-directed research. Structured and accurate expression. Good academic/intellectual skills and team/practical/ professional/problem solving skills
50-
59% Sound knowledge base that supports some analysis, evaluation and problemsolving in theory/practice/ethics of discipline Sound management of learning resources. Some autonomy in research but inconsistent. Structured and mainly accurate expression. Sound level of academic/ intellectual skills going beyond description at times.
Sound team/practical/professional/problem-solving skills
40-
49% A marginal pass in module outcome(s) Adequate knowledge base with some omissions at the level of ethical/ theoretical issues. Restricted ability to discuss theory and/or or solve problems in discipline Adequate use of learning resources with little autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/ intellectual skills. Some difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression, but evidence of developing team/practical/professional/ problem-solving skills
30-
39% A marginal fail in module
outcome(s).
Satisfies default
qualifying mark Limited knowledge base. Limited understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline Limited use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Still mainly descriptive. General difficulty with structure/ accuracy in expression. Practical/ professional/problem-solving skills that are not yet secure
20-
29% Fails to achieve module
outcome(s)
Qualifying mark not satisfied Little evidence of knowledge base. Little evidence of understanding of discipline/ ethical issues. Significant difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline Little evidence of use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously. Little input to teams. Little evidence of academic/ intellectual skills. Work significantly descriptive. Significant difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Little evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills
10- Deficient knowledge base. Deficient understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Deficient use of learning resources. Unable to work autonomously.
Deficient input to teams. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Work
Page
19% Major difficulty with theory and problem solving in discipline significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with structure/accuracy in expression. Deficient practical/professional/problem-solving skills
1-
9% No evidence of knowledge base; no evidence of understanding of discipline/ethical issues. Total inability with theory and problem solving in discipline No evidence of use of learning resources. Completely unable to work autonomously. No evidence of input to teams. No evidence of academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly descriptive. Incoherent structure/accuracy and expression. No evidence of practical/professional/ problem-solving skills
0% Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes

Page