1 of 14
Assessment Brief 1
Assessment Details
Unit Code Title NURS2018 Building Healthy Communities through Impactful Partnerships
Assessment Title A1: Foundations of Community Health Promotions Project
Assessment Type Project
Due Date Week 4, Monday, 22nd of September 2025, 11:59pm AEST
Weight 40%
Length / Duration 1200 words
Individual / Group Individual
Unit Learning Outcomes
(ULOS)
This assessment evaluates your achievement of the following Unit
Learning Outcomes:

• ULO1: Describe partnership models of care for nursing with
  particular reference to working with vulnerable populations.
• ULO2: Appraise the impact primary health care principles have on
  health outcomes locally, nationally, and internationally.
• ULO3: Develop communication and cultural safety skills that
  contribute to impactful partnerships, particularly with vulnerable
  populations and those living in areas of rural and remote
  Australia.
  GenAI Use Level Level 2. Purpose-Specific GenAI Use Permitted
  Task Description
  For this assessment, you will develop an individual, written Health Promotion Plan (up to 1200 words) for
  a community, based on one of the case studies provided in the assessment brief Working from the
  perspective of the Registered Nurse in the case study scenario, your project plan should demonstrate
  your clinical knowledge of a health issue, reflect the principles of partnership, address principles of
  primary healthcare and cultural safety, and reflect your knowledge of the sustainable development goals
  and how they apply to the given scenario. It must communicate clearly and professionally for realworld
  use.
  Rationale
  This assessment gives you the opportunity to apply principles of community health nursing (ULO1) to
  develop a health promotion initiative that responds to real-world community needs. You will analyse how
  primary healthcare principles influence health outcomes (ULO2) and apply evidence-based frameworks to
  plan activities in partnership with communities (ULO3).
  2 of 14
  Through this task, you will build skills in critical thinking, professional judgement, and clear written
  communication, while developing confidence to design effective interventions for diverse community
  contexts. This work also prepares you for Assessment 2, where you will evaluate your project outcomes
  and reflect on your role as a registered nurse in promoting community health.
  Resources
  You will need the following resources to complete this assessment. All files are available in the NURS2018
  unit site (Blackboard) under Assessment Tasks & Submission.
• Health Promotion Case Studies
• Health Promotion Plan Template
  Tip: You should utilise the resources that are on Blackboard to help you prepare for this assessment. The
  learning content for Modules 1-4 will provide contextual knowledge relevant to the requirements of this
  assessment.
  Instructions
  Step 1: Select a Case Study
• Select one of the four Health Promotion Case Studies provided.
• You will use the same case study for both Assessment 1 and Assessment 2, so please select one
  you feel confident to work with across both tasks. Changing case studies between assessments is
  not permitted. It is recommended that you select your case study early in the term so you can
  plan your work across the 6-week block.
  Step 2: Download the Health Plan Template
• Download the Health Promotion Plan Template.
• Review the template carefully, it includes instructions and examples to guide your writing in each
  section. Your plan must follow the structure provided in the Health Promotion Plan Template.
  Step 3: Write the Health Plan
  Write a professional Health Promotion Plan for the community in your selected case study. Structure
  your plan using the headings provided in the Template. Your plan must address the following five key
  areas:
• Introduction to the community health issue (approx. 250 words). Explain the main health issue
  affecting this community, and why it is a priority.
• Principles of Partnership (approx. 225 words). Describe how you would work in partnership with
  community members and stakeholders to support health and wellbeing.
• Primary Health Care Principles (approx. 225 words). Explain how primary health care principles
  would guide your actions and strategies.
• Cultural Safety Principles (approx. 150 words). Show how you would provide culturally safe care
  when developing and implementing your plan.
  3 of 14
• Sustainable Development Goals (approx. 150 words). Identify which SDGs are relevant to your
  plan and how your actions would contribute to achieving them.
  Writing Style & Tone
• Use clear, formal, respectful language suitable for professional and academic nursing
  contexts.
• Write in full sentences and well-structured paragraphs. Do not use bullet points.
• Do not include an Introduction or Conclusion Formatting
• Use the template provided and submit your plan as a Word document (.doc or .docx).
• Line spacing must be either 1.5 or double spaced.
• Use an acceptable font: Times New Roman (size 12), Calibri (size 11), or Arial (size 11).
  Word Count
• Keep your plan within 1200 words ±10% (1080–1320 words).
• In-text citations are included in your word count.
• Your reference list is not included in the word count.
• Any wording already provided in the template is not included in the word count. Referencing
• Use at least 8 recent, high-quality peer-reviewed or evidence-based scholarly sources.
• Unit modules must not be used as references.
• Your scholarly sources should be no older than 10 years, unless they are seminal works or key
  documents that remain relevant. For example:
• World Health Organisation (1978). Declaration of Alma-Ata on Primary Health Care •
  World Health Organisation (1986). Ottawa Charter for Health Promotion).
• Avoid websites unless they are official government documents (e.g., statistics) or specific unit
  resources. These are in addition to your 8 scholarly sources.
• Use APA 7th style for all in-text citations and your reference list. Refer to the for further
  guidance.
• Your reference list must be in alphabetical order and formatted correctly in APA 7th style.
• Only sources you have cited in your writing should appear in your reference list.
• Keep direct quotes to a minimum. Paraphrase in your own words to show your understanding.
• For help finding scholarly sources see: Deliverables & Submissions
• Submit your plan as a Word document (.doc or .docx) using the template provided.
• Upload your file to the Turnitin submission portal available in the Assessment Tasks &
  Submission area of your NURS2018 Blackboard site.
• fore do not count towards your number of references required for this assessment.
  ❌ You must not use GenAI tools to:
• help you to write any part of this assessment. All answers in the must be students’ original work.
  4 of 14
  . Misuse of GenAI or failure to acknowledge its use may breach academic integrity rules. The Unit
  Assessor may also ask you to describe or demonstrate which GenAI tools you used, how you used them,
  and how your use complied with the assessment guidelines. Be ready to discuss this if asked.
  Rules relating to Assessment and Examination
  For information regarding extensions, special consideration, late submissions, resubmissions, grades,
  appeals and academic integrity, refer to:
  Academic Integrity Declaration
  By submitting this assessment, I declare that:
  I have read and understood SCU’s Academic Integrity policies and referencing guidelines. I am aware of the
  consequences of academic misconduct and confirm that this submission is my own original work,
  referenced appropriately, and has not been previously submitted. I authorise its reproduction for
  authentication purposes and understand the implications of a false declaration. I have adhered to
  guidelines regarding Generative AI.
  5 of 14
  Assessment Rubric
  Criteria High Distinction
  Plus (100%)
  High Distinction
  (85-99%
  Distinction (75–
  84%)
  Credit
  (65-–74%)
  Pass
  (65-–74%)
  Marginal Fail (50–
  64%)
  Fail
  (35-49%)
  Not Addressed
  (1-34%)
  6 of 14
  CR1.
  Introduction
  health issue
  20%
  ULO1, 2, 3
  to Demonstrates
  outstanding
  achievement beyond
  the expected level
  and task
  requirements.
  Identifies and
  describes a highly
  relevant health
  issue with
  exceptional
  accuracy, depth and
  originality.
  Fully identifies and
  describes a relevant
  health issue with
  accurate, detailed
  coverage of key
  aspects.
  Identifies and
  describes a relevant
  health issue with
  sufficient accuracy
  and coverage of
  main aspects.
  Identifies and
  describes a
  generally relevant
  health issue but
  with basic accuracy
  or minor gaps.
  Identifies and
  describes a health
  issue with minimal
  detail or partial
  accuracy.
  Identifies a health
  issue but
  description is mostly
  inaccurate, unclear
  or irrelevant.
  Does not identify a
  relevant health
  issue or description
  is absent.
  Provides an
  insightful
  explanation of
  significance, clearly
  outlining who is
  affected and why
  they are vulnerable.
  Clearly explains
  significance for the
  target population,
  outlining who is
  affected and why
  they are vulnerable.
  Explains
  significance for the
  target population,
  outlining who is
  affected and partly
  why they are
  vulnerable.
  Provides a simple
  explanation of
  significance, who is
  affected and why
  they are vulnerable,
  but may be
  superficial in parts.
  Provides a brief or
  vague explanation
  of significance, with
  unclear details
  about who is
  affected or why
  they are vulnerable.
  Provides minimal or
  confused
  explanation of
  significance, with
  major gaps about
  who is affected or
  why they are
  vulnerable.
  Provides no
  meaningful
  explanation of
  significance, causes,
  impacts or broader
  factors.
  Thoroughly
  discusses multiple
  causes and impacts
  if not addressed,
  using specific
  examples.
  Discusses multiple
  causes and likely
  impacts if not
  addressed, using
  appropriate
  examples.
  Discusses causes
  and impacts if not
  addressed, covering
  most key points
  with some
  examples.
  Discusses some
  causes and impacts
  if not addressed but
  with limited detail
  or few examples.
  Discusses few
  causes or impacts if
  not addressed,
  often in general
  terms only.
  Causes and impacts
  are mostly missing
  or very vague.
  Provides no
  meaningful
  explanation of
  significance, causes,
  impacts
  Describes multiple
  relevant factors in
  depth and explains
  complex
  interactions clearly,
  showing original or
  insightful
  connections
  supported by
  wellchosen
  examples.
  Describes multiple
  relevant factors and
  clearly explains
  how they interact,
  with specific
  examples showing
  the connections.
  Describes more
  than one relevant
  factor and explains
  how each
  influences the
  issue, with clear
  examples;
  connections may be
  simple or partly
  developed.
  Identifies at least
  one factor with
  basic explanation;
  may mention more
  but details and
  connections are
  unclear; few basic
  examples.
  Mentions one
  factor with vague or
  general
  explanation; some
  clear connections;
  limited examples.
  Mentions a factor
  but unclear or
  irrelevant; few
  meaningful
  explanations or
  examples.
  No relevant factor,
  no explanation, no
  examples.
  7 of 14
  Uses only highly
  relevant, credible
  scholarly sources that
  strengthen the
  plan in sophisticated,
  original ways.
  Uses credible, recent,
  peerreviewed scholarly
  sources that are
  relevant and
  strengthen the plan.
  Uses mostly credible,
  recent, peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources that
  are relevant to the plan.
  Uses mostly credible,
  recent, peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources that
  are generally relevant
  to the plan.
  Uses some credible
  sources; some may
  lack peer review, be
  outdated or not clearly
  relevant.
  Uses minimal or mostly
  poor-quality sources that
  are not credible, recent or
  scholarly.
  Uses no credible,
  relevant scholarly
  sources.
  Integrates sources
  seamlessly, showing
  critical judgment when
  comparing or
  synthesising evidence.
  Integrates sources
  consistently and
  effectively throughout
  to strengthen their
  points.
  Integrates sources
  regularly and generally
  effectively to support
  their points, with some
  minor lapses in
  consistency.
  Integrates sources
  adequately and mostly
  consistently to support
  the argument.
  Integrates sources
  weakly or infrequently,
  with limited effect on
  supporting the
  argument.
  Fails to integrate sources
  effectively, with little
  connection to the
  argument.
  Does not integrate
  sources meaningfully.
  CR2.
  Principles
  Partnerships
  20%
  ULO1, ULO3
  of Identifies two highly
  relevant Principles of
  Partnership and
  explains each with
  exceptional clarity and
  insight.
  Identifies two relevant
  Principles of
  Partnership and
  explains each clearly
  and accurately.
  Identifies two relevant
  Principles of
  Partnership with mostly
  accurate relevance.
  Identifies two
  Principles of
  Partnership but may
  include minor
  inaccuracies or partial
  relevance.
  Identifies two
  Principles of
  Partnership but with
  limited relevance or
  accuracy.
  Identifies only one principle
  or two but
  with major inaccuracies or
  irrelevant choices.
  Does not identify
  relevant Principles of
  Partnership.
  Explains why each
  principle is important
  for trust and
  collaboration in a
  nuanced way, with
  clear, relevant
  examples.
  Explains why each
  principle is important
  for trust, collaboration
  and respectful
  relationships, with
  appropriate examples.
  Provides a clear
  explanation of why
  each is important for
  trust and collaboration,
  with some examples.
  Provides a basic
  explanation of why
  each is important, but
  details may be general
  or superficial.
  Provides a vague or
  general explanation of
  why they are
  important, with
  minimal examples.
  Provides minimal or unclear
  explanation of importance.
  Provides no meaningful
  explanation.
  8 of 14
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways to apply
  each principle,
  showing thoughtful,
  original
  strategies that address
  community dynamics,
  barriers, and
  sustainability.
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways to apply
  each principle that are
  clearly linked to the
  case study.
  Describes generally
  realistic ways to apply
  each principle but may
  lack detail or depth.
  Describes some ways
  to apply each
  principle but actions
  may be vague or
  unrealistic.
  Describes limited
  practical ways to
  apply the principles,
  or actions may be
  unrealistic or unclear.
  Describes little or no
  practical
  application.
  Provides no meaningful
  plan for application.
  Uses only highly
  relevant, credible
  scholarly sources
  that strengthen the
  plan in
  sophisticated,
  original ways.
  Uses credible,
  recent,
  peerreviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant
  and strengthen the
  plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant to
  the plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are generally
  relevant to the plan.
  Uses some credible
  sources; some may
  lack peer review, be
  outdated or not
  clearly relevant.
  Uses minimal or
  mostly poor-quality
  sources that are not
  credible, recent or
  scholarly.
  Uses no credible,
  relevant scholarly
  sources.
  Integrates sources
  seamlessly,
  showing critical
  judgment when
  Integrates sources
  consistently and
  effectively
  throughout to
  Integrates sources
  regularly and
  generally effectively
  to
  Integrates sources
  adequately and
  mostly consistently
  Integrates sources
  weakly or
  infrequently, with
  limited effect on
  Fails to integrate
  sources effectively,
  with little
  Does not integrate
  sources
  meaningfully.
  9 of 14
  comparing or
  synthesising
  evidence.
  strengthen their
  points.
  support their
  points, with some
  minor lapses in
  consistency.
  to support the
  argument.
  supporting the
  argument.
  connection to the
  argument.
  CR3.
  Primary Health
  Care Principles
  20%
  ULO2
  Identifies two highly
  relevant PHC
  principles and
  explains each with
  exceptional clarity
  and insight.
  Identifies two
  relevant PHC
  principles and
  explains each
  clearly and
  accurately.
  Identifies two
  relevant PHC
  principles with
  mostly accurate
  relevance.
  Identifies two PHC
  principles but may
  have minor
  inaccuracies or
  partial relevance.
  Identifies two PHC
  principles but with
  limited relevance or
  accuracy.
  Identifies only one
  principle or two but
  with major
  inaccuracies or
  irrelevant choice.
  Does not identify
  relevant PHC
  principles.
  Explains why each is
  important for
  improving health
  outcomes in a
  nuanced way, with
  clear, relevant
  examples.
  Explains why each is
  important for
  improving health
  outcomes, with
  appropriate
  examples.
  Provides a clear
  explanation of why
  each is important
  for improving
  outcomes, with
  some examples.
  Provides a basic
  explanation of why
  each is important,
  but details may be
  general or
  superficial.
  Provides a vague or
  general explanation
  of why they are
  important, with
  minimal examples.
  Provides minimal or
  unclear explanation
  of importance.
  Provides no
  meaningful
  explanation.
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways to
  apply each
  principle, showing
  thoughtful, original
  strategies that
  address community
  context, barriers, and
  sustainability.
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways to
  apply each
  principle, clearly
  linked to the case
  study.
  Describes generally
  realistic ways to
  apply each
  principle, but detail
  may be basic or
  incomplete.
  Describes some
  ways to apply each
  principle, but
  actions may be
  vague or unrealistic.
  Describes limited
  practical ways to
  apply the
  principles, or
  actions may be
  unrealistic or
  unclear.
  Describes little or no
  practical
  application.
  Provides no
  meaningful plan for
  application.
  Uses only highly
  relevant, credible
  scholarly sources
  that strengthen the
  plan in
  sophisticated,
  original ways.
  Uses credible,
  recent,
  peerreviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant
  and strengthen the
  plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant to
  the plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are generally
  relevant to the plan.
  Uses some credible
  sources; some may
  lack peer review, be
  outdated or not
  clearly relevant.
  Uses minimal or
  mostly poor-quality
  sources that are not
  credible, recent or
  scholarly.
  Uses no credible,
  relevant scholarly
  sources.
  10 of 14
  Integrates sources
  seamlessly, showing
  critical judgment
  when comparing or
  synthesising
  evidence.
  Integrates sources
  consistently and
  effectively
  throughout to
  strengthen their
  points.
  Integrates sources
  regularly and
  generally effectively
  to support their
  points, with some
  minor lapses in
  consistency.
  Integrates sources
  adequately and
  mostly consistently
  to support the
  argument.
  Integrates sources
  weakly or
  infrequently, with
  limited effect on
  supporting the
  argument.
  Fails to integrate
  sources effectively,
  with little connection
  to the argument.
  Does not integrate
  sources meaningfully.
  CR4.
  Cultural
  Principles
  15%
  ULO3
  Safety Identifies a highly
  relevant Cultural
  Safety Principle and
  explains it with
  exceptional clarity
  and insight.
  Identifies a relevant
  Cultural Safety
  Principle and
  explains it clearly
  and accurately.
  Identifies a relevant
  Cultural Safety
  Principle with
  mostly accurate
  relevance.
  Identifies a Cultural
  Safety Principle but
  may have minor
  inaccuracies or
  partial relevance.
  Identifies a Cultural
  Safety Principle but
  with limited
  relevance or
  accuracy.
  Identifies a
  principle but with
  major inaccuracies
  or irrelevant choice.
  Does not identify a
  relevant Cultural
  Safety Principle.
  Explains why it is
  important for
  respectful, culturally
  safe practice in
  nuanced ways, with
  clear, relevant
  examples.
  Explains why it is
  important for
  respectful practice,
  with appropriate
  examples.
  Provides a clear
  explanation of why
  it is important for
  respectful practice,
  with some
  examples.
  Provides a basic
  explanation of why
  it is important, but
  details may be
  general or
  superficial.
  Provides a vague or
  general explanation
  of why it is
  important, with
  minimal examples.
  Provides minimal or
  unclear explanation
  of importance.
  Provides no
  meaningful
  explanation.
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways to
  apply this principle,
  showing
  thoughtful, original
  strategies that
  address community
  context, barriers,
  and sustainability.
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways to
  apply the principle,
  clearly linked to the
  case study.
  Describes generally
  realistic ways to
  apply the principle,
  but some details
  may be basic or
  incomplete.
  Describes some
  ways to apply the
  principle, but
  actions may be
  vague or unrealistic.
  Describes limited
  practical ways to
  apply the principle,
  or actions may be
  unrealistic or
  unclear.
  Describes little or
  no practical
  application.
  Provides no
  meaningful plan for
  application.
  11 of 14
  Uses only highly
  relevant, credible
  scholarly sources
  that strengthen the
  plan in
  sophisticated,
  original ways.
  Uses credible,
  recent,
  peerreviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant
  and strengthen the
  plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant to
  the plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are generally
  relevant to the plan.
  Uses some credible
  sources; some may
  lack peer review, be
  outdated or not
  clearly relevant.
  Uses minimal or
  mostly poor-quality
  sources that are not
  credible, recent or
  scholarly.
  Uses no credible,
  relevant scholarly
  sources.
  Integrates sources
  seamlessly, showing
  critical judgment
  when comparing or
  synthesising
  evidence.
  Integrates sources
  consistently and
  effectively
  throughout to
  strengthen their
  points.
  Integrates sources
  regularly and
  generally effectively
  to support their
  points, with some
  minor lapses in
  consistency.
  Integrates sources
  adequately and
  mostly consistently
  to support the
  argument.
  Integrates sources
  weakly or
  infrequently, with
  limited effect on
  supporting the
  argument.
  Fails to integrate
  sources effectively,
  with little
  connection to the
  argument.
  Does not integrate
  sources
  meaningfully.
  CR5.
  Sustainable
  Developmen
  Goals t
  Identifies a highly
  relevant SDG and
  explains it with
  exceptional clarity
  and insight.
  Identifies a relevant
  SDG and explains it
  clearly and
  accurately.
  Identifies a relevant
  SDG with mostly
  accurate relevance.
  Provides
  Identifies a relevant
  SDG but may
  include minor
  inaccuracies or
  partial relevance.
  Identifies an SDG
  but with limited
  relevance or
  accuracy.
  Identifies an SDG
  but with major
  inaccuracies or
  irrelevant choice.
  Does not identify a
  relevant SDG.
  15%
  ULO4
  Explains why the
  SDG is relevant in
  nuanced ways, with
  clear, relevant
  examples.
  Explains why it is
  relevant to the
  community health
  issue and target
  population, with
  appropriate
  examples.
  Provides a clear
  explanation of why
  it is relevant, with
  some examples.
  Provides a basic
  explanation of why
  it is relevant, but
  details may be
  general or
  superficial.
  Provides a vague or
  general explanation
  of why it is relevant,
  with minimal
  examples.
  Provides minimal or
  unclear explanation
  of relevance.
  Provides no
  meaningful
  explanation
  12 of 14
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways the
  plan addresses the
  SDG, showing
  thoughtful, original
  strategies that link
  local actions to
  broader global
  outcomes.
  Describes practical,
  realistic ways the
  plan contributes to
  the SDG, clearly
  linked to the case
  study.
  Describes generally
  realistic ways the
  plan contributes to
  the SDG but may
  lack detail or depth.
  Describes some
  ways the plan
  contributes to the
  SDG, but actions
  may be vague or
  unrealistic.
  Describes few
  practical ways the
  plan contributes to
  the SDG, or actions
  may be unrealistic
  or unclear.
  Describes little or no
  practical
  connection to the
  SDG.
  Provides no
  meaningful plan for
  application.
  Uses only
  highly
  relevant, credible
  scholarly sources
  that strengthen the
  plan in
  sophisticated,
  original ways.
  Uses credible,
  recent, peerreviewed
  scholarly
  sources that are
  relevant and
  strengthen the
  plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are relevant to
  the plan.
  Uses mostly
  credible, recent,
  peer-reviewed
  scholarly sources
  that are generally
  relevant to the plan.
  Uses some credible
  sources; some may
  lack peer review, be
  outdated or not
  clearly relevant.
  Uses minimal
  or mostly
  poor-quality sources
  that are not
  credible, recent or
  scholarly.
  Uses no credible,
  relevant scholarly
  sources.
  Integrates sources
  seamlessly, showing
  critical
  judgment when
  comparing
  or
  synthesising evidence.
  Integrates sources
  consistently and
  effectively
  throughout to
  strengthen their
  points.
  Integrates sources
  regularly and
  generally
  effectively to
  support their
  points, with some
  minor lapses
  in
  consistency.
  Integrates sources
  adequately
  and
  mostly consistently
  to support
  the
  argument.
  Integrates sources
  weakly or
  infrequently,
  with limited
  effect
  on
  supporting
  the
  argument.
  Fails to integrate
  sources effectively,
  with little
  connection to the
  argument.
  Does not integrate
  sources meaningfully.
  CR6. Academic
  writing &
  mechanics &
  referencing
  10%
  Applies APA 7th style
  with complete
  precision for all intext
  citations and the
  reference list.
  Applies APA
  7th
  referencing
  style
  accurately for all intext
  citations and the
  reference list, with no
  significant errors.
  Applies APA 7th
  referencing style
  mostly accurately,
  with occasional minor
  errors.
  Applies APA
  7th
  referencing
  style with
  some
  noticeable
  but
  nonsystematic errors.
  Applies APA 7th style
  with frequent or
  systematic errors.
  Applies APA
  7th style
  inaccurately or
  inconsistently.
  Applies APA 7th style
  incorrectly or not at
  all.
  13 of 14
  Consistently rephrases
  source
  ideas accurately
  and originally
  in their
  own words,
  Rephrases source
  ideas accurately in
  their own words to
  demonstrating clear
  understanding
  Rephrases source
  ideas accurately in
  their own words,
  showing clear
  understanding,
  Rephrases source
  ideas clearly in their
  own words,
  showing sound
  understanding,
  Rephrasing shows
  limited
  understanding and
  may rely heavily on
  Rephrasing shows
  minimal independent
  understanding;
  relies heavily
  on
  Does not rephrase
  appropriately; relies
  entirely on direct
  copying or
  plagiarism.
  demonstrating
  sophisticated
  understanding and
  strengthening their
  argument.
  and strengthening
  their argument.
  though
  occasion
  al awkward phrasing
  or small lapses may
  be present.
  though phrasing
  may be general or
  occasionally
  unclear.
  direct quotes
  or
  patchwriting.
  copying or
  patchwriting.
  Fully adheres to
  word count,
  template, formatting
  and submission
  requirements with
  no errors.
  Fully meets word
  count, template,
  formatting and
  submission
  requirements, with
  no errors.
  Meets word count
  and formatting with
  occasional minor
  lapses.
  Word count,
  formatting and
  submission mostly
  met with minor
  issues.
  Word count,
  formatting or
  submission
  requirements may
  not be fully met.
  Major issues with
  word count,
  formatting or
  submission.
  Does not meet word
  count, formatting or
  submission
  requirements.
  14 of 14
  Writing is polished,
  exceptionally clear,
  fluent,
  grammatically
  correct, and
  demonstrates a
  mature, professional
  academic voice
  throughout.
  Writing is clear,
  precise and
  professional, with
  no notable errors.
  Writing is mostly
  clear, professional
  and precise, with
  occasional errors.
  Writing is generally
  clear, with some
  errors that do not
  obscure meaning.
  Writing lacks clarity
  and contains
  frequent errors.
  Writing is unclear
  and contains many
  errors.
  Writing is
  disorganised,
  unclear and contains
  significant errors.
  Case Study for Health Promotion Project number 1: Increase Breast Screening in Muslim Women living in Broadmeadows, Melbourne. Background:
  Melbourne, Australia, hosts a diverse population, including a sizable Muslim community. You are a Primary Health Care nurse in Broadmeadows and have
  been asked to develop a local Health Promotion Project to address the low rates of breast screening among Muslim women aged 50-74. The project needs
  to acknowledge the importance of cultural and religious considerations, including modesty and privacy concerns, in shaping healthcare-seeking behaviours.
  The health literacy level in the community is generally low. There is limited distribution of health information often due to language barriers, and cultural
  nuances contribute to a lack of awareness about the importance of regular breast screening. The socio-economic status in the Broadmeadows community
  is relatively low, with limited education levels, low-income earners, and challenges in accessing health resources. Many residents face economic hardships,
  which impact their ability to prioritise preventive healthcare. Your Health Promotion Project will aim to implement ways to increase Breast Screening in
  Muslim women living in the area through a culturally sensitive way and partnering with current health promotion organisations.