University of Alberta

Course Guide for SPH 514 Winter 2016

Introduction to Environmental Health Instructor: Patrick Hanington, PhD Phone: (780) 492-5210 Email: [email protected] Office: 3-57F South Academic Building (SAB) Teaching Assistants: Phone: (780) 248-2062 Office: 342 South Academic Building Emmanuel Pila - [email protected] Michelle Gordy - [email protected]

Course

Introduces environmental health issues and scientific understanding

Description

of their causes in developed and developing countries. Examines the role of environmental factors (biological, chemical, and physical) and its importance in relation to other factors that affect health of a community. Provides case studies of how environmental and occupational factors are dealt with in practice; including methods and approaches for assessment, prevention, and control.

Objectives

SPH 514 is designed to give MPH students an overview of environmental health as a public health discipline. Course objectives are to: 1) Introduce environmental factors (chemical, physical, biological) that affect the health of a community. 2) Discuss methods, approaches, and uncertainties related to assessment, control, and prevention of diseases that can be attributed to exposure to environmental factors. 3) Provide case study examples of how environmental factors are dealt with in practice. 4) Enable MPH students to consider the importance of environmental health relative to other determinants affecting public health. 5) Provide students with a foundation for the proper assessment of scientific literature as it relates to public health.

Competencies

Relevant to General MPH Degree ·Understand the complexity of perspectives found in public health problems. · Understand underlying public health concepts and how they relate to health promotion and protection. · Understand and integrate key theories and concepts from across public health disciplines to address relevant issues and problems. · Demonstrates and understanding of the importance, connectivity, and impact of the determinants of health. ·Be able to analyze specific issues within the larger context of the determinants of health. · Recognizes the contribution of different of different approaches and methodologies for understanding and addressing public health challenges. · Proposes appropriate knowledge generating activities in response to specific information needs. · Identifies the range of sources of evidence and expertise needed to address a specific question. · Critically evaluates and synthesizes relevant theories and sources of evidence. · Is able to identify and demonstrate an ability to engage relevant stakeholders and knowledge users appropriately. · Identified and applies appropriate knowledge translation and

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 2

implementation approaches. · Is able to plan and implement strategies to effectively communicate evidence to diverse audiences. · Creates and integrates program goals, objectives and evaluation criteria within the steps of the PAE cycle. · Analyzes and frames the multiple elements of a public health challenge, and demonstrates an understanding of the relations between them and the broader context. · Utilizes analytical techniques to identify several solutions, weighing the value of each. · Understands and utilizes relevant theoretical concepts and frameworks to guide decision making. · Develops and promotes evidence-informed context relevant action. Specific to Environmental Health ·Describe the direct and indirect human, ecological, and safety effects of major environmental and occupational agents ·Develop an awareness of the inextricable linkages between humans and their environment [One-Health Paradigm]. ·Understand and describe environmental or occupational risk assessments. ·Understand and describe methods or approaches for preventing and controlling environmental and occupational hazards that pose a risk to human health and safety. ·Explain key concepts related to environmental health ·Describe susceptible populations- integrating environmental health issues with social and economic issues

Library

·The University of Alberta library system’s website www.library.ualberta.ca details the range of services offered to students on and off campus. ·If you need further information or assistance, contact the Library's Electronic Reference Desk at www.library.ualberta.ca/ereference/index.cfm or call 1-800-207-0172.

Course Evaluation Mid-Point Course As is the case with all SPH instructors, we are interested in improving the Evaluation: course. We need to hear from you in order to do that well, so we will gather

feedback and recommendations from you at the mid-point of the course, by asking a student to administer and deliver an anonymous course evaluation.

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 3

Final Course Evaluation: Following completion of the course, you will receive a standardized

summative evaluation. The standard University of Alberta course evaluation procedure will be followed. This will involve a standard questionnaire with anonymous responses returned to the Student Services Coordinator.

Student Evaluation

See specific assignment guides for detailed marking breakdown

Assignment

Percentage

Submission Date

-Stakeholder identification assignment

20%

Due Feb 3 by 11:59pm

-Public brief

20%

-Due March 2 by 11:59pm

-Written assignment

30%

-Due March 23 by 11:59pm

-Presentation assignment

30%

-Topic ID – March 9 -Presentations take place March 30 and April 6

Evaluation of Course Work

Evaluation criteria will be provided with each assignment and can be found on the SPH 514 eClass website and at the end of this syllabus.

Grading University of Alberta Calendar Section 23.4 Regulations and Information for Students Evaluation Procedures and Grading System The University of Alberta Grading System The University of Alberta uses a letter grading system with a four-point scale of numerical equivalents for calculating grade point averages. SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 4

Grades reflect judgments of student achievement made by instructors. These judgments are based on a combination of absolute achievement and relative performance in a class. Some instructors assign grades as intervals during the course and others assign marks (e.g. percentages) throughout the term and then assign a letter grade at the end. Instructors must adapt their approaches to reflect the letter grading system. Grade distribution should reflect those shown in this document. (EXEC 03 FEB 2003)

Academic Integrity

Plagiarism is a serious offence. See Appendix A. The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at www.ualberta.ca/CodeofStudentBehaviour) and avoid any behavior, which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University. University of Alberta policy about course outline can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar. (GFC 29 SEP 2003) Students are expected to have read all required readings before class begins.

Readings and integration with eClass Primer Lectures

Any required readings will be posted on the Wednesday of the week before they will be discussed. All material (readings, lecture notes, and additional information) will be posted on the SPH 514 eClass site.

The backgrounds of the students participating in SPH 514 is very diverse, and to ensure that everyone is on equal footing with respect to the lecture material we have designed and pre-recorded a series of primer lectures. These lectures are meant to be used a resource when you’re uncertain about the general background material – we’ve found that these lectures are much more effective than are lengthy readings. There are no requirements to view the primer lectures, but we encourage you to view them if you require a refresher on core topics that we do not cover in detail during the course.

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 5

DETAILED COURSE OUTLINE BY WEEK Week 1 [Jan 6]

Introduction to SPH 514

Instructor: P. Hanington Content:

What is environmental health? - Course outline - Lecture format - What is environmental health? - Dose response - Biological, Chemical and Physical hazards - Science vs. Public perception

Week 2 [Jan 13]

Infectious diseases and outbreak control

Instructor: P. Hanington Content:

Disease and dose - Infectious disease terms - Disease outbreaks - Pathogen source tracking - Disease prevention and response

Week 3 [Jan 20]

Zoonoses, one health and emerging infectious diseases

Instructor: P. Hanington Content:

Your environmental health - Challenges with human expansion - One world, one health, one medicine - Emerging infectious diseases - Biodiversity and disease - Zoonotic diseases

Week 4 [Jan 27]

Genetic determinants of health and gene-environment interactions

Instructor: P. Hanington Content:

How individual and population genetics influence health - Gene-Environment interactions - Genetics 101 - How genetics influences disease - Using genetic features to predict disease

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 6

Week 5 [Feb 3]

Physical hazards

Instructor: P. Hanington Stakeholder identification assignment due by 11:59pm today. Content:

- Introduce dose dependent and dose-independent physical hazards - Discuss specific concerns associated with each form of physical hazard - Specific case study examples of vehicle injury and ionizing radiation

Week 6 [Feb 10]

Occupational Health and Hygiene

Instructors: B. Quemerais and J. Beach Content:

Introduction to Occupational Health and Hygiene - Introduce occupational health and occupational hygiene - Discuss specific examples of occupationally related health hazards - Discuss unique aspects of occupational exposures - Introduce the Canadian and Albertan OH regulatory agencies

Week 7 [Feb 17]

Reading Break – No class

Week 8 [Feb 24]

Environmental epidemiology and chemical hazards

Instructor: W. Kindzierski Content:

Chemical hazards - Introduce chemical toxicology as it relates to environmental exposure - Discuss unique challenges associated with chemical epidemiology

Week 9 [March 2]

Exposure and risk assessment

Instructor: W. Kindzierski Public Briefing assignment due by 11:59pm today. Content:

- Challenges associated with estimating risk and exposure of chemical hazards - Performing chemical risk assessments - Case studies of perceived vs. true chemical risks

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 7

Week 10 [March 9] Regulation/Policy

Assessing risk and Canada and Alberta Environmental

Instructor: P. Hanington Presentation topics must be identified. Content: Risk assessment of environmental hazards Protection of public health through environmental policy -Federal and Provincial responsibilities Providing safe food and water Week 11 [March 16]

Antimicrobial resistance

Instructor: B. Jeon Content:

Antibiotic use in agriculture as a driver of antimicrobial resistance - Introduce the mechanistic basis behind antimicrobial resistance - Define sources of antimicrobial resistance in animals and environment - Current public health concerns related to antibiotic resistance

Week 12 [March 23]

Local and Global Challenges in Food Safety

Instructor: B. Jeon Written assignment due by 11:59pm today. Content:

Your favourite food-borne pathogen - Food as a route of disease - Safe food in Canada - Farm to fork - Challenges with providing safe food

Week 13 [March 30]

Presentation assignments

Instructor: P. Hanington Week 14 [April 6]

Presentation assignments and last day of SPH 514 activities

Instructor: P. Hanington

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 8

APPENDIX A Amendments to the Code of Student Behaviour occur throughout the year. For the most recent version of the Code, visit the University Secretariat website at http://www.uofaweb.ualberta.ca/governance/StudentAppealsRegulations.cfm NOTICE TO INSTRUCTORS REGARDING PLAGIARISM, CHEATING, MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS AND PARTICIPATION IN AN OFFENCE The U of A considers plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentation of facts and participation in an offence to be serious academic offences. Plagiarism, cheating, misrepresentation of facts and participation in an offence can be avoided if students are told what these offences are and if possible sanctions are made clear at the outset. Instructors should understand that the principles embodied in the Code are essential to our academic purpose. For this reason, instructors will be fully supported by Departments, Faculties and the University in their endeavours to rightfully discover and pursue cases of academic dishonesty in accordance with the Code.

Cheating (Continued) 30.3.2(2)c No Student shall represent another’s substantial editorial or compositional assistance on an assignment as the Student’s own work.

At the beginning of each term, we ask you to review with your students the definitions of plagiarism and cheating. We are now also asking you to review with your students the definition of Misrepresentation of Facts and Participation in an Offence. Your co-operation and assistance in this matter are much appreciated.

30.3.2(2)e No Student shall submit in any course or program of study any academic writing, essay, thesis, report, project, assignment, presentation or poster containing a statement of fact known by the Student to be false or a reference to a source the Student knows to contain fabricated claims (unless acknowledged by the Student), or a fabricated reference to a source.

30.3.2(2)d No Student shall submit in any course or program of study, without the written approval of the course Instructor, all or a substantial portion of any academic writing, essay, thesis, research report, project, assignment, presentation or poster for which credit has previously been obtained by the Student or which has been or is being submitted by the Student in another course or program of study in the University or elsewhere.

30.3.2(1) Plagiarism No Student shall submit the words, ideas, images or data of another person as the Student’s own in any academic writing, essay, thesis, project, assignment, presentation or poster in a course or program of study. 30.3.2(2) Cheating 30.3.2(2)a No Student shall in the course of an examination or other similar activity, obtain or attempt to obtain information from another Student or other unauthorized source, give or attempt to give information to another Student, or use, attempt to use or possess for the purposes of use any unauthorized material. 30.3.2(2)b No Student shall represent or attempt to represent him or herself as another or have or attempt to have himself or herself represented by another in the taking of an examination, preparation of a paper or other similar activity. See also misrepresentation in 30.3.6(4).

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

30.3.6(4) Misrepresentation of Facts No Student shall misrepresent pertinent facts to any member of the University community for the purpose of obtaining academic or other advantage. See also 30.3.2(2) b, c, d and e. 30.3.6(5) Participation in an Offence No Student shall counsel or encourage or knowingly aid or assist, directly or indirectly, another person in the commission of any offence under this Code. The Truth In Education (T*I*E) project is a campus wide educational campaign on Academic Honesty. This program was created to let people know the limits and consequences of inappropriate academic behaviour. There are helpful tips for Instructors and Students. Please take the time to visit the website at: http://www.ualberta.ca/tie

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 9

EXCERPTS FROM THE CODE OF STUDENT BEHAVIOUR UPDATED MARCH 5, 2008 FOR REVIEW WITH EACH CLASS AT THE BEGINNING OF EVERY TERM Procedures for Instructors Regarding Plagiarism, Cheating,

30.4.3(2) a.i a mark reduction or a mark of 0 on any term work or examination for reason of Inappropriate Academic Behaviour; (GFC 24 SEP 2007) 30.4.3(2) a.ii Reduction of a grade in a course 30.4.3(2) a.iii A grade of F for a course; CLRC 27 MAR 2003)

Misrepresentation of Facts and Participation in an Offence The following procedures are drawn from the Code of Student Behaviour as approved by GFC and the Board of Governors. The guidelines summarize what instructors must do when they have reason to believe that a student has plagiarized, cheated, misrepresented facts or participated in an offence. If you have questions about these guidelines, or about the policies, please talk with the senior administrator in your Faculty responsible for dealing with student discipline—usually an Associate Dean – or the Appeals Coordinator, University Secretariat (2-2655). 30.5.4 Procedures for Instructors in Cases Respecting Inappropriate Academic Behaviour 30.5.4(1) When an Instructor believes that a Student may have committed an Inappropriate Academic Behaviour Offence [30.3.2] or that there has been Misrepresentation of Facts [30.3.6(4)] or Participation in an Offence [30.3.6(5)] in cases respecting Inappropriate Academic Behaviour in the course that he or she instructs, the Instructor will meet with the Student. Before such a meeting, the Instructor shall inform the Student of the purpose of the meeting. In the event that the Student refuses or fails to meet with the Instructor within a reasonable period of time specified by the Instructor, the Instructor shall, taking into account the available information, decide whether a report to the Dean is warranted. (CLRC 30 MAY 2002) (EXEC 7 APR 2003) (CLRC 27 NOV 2003) 30.5.4(2) If the Instructor believes there has been a violation of the Code, the Instructor shall, as soon as possible after the event occurred, report that violation to the Dean and provide a written statement of the details of the case. The instructor may also include a recommendation for sanction. (CLRC 27 NOV 2003).

30.4.3(2) a.iv failing

30.4.3(3) b 30.4.3(3) c

A remark on a transcript of 8 (or 9 for graduate student grades), indicating Inappropriate Academic Behaviour in addition to 30.4.3(2)a.i, 30.4.3(2)a.ii, 30.4.3(2)a.iii; Expulsion Suspension

The following sanctions may be used in rare cases. 30.4.3(3) e 30.4.3(3) f

Suspension of a Degree already awarded Rescission of a Degree already awarded

30.6.1 Initiation of an Appeal 30.6.1(1) When a Student has been found to have committed an offence under the Code of Student Behaviour or an Applicant is found to have committed an offence under the Code of Applicant Behaviour (Section 11.8 of the GFC Policy Manual), whether or not that Student or Applicant has been given a sanction, the Student or Applicant may appeal that decision, except in the case of a decision of the Discipline Officer under 30.5.6(2)e.ii, which remains final and is not subject to appeal. In cases where a severe sanction has been recommended to the Discipline Officer, once the student receives the final decision of the Discipline Officer, the student can appeal the decisions of both Dean and the Discipline Officer at the same time. The written appeal must be presented to the Appeals Co-ordinator in the University Secretariat within 15 Working Days of the deemed receipt of the decision by the Student or Applicant. The finding that an offence has been committed, the sanction imposed or both may form the basis of appeal. The written appeal must also state the full grounds of appeal and be signed by the Appellant. The appeal shall be heard by the UAB. (CLRC 30 MAY 2002) (CLRC 25 SEP 2003) (EXEC 01 MAY 2006) (GFC 24 SEP 2007) (BEAC 17 OCT 2007)

Possible Sanctions One or more of the following sanctions given in 30.4.3 (2) and (3) of the Code are commonly used for plagiarism, cheating, participation in an offence, and misrepresentation of facts.

_________________________ Dr. Heidi Julien CHAIR, GFC CAMPUS LAW REVIEW COMMITTEE

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

_________________________ DR CARL G. AMRHEIN PROVOST AND VICE-PRESIDENT (ACADEMIC)

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 10

Briefing Assignment The purpose of this assignment is to introduce all students to the complexity of environmental health issues, and to then communicate a recommendation. Each student may choose from the list of provided environmental health-related topics to focus on for this assignment, you must follow this issue through the entire assignment and cannot change topics once you’ve submitted the stakeholder identification. The public brief is intended to be iterative assignment that builds upon the stakeholder identification, with the public brief serving as the primary means of communication to the public. Possible issues to choose from: While we prefer that you address one of the following issues, we are open to suggesting new issues to address if you’d like to come up with your own topic. •

Should the government of Alberta adopt the use of partially treated waste-water for agricultural, industrial and certain residential purposes?

•

Should the School of Public Health endorse organic foods over those farmed by traditional techniques?

•

Should the Public Health Agency of Canada follow the stance of Public Health England and endorse the use of electronic cigarettes as a stop-smoking aid?

•

Should Provincial Health Authorities mandate mandatory vaccinations for health workers and individuals identified as being part of groups deemed ‘high risk’ for certain vaccinepreventable diseases?

•

Should airlines/customs authorities be required to inquire about the health status of their customers/passengers before allowing them to board a plane/enter Canada?

•

Should Canada adopt a universal ban of the practice of using antibiotics as growth promoters for agricultural animals?

•

Should genetically modified foods be required to carry a label identifying them as such?

•

Should pesticides be banned from use on crops grown in Canada?

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 11

Deliverables 1. Stakeholder identification: •

• •

The issues identified in this assignment are large questions related to environmental health and, more broadly, public health. Given their scope, there are numerous stakeholders that have interest in these issues. For the stakeholder identification part of this assignment, you are to identify all of these stakeholders, detailing the rationale for their interest in the issue you’ve chosen. Specifically: o Identify the stakeholder. o Explain, in detail, why this individual or group would be interested in the issue you’ve chosen. o Given their interest, explain the decision on the issue that the stakeholder would most likely support. o Explain in as much detail as possible: § What influence does each stakeholder have over the issue? § How strong is the evidence supporting each stakeholder’s position?

2. Public Brief – Individual deliverable The purpose of this part of the assignment is to expose each individual student to the complexity of interacting with a public (lay) audience. Guidance for writing a public brief is provided below.

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 12

Considerations for writing a briefing document A good approach to beginning the process of writing a brief is to frame the context of the briefing within the context of specific elements. The first element is the audience. This element dictates the language and delivery of the brief and is foundational to writing an effective brief. With respect to this assignment, you must write a brief targeting a public audience, but could also have to target a scientific or government audience in a future career. Should you be placed in a situation writing a brief on your own, you should always consider the audience you’re writing for, and also be aware that there may be multiple audiences. When writing the public brief, realize that you are not free to write without the use of references and scientific support. These factors are core to any brief if it is to hold up under scrutiny. However, a brief targeting the public, must also be accessible and understandable by the average member of the public. To accomplish this, refrain from using any jargon or scientific terms. Be clear and explicit, and do not use general terms that leave room for interpretation. Traditionally, it is said that these types of briefs should write at a 6th grade level, which may not mean much when someone hasn’t done 6th grade in Alberta. Luckily, there are resources we can use in this class to assess the writing level of a brief. Microsoft Word has a readability assessment tool that can be turned on by: 1. Open Word 2. Click on the "File" tab 3. Click on "Options" 4. Click on "Proofing" 5. Under the heading "When correcting spelling and grammar in Word" select "Show readability statistics" 6. Open the document 7. Click on the Review menu. Then, select "Spelling & Grammar" from the ribbon. 8. Work your way through the "Spelling & Grammar" check. At the end of the check you'll be presented with a readability statistics summary of your document. Or, you can paste your document into this website: https://readability-score.com Using these resources, you should aim for a ‘Grade Level’ of approximately 8. The FleshKincaid Grade Level score system is often most conservative and would be the score we recommend to use. The next elements focus on reflecting on the issue itself. Their purpose is to ensure you’ve considered relevant perspectives and information. 1. Perspective: a. Consider why this is an issue b. What is the goal or bigger idea? c. What are the factors/stakeholders that play a role in this issue? i. These can include political, economic, social, technological, legal or SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 13

environmental factors and all/any associated stakeholders specific to these factors. d. Consider sources that may help in identifying factors/stakeholders, and/or provide support for certain outcomes. 2. Objectives of the briefing note a. Consider what you want the outcome of the briefing to be. b. A good objective should be specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and have a time-line 3. Barriers to achieving the objective a. Here consider existing opinions and opposing opinions of stakeholders b. Think about the logistical and technological limitations of the recommendations you’ve designed – are they feasible? c. Is the time-line proposed acceptable? The above elements can be considered at multiple points during the formation of the brief. Initially, it can be helpful to follow this process when thinking about the issue. Later, it can be helpful to frame the research that’s been done and add substance to each possible outcome. Finally, it can help to review this process before writing the brief to ensure that the context and objective are clear and that the brief itself effectively delivers the message. Once you’ve begun writing the brief you should have a clear idea of the message that you want to convey. This message should be based in facts and stand up to scrutiny from the points of view of all stakeholders (or at least demonstrate that these points of view were considered). The supporting evidence for this assignment will likely stem from scientific literature. Thus, it is helpful to understand how to categorize literature within the context of your issue. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

What is your opinion coming into the assessment? The relevance of the evidence Who? What? Why? When? Where? How? Whether it is well supported within the field or a fringe idea. Whether the studies were well designed. Are the facts presented in your evidence impartial or clouded by opinion or position? Do they positively or negatively support your prevailing conclusion? Are you open to accepting alternative evidence contrary to your opinions?

Of these considerations, the first is one of the most important. You need to be aware of incoming biases to your own opinion, as these biases must be understood and overcome to be able to deliver a truly impartial brief.

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 14

Example briefing note template: you do not have to follow this format The final step is to write the brief itself. For both a public and scientific brief you should follow the loose formatting suggestions below, which are based on the Health Canada briefing template, which is demonstrated in the provided example located in the resources section of eClass. 1. TITLE a. In the title section you should identify who the briefing note is targeting and what the topic of the briefing note is. 2. PURPOSE a. In the purpose section you should state why you’ve written this briefing note, identifying the issue. 3. BACKGROUND a. Provide relevant background information necessary for understanding the purpose of the brief and current situation. 4. CURRENT SITUATION a. What is currently done with respect to the issue identified in the PURPOSE section. It should state the current position taken by the (agency) and it can end with an explanation of the developments that led to the work presented in the brief. 5. OPTIONS a. Present a summary of the possible options with an explanation of the rationale for each option as well as the support or lack thereof for each option as found by your research. Provide both the advantages and disadvantages of pursuing each option, with supporting evidence. This should be the section taking up the most space in both briefs. 6. RECOMMENDATION a. From the above options, chose one to recommend. For the purposes of this assignment, we want you to explain the rationale behind choosing this option. In many ‘real-world’ examples you will simply state the recommendation and refer to information provided in the OPTIONS section. For this assignment we want specific effort devoted to explaining your recommendation. 7. REFERENCES a. Not common in all briefs, but required for this one!

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 15

Stakeholder Identification Evaluation: The intention of this assignment is to ensure that you’ve included all possible opinions on the issue you’ve chosen. We want you to think about your issue in depth, as each one has many more stakeholders than simply those assumed initially. Keep this in mind as you write this assignment. Stakeholder Identification Evaluation: /20 – Due February 3rd by 11:59pm This assignment is not to exceed 8 pages of single spaced text, size 12 font, 2cm margins. This page limit does NOT include the literature cited section. 1. Important stakeholders are identified. a. Excellent: has clearly invested significant thought into what stakeholders are involved. Has identified all relevant stakeholders. b. Very good: Has thought beyond the obvious few stakeholders and identified most but not all relevant to the chosen issue. c. Good: Has identified stakeholders, but a number are missing or poorly defined. d. Acceptable: Little thought invested. Only obvious stakeholders are mentioned. 2. Provide a detailed explanation about why each stakeholder (individual or group) is interested in your chosen issue. On the spectrum of possible outcomes related to your issue, where does each of the stakeholders fall? What outcome best aligns with their interests? a. Excellent: Clearly understand the depth and scope of all stakeholder interests. b. Very good: Demonstrates a clear understanding of the interests of most stakeholders, and provides rationale for all. c. Good: Understands the interests of some, but not all stakeholders. d. Acceptable: Little information provided for most stakeholders. 3. What influence does each stakeholder have over the outcome of this issue? a. Excellent: Clearly explains the role that each stakeholder has in determining the outcome of the issue. b. Very good: The role of most of the stakeholders identified in determining the issue outcome is explained well. c. Good: Mentions the influence a stakeholder has on the issue, but provides little explanation. d. Acceptable: Displays a limited understanding of the role of each stakeholder in determining the issue outcome, and/or does not provide clear explanations. 4. How strong is the evidence supporting each stakeholder’s position? a. Excellent: Has a strong grasp of the relevant evidence. b. Very good: Captures most of the relevant evidence. c. Good: Displays a reasonable knowledge of the evidence, but does display a clear understanding. d. Acceptable: it is unclear whether the relevant evidence is understood. SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 16

5. Communication skills a. Excellent: Few spelling, grammatical or typographical errors. Ideas are clearly conveyed, and concise. b. Very good: Minor spelling, grammatical or typographical errors. Ideas are well conveyed, and reasonably concise. c. Good: Spelling, grammatical or typographical errors are present. The main ideas can be understood, but are not always clearly presented. Writing is a bit wordy, and could be more concise. d. Acceptable: Numerous spelling, grammatical or typographical errors. The main ideas are unclear, and the writing structure needs work to eliminate unnecessary content. 6. Referencing a. Acceptable: All cited work is properly referenced using an accepted citation style. b. Not acceptable: References are not properly conveyed to the reader. Text in the submission that should be referenced, is not. References in text do not match references in the literature-cited section. References used do not contain the information that is cited in the assignment.

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 17

Basis for brief evaluations The following technical aspects of the document will be considered when evaluating the public brief 1. The brief document itself must be formatted properly. • All headings must be written in Bold Arial font, size 11. • All text must be written in Times New Roman font, size 11. • The line spacing must be set to 1.1 throughout the brief. • The document must be left justified (with 2cm margins) 2. The brief may not exceed 5 pages (not including the references section, which can be as long as necessary. 3. Typos, spelling mistakes, and grammatical errors are unacceptable. 4. All information must be referenced properly. The following design and thought elements are being considered when evaluating both briefs 1. The document must be written properly for the target audience. a. For the public brief this means targeting your writing to a level you’d see in a newspaper or magazine article. As mentioned above, this means a grade 6-9 level. i. Some suggestions to write well for a public audience: 1. Write simply and clearly being sure to remove any jargon or scientific terms that someone with a basic education wouldn’t understand. 2. Use simple and concise language. But, be sure that language you choose properly reflects the facts. 3. Write so that there is no inherent bias in your brief. 4. Clearly explain the positions of all stakeholders within each option, and emphasize the strengths and weaknesses of each option in basic terms. 5. Have public opinions and the impact of the recommendations on the public been considered? Are they clearly identified? b. Remember that evidence should be the driver for your recommendations. i. Some suggestions for this include: 1. A demonstration of conceptual understanding surrounding the issue, stakeholders, available options, and background literature. 2. Are the options and recommendations rooted in logical and persuasive evidence? 3. Demonstration of an awareness of who benefits and who is harmed by the recommendations. 4. Is the recommendation feasible?

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 18

2. Do the title, purpose and background sections clearly address the requirements for each section? • Does the background presented effectively support the issue? • Do the title and purpose frame the issue chosen well? 3. Each option should have appropriate information related to the supporting evidence and stakeholders. • Have all primary options been considered? • Is relevant evidence provided for each option? • In cases where evidence is limited, is this identified? • Are the relevant stakeholders properly associated with the option that properly reflects their opinion? • Are the strengths of each option clearly stated? • Are the weaknesses of each option clearly stated? 4. The recommendation should be logical and supported by evidence. There should be a clear path from the title/purpose/background, through the options into the recommendation. • Does the options section clearly lead the reader towards the recommendation that is made? • Is the recommendation effectively supported? • Is it feasible? Marking Guide • • • •

Technical aspects adhered to Language used appropriate for audience Suitable title, purpose and background Recommendation logical and supported

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

(/5) (-0.5 per error) (/4) (/7) (/4)

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 19

Written Assignment: Environmental health issues are often complex and multifaceted. Very often they cannot be effectively addressed using single disciplines, or simple methodologies. One of the most prominent environmental health issues pressing populations and individuals today is climate change. This contentious issue has been circulating for many years, but very few people are aware of how climate change is, or may impact them. While many individuals and governments have been slow to accept and adopt strategies to combat the underlying drivers of climate change, most experts agree that action must be taken globally and immediately if the more significant hypothesized outcomes of climate change are to be avoided. Arguments persist about what that action might look like, and many remain hesitant to embark upon significant changes, in part because many of the changes are large deviations from status quo. For this assignment, we’d like you to write about how the effects of climate change are, and could, impact upon public health. We would like you to choose one specific health threat to focus on, the options are: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Climate change, heat (and heat related illnesses) and ozone. Climate change and vector-transmitted diseases. Climate change and water quality/water-borne diseases Climate change and threat to food security.

The following guidelines will be used to assess your assignment. •

Address climate change itself by introducing the topic and the relevant factors that are associated with climate change. o Excellent: clearly explains climate change using relevant evidence and properly identifies factors associated with the process. o Very good: Describes climate change and the factors that drive it well, using appropriate literature. o Good: demonstrates an understanding of climate change, but is missing relevant literature and provides only a tenuous connection between climate change and the factors driving it. o Acceptable: Superficially explains climate change and driving factors, but does not delve deeply into the literature to provide clear explanations.

•

Detail how climate change is associated with your chosen health threat. Explain how they are connected, how climate change will or is influencing the chosen area. o Excellent: Draws upon relevant literature to highlight all clear connections between the chosen health threat and climate change. o Very good: Relevant literature is used to highlight most of the connections between the chosen health threat and climate change. o Good: Appropriate literature is used to highlight certain connections between the chosen health threat and climate change. o Acceptable: Connections between climate change and the chosen health threat

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 20

are identified, but lack support and breadth. •

Explain how the impact of climate change on your chosen health threat will impact upon at least two other determinants of health. o Excellent: has chosen two very relevant determinants of health to discuss and shows a clear understanding of how they will be impacted by the health threat and climate change. o Very good: Two relevant determinants of health are chosen and are associated with the chosen health threat and climate change well. o Good: The two other determinants of health chosen are relevant, and superficial but logical associations are made between the chosen health threat and climate change. o Acceptable: The two other determinants of health chosen are not logically associated with the chosen health threat or climate change. Or, the associations between them are not well described.

•

How have organizations (countries, NGOs, communities, scientists, etc) recommended addressing your chosen health threat? Which approach do you think will be most effective and why (use the literature)? o Excellent: Highlights the main recommendations relevant to the issue and presents a clear rationale for the preferred approach. o Good: Highlights most of the relevant recommendations and presents a logical rationale for the preferred approach. o Acceptable: Some approaches are identified and the preferred approach is reasonable, but not well supported.

•

Communication skills. o Excellent: Few spelling, grammatical or typographical errors. Ideas are clearly conveyed, and concise. o Very good: Minor spelling, grammatical or typographical errors. Ideas are well conveyed, and reasonably concise. o Good: Spelling, grammatical or typographical errors are present. The main ideas can be understood, but are not always clearly presented. Writing is a bit wordy, and could be more concise. o Acceptable: Numerous spelling, grammatical or typographical errors. The main ideas are unclear, and the writing structure needs work to eliminate unnecessary content.

•

Referencing o Acceptable: All cited work is properly referenced using an accepted citation style. o Not acceptable: References are not properly conveyed to the reader. Text in the submission that should be referenced, is not. References in text do not match references in the literature-cited section. References used do not contain the information that is cited in the assignment.

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 21

Assignment Details: • • •

• •

The assignment should be written in 12 pt font with 1.5 spacing, (no smaller than 2cm margins) The page limit is 8 pages (not including the literature cited section of your assignment) You must use a recognized citation format and it must be consistent throughout your assignment (suggestion: use a format found in a mainstream journal such as Nature or Science, we will provide a document detailing the Vancouver style citation format if you have difficulty finding something) A -10% per day late penalty will be applied to any assignments handed in after the deadline of March 23rd. Assignments should be emailed to Patrick at: [email protected]

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 22

Presentation Assignment Background: The presentation assignment will provide an opportunity for students to apply what they have learned in SPH 514, and to critically assess an environmental health issue, policy, or practice that has not already been discussed in depth in class. The presentations will be presented via eClass (with uploaded slides and audio files) on March 30th and April 6th and will consist of a presentation that goes no longer than 15 minutes. Timing will be strictly enforced to ensure that all students have an equal opportunity to convey their messages. Assignment: The assignment can be focused on any environmental health topic. You will have until March 9th to decide on a topic and to inform either the instructor or a TA of your topic choice. We recommend that you come up with two topics that you’re interested in well before this date, as students in the past sometimes have encountered challenges with their first choices once they start researching. You are not held to your choices at this time, and can change topics at any time during the course should you find something more interesting – we simply want you to start thinking about this assignment early as it can be time consuming. Once a topic has been selected, you should work towards developing a clear understanding of the issue and the risks associated with it. You should be aware of the context of the issue and how it was/is being addressed by all interested parties related to it. Finally, for the topic chosen you should provide recommendations for policies, tools, interventions and/or research for addressing knowledge gaps. Evaluation: Presentations will be evaluated by instructors as well as your fellow students based on the marking guide below. Student evaluations will make up 15% of the final presentation mark. To simplify the evaluation process for students, each student will be placed into one of three groups. The members of each group will have to view and evaluate the presentations of their other group members, but are not required to evaluate the presentations of classmates in other groups. 1. Content – 50% a. Clear identification of problem, issue or risk and why it is relevant to environmental health. b. Sound interpretation and critical analysis of the chosen topic. c. Depth and range of information presented demonstrates a clear understanding of the topic and relevant studies in the area. d. Clear understanding of the diversity of stakeholders/opinions related to the topic. e. Feasibility of recommended improvements has been considered. SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 23

f. Scope of recommendations suits the issue chosen and the recommendations account for the context of the issue. 2. Incorporation of course concepts – 15% a. Clear links between chosen topic and relevant class material b. Understands complexity of issue within the context of the chosen topic as well as in relation to the determinants of health and environmental health. 3. Organization – 25% a. Organization of presentation: i. Logical organization of slides ii. Clear transitions between slides. iii. Information presented on slides is discussed. iv. Spoken information supplements the slide material. b. Time management i. Within 15-minute time limit ii. Questions are answered clearly on eClass discussion boards. 4. References and structure – 10% a. Proper use of references b. Technical quality (spelling, grammar, etc) ______ Student evaluation – 15% of overall presentation mark - Based on above evaluation metrics Important deadlines: March 9th – Topics for presentation should be submitted March 30th and April 6th – presentations are given in class

SPH 514 2016 Winter Course Syllabus

University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 24