Criterion
Identifies an issue relevant to child development injury or illness:
The paper has clearly identified an issue relevant to childhood
development, injury and/or illness. The discussion includes an exceptional understanding of child development through a succinct and comprehensive description of the identified issue. The
work clearly shows the significance to public health.
Explains the health and resource implications of the identified issue using data sets and high-level evidence
The work provides a succinct and comprehensive explanation of the health and resource implications clearly linked to the chosen topic. The discussion seamlessly integrates appropriate high-level data
Identifies and critiques evidence-based strategies to promote or address
the chosen issue
The paper provides an exceptional critique of a relevant strategy or
strategies to address the chosen issue.Ideas and concepts are well supported with highest possible level of evidence
Adheres to academic writing principles
Presented an excellent discussion. The paper demonstrates clear and concise written expression with a succinct, logical structure. There is no spelling, grammatical, and/or terminology errors.
Accurately used the SoN Harvard referencing style throughout
Question
This should define the focus of your topic.
The question does not have to be exactly like the media report – the media report just shows that your chosen topic is relevant and current.
My question then informed by the media report is:
How can we prevent burn injuries to young children in the home?
(Note that the media report is about compensation paid to the family, but my question has nothing to do with injury compensation. I am using this media report because it is about burn injury in a young child and that is the topic I am interested in, but I choose the focus for my question).
Describe and explore the topic
Explain why this is an issue.
Include an explanation of how this links to a developmental age and stage.
What are the costs or savings (health and resource implications) associated with this issue or initiative? This can include financial, health, personal, community costs. Data and/or evidence must be used to support this section.
In this section, I need to establish why this is a problem, with reference to child development and based on data and/or evidence.
I’d probably start by talking about why burn injuries are more likely to occur in young children linked to development. I’d be discussing the fact that toddlers are mobile and like to mimic what adults are doing, but don’t have the cognitive ability to understand the risks associated with hot liquids for example. In other words, toddlers are physically able to take risks, but not cognitively advanced enough to protect themselves from those risks.
My next approach would be to get data on the prevalence of burn injuries in young children and where these injuries occur, particularly getting information about burn injuries occurring in the home. The best places to get data for this section would be government sites like the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare or other sites such as Burns Registry of Australia and New Zealand (BRANZ) or Kidsafe (Child Accident Prevention Foundation of Australia).
I might include information about numbers of children admitted to hospital, financial cost to the health system of treating burn injuries, provide evidence about how stressful burn injuries are to families and the ongoing impact on the child. I would be able to find data to support the first two points, but would probably need to use research evidence to support the last two points.
Identify and critique evidence-based strategies
What is an evidence-informed strategy/strategies that have been shown to be effective in
addressing/promoting this issue/ initiative?
Why is this strategy/strategies effective with this age group/stage of development?
I might start this section by a general explanation (supported by references) about why strategies aimed at preventing burn injury in toddlers take a risk avoidance approach (to prevent the risk occurring). This links to the cognitive development of the young child and their ability to grasp concepts like risk, harm, hot , cold etc – at this age we just take the risk away as much as possible while the child continues to learn about their world and how to keep themselves safe.
Note that this approach is different to how we approach it with an older child to warn them about danger at a level they can understand. For example, we teach older children that they should not stand too close to a fire or play with matches – in younger children we just make sure they cannot reach the matches at all.
I would then identify one or two strategies that could be used to remove the risk of burns for example, lowering the temperature of the hot water as it comes out of the hot water cylinder. I’d base this discussion on the highest possible level of evidence such as evidence informed clinical practice guidelines, systematic review/s etc, recommendations from reputable organisations such as Kidsafe.
The level of evidence available depends on the topic. If there is limited evidence available (eg. this is a new strategy that is being trialled and there is not a lot of evidence about it yet) then it is important to state this and demonstrate your understanding of levels of evidence.
You do not need to critically appraise the evidence – just describe and discuss.
Conclusion
My conclusion would have 2-3 sentences summarising what the paper was about, including the issue, the impact, and the strategies that I have discussed.
For example, with burns, I might state that the evidence shows through research and public health messages that in Australia, age-appropriate prevention and removing risks continues to be the best strategy.
