ASSIGNMENT INSTRUCTIONS

Assessment Coursework
Assessment code: 010
Academic Year: 2023/2024
Trimester: 3
Module Title: Comparative Healthcare Systems

Module Code: MOD005916

Level: 6
Module Leader: Vida Tweneboah-Boahene
Weighting: 50%
Word Limit: Maximum 3000
This excludes bibliography and other items listed in rule 6.83 of the
Academic Regulations.
Assessed On successful completion of this module, the student will be expected to:
Learning
Outcomes LO1: Knowledge and Understanding
Critically review key sources of information to underpin comparative
analysis.

LO3: Intellectual, practical, affective and transferrable skills

Applying comparative research methodologies.

Submission Please refer to the deadline on the VLE

Deadline: This assignment must be received by no later than 14.00.

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
[email protected]. 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 -
[email protected]. 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

Globally, there is a large shortage of health care workers. The needs-based shortage
of health care workers is projected to exceed 18 million by 2030. The projection and
current trends of health workers production and employment have a significant
impact on populations’ health outcomes and health systems performance in
achieving the World Health Organisation’s Sustainable Development Goals by 2030
(WHO, 2022).

As a health system analyst, use comparative research methodology to examine the

challenges faced by both the United Kingdom and France with regards to their health
care workforce.

In a report format, you should provide key statistical evidence from literature on the
health care workforce density per population in both countries, and critically analyse
the impact of workforce shortages on operational activities, such as service delivery.

You will conclude your report by providing evidence-based and five (5) actionable
strategies for overcoming these challenges aimed at strengthening their respective
health systems in the aftermath of the pandemic.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Use ARU standard report format for writing structure.

In writing your report you are expected to use theoretical perspectives, you have
studied during the course or from your research and make reference to national
evidence. It is expected that you will use 15-20 independently researched academic
sources from the ARU library.

LO1: Knowledge and Understanding

Critically review key sources of information to underpin comparative analysis.

Throughout the report, you must ensure to use relevant information on both
countries, United Kingdom and France to demonstrate the healthcare workforce
challenges in both health systems. You should support all discussions with evidence
from credible sources. Analysis should focus on providing differences and similarities
of the challenges.

LO3: Intellectual, practical, affective and transferrable skills

Applying comparative research methodologies.

There should be an application of comparative research methodology to compare

and contrast. Identify similarities and differences of the challenges. You must provide
recommendations of what needs to be done for strengthening the health system
workforce capacity.

READING REQUIREMENT

Core reading

Johnson, J., Stoskopf, C. and Shi, L. (2017) Comparative Health Systems Burlington:
MA Jones and Bartlett Learning

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD,2022) Health at a

Glance: Europe. Available at: https://www.oecd.org/health/health-at-aglance-
europe/.

The Commonwealth Fund: International Health Care Systems Profile (2022) Available
at: https://www.commonwealthfund.org/international-healthpolicy-
center/countries.

The World Health Organization: Working for Health 2022-2030 Action Plan
(WHO,2022). Available at:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240063341.

Working for health and growth: investing in the health workforce - High-Level
Commission on Health Employment and Economic Growth. Available at:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511308.
World Health Organisation (WHO,2022) Working for health and growth: investing in
the health workforce. Available at:
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241511308.

Wider reading

Kuhlmann et al., (2023) Comparing Health Workforce Policy during a Major Global
Health Crisis: A Critical Conceptual Debate and International Empirical Investigation.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 5035. Available online at
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20065035.

Reed, S., Schlepper, L. and Edwards, N. (2022) Health system recovery from Covid-19
International lessons for the NHS. Nuffield Trust. Available online
at:https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/sites/default/files/2022-03/health-system-
recovery-final-pdf-1-.pdf.

Charles, A., Naylor, C. and Murray, R. (2021) The King’s fund Integrated care systems
in London Challenges and opportunities ahead. Available online
at:https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/sites/default/files/2021-02/integrated-care-
systems-London-2021_0.pdf.

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.
MARKING CRITERIA

0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100

Failing Limited Adequate Sound Good Excellent Outstanding Exceptional

Knowledge and Little or Limited knowledge Adequate Sound Good knowledge Excellent Outstanding Exceptional
insufficient base and knowledge base knowledge base base and knowledge base knowledge base knowledge base
application of
knowledge base application of and application of and application of application of and application of by exploring and of comparative
comparative and application of comparative comparative comparative comparative comparative analysing research
methodology comparative methodology, with research research research research comparative methodology
theory to methodology, narrow analysis methodology methodology, methodology, methodology and research with extraordinary
with insufficient and evaluation. may have some (some generic likely to be is consistently methodology originality and
healthcare
analysis and Limited research specific also present) with specific to the specific to health with evident autonomy.
systems evaluation. skills are shown, information but some autonomy health system. systems. originality and Exceptional
analysis. Non – submission and there are generic in areas in research but Good Excellent autonomy of management of
Wrong significant with some needs to be more management of management of research skills. learning
assignment problems with the omissions. consistent. Sound learning learning The work will resources with a
answered. report's structure or Adequate accuracy in resources with resources with exceed the high regard for
limited accuracy in research skills are expression and consistent self- consistent self- assessment brief autonomy and
expression. shown and sound directed directed in many areas, exploration that
management of management of research. research. demonstrate clearly exceeds
learning resources. intellectual the assignment
resources. originality. brief. Exceptional
structure with
highly accurate
expression.

40 marks 0-11 12-15 16-19 20-23 24-27 28-31 32-35 36-40

0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Failing Limited Adequate Sound Good Excellent Outstanding Exceptional
Evidence of Insufficient Mainly descriptive Adequate Sound Good knowledge Excellent Outstanding Exceptional
analysis with little analysis of the knowledge base knowledge base base of the health knowledge base knowledge base knowledge base
critical and
evidence of use health care of the health care of the health care care workforce of the health care of the health care of the health care
comparative of learning workforce workforce workforce challenges, good workforce workforce workforce
analysis of the resources. Work challenges, the challenges, challenges, application of challenges, challenges, in- challenges,
health care significantly impact on service inadequate sound application critical excellent depth critical sophisticated
descriptive. delivery in the application of of critical comparative application of comparative critical and
workforce
Insufficient health system in comparative and comparative analysis and critical analysis of comparative of
challenges and intellectual skills. the UK and France. impacts on analysis and the impacts on comparative impacts on the impacts on
impacts on The task was not Difficulties in the service delivery in impacts on service delivery in analysis and service delivery in service delivery in
service delivery followed, and use of learning the UK and service delivery. the UK and impacts on the UK and the UK and
there was no to resources little France. Mainly Demonstrates France. service delivery in France. Exploring France with
specific in the
minimum evidence of descriptive with some similarities Demonstrates the UK and and analysing the extraordinary
UK and France. inclusion of any knowledge of some attempt at and differences in ability to analyse France. Exploring similarities and originality and
theory and or theory and is comparative the UK and data and and analysing the differences with autonomy.
Evidence of significant mainly descriptive analysis. With France. With theory/models to similarities and evident originality Demonstrate
difficulty of with restricted adequate adequate identify differences with and autonomy. exceptional
actionable
expression. For analysis and limited management of management of similarities and evident originality The data analysis of data
strategies for example, no argument. Limited learning learning differences in and autonomy. presented is exploring and
recommendatio explanation of evidence of resources. Some resources. Some both countries. Demonstrates highly relevant analysing with
ns on the health theory/model. actionable autonomy in autonomy in Good evidence of ability to analyse and exceeds the extraordinary
Inappropriate strategies for research. research. Sound actionable relevant data with requirement of originality and
workforce
evidence of recommendation. Adequate evidence of strategies for synthesis to the assessment autonomy.
challenges. actionable evidence of actionable recommendation relevant theory brief. Outstanding Exceptional
strategies for actionable strategies for s. consistently. evidence of evidence of
recommendation strategies for recommendation Excellent actionable actionable
s. recommendation s. evidence of strategies for strategies for
s. actionable recommendation recommendation
strategies for s. s.
recommendation
s.
50 marks 0-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-50
0-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60-69 70-79 80-89 90-100
Failing Limited Adequate Sound Good Excellent Outstanding Exceptional
Demonstration Very weak Major difficulties Some difficulties Some parts are Accurate report Excellent Outstanding Exemplar report
academic with report with report correctly structure and academic skills report structure. structure and
of academic
referencing skills; structure. structure, structured in the expression. with no omissions Demonstrated professional
skills Harvard Demonstrated expression and report. Mainly Demonstrated throughout. outstanding expression.
referencing not weak academic academic skills. accurate good academic Harvard academic skills Demonstrated
followed or skills with many Demonstrated expression in skills and have referencing is with no omissions exceptional
missing. Major omissions or wrong adequate some parts and only minor consistent throughout. academic skills
omissions of references academic skills acceptable level omissions. Mainly throughout and Harvard and has
many references. throughout. Little and may have of academic consistent have some referencing is extraordinary
The hierarchy of reference to the omissions and skills. throughout with originality of consistent with originality and
sources is not hierarchy of incorrect Demonstrated Harvard style. sources that obvious autonomy of
evident. sources. referencing. sound academic Demonstration of exceed the originality of sources.
Harvard style is skills and has the hierarchy of assessment sources that
followed but not some omissions sources. criteria and exceeds the
consistent. and some clearly assessment
Adequate incorrect demonstrate the expectations.
reference to the referencing. hierarchy of
hierarchy of Harvard style sources.
sources. mostly followed
with some lapses.
There is some
evidence of
referencing the
hierarchy of
sources.
10 marks 0-2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-10
 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.

Characteristics of Student Achievement by Marking Band for ARU’s

Mark Generic Learning Outcomes (Academic Regulations, Section 2)

Outcome
Bands Knowledge & Intellectual (thinking), Practical, Affective and
Understanding Transferable Skills

Exceptional information Exceptional management of learning

base exploring and resources, with a higher degree of
analysing the discipline, its autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds
90- theory and ethical issues the assessment brief. Exceptional structure/

100% with extraordinary accurate expression. Demonstrates intellectual

originality and autonomy. originality and imagination. Exceptional
Work may be considered team/practical/professional skills. Work may
for publication within ARU be considered for publication within ARU

Outstanding management of learning

Achieves Outstanding information resources, with a degree of
module base exploring and autonomy/exploration that clearly exceeds
80- outcome(s) analysing the discipline, its the assessment brief. An exemplar of

89% theory and ethical issues structured/accurate expression. Demonstrates

with clear originality and intellectual originality and imagination.
autonomy Outstanding team/practical/professional
skills

Excellent knowledge base

Excellent management of learning resources,
70- that supports analysis,
with degree of autonomy/research that may
evaluation and problem-
79% exceed the assessment brief. Structured and
solving in theory/
creative expression. Excellent academic/
practice/ethics of
 discipline with intellectual skills and practical/team/
considerable originality professional/ problem-solving skills

Good knowledge base

Good management of learning resources, with
that supports analysis,
consistent self-directed research. Structured
60- evaluation and problem-
and accurate expression. Good
solving in theory/
69% academic/intellectual skills and
practice/ethics of
team/practical/ professional/problem solving
discipline with some
skills
originality

Sound management of learning resources.

Sound knowledge base
Some autonomy in research but inconsistent.
that supports some
50- Structured and mainly accurate expression.
analysis, evaluation and
Sound level of academic/ intellectual skills
59% problem-solving in
going beyond description at times. Sound
theory/practice/ethics of
team/practical/professional/problem-solving
discipline
skills

Adequate knowledge
Adequate use of learning resources with little
base with some omissions
autonomy. Some difficulties with academic/
A marginal at the level of ethical/
40- intellectual skills. Some difficulty with
pass in theoretical issues.
structure/ accuracy in expression, but
49% module Restricted ability to
evidence of developing
outcome(s) discuss theory and/or or
team/practical/professional/ problem-solving
solve problems in
skills
discipline

A marginal
Limited use of learning resources. Unable to
fail in Limited knowledge base.
work autonomously. Little input to teams.
module Limited understanding of
30- Limited academic/ intellectual skills. Still
outcome(s) discipline/ethical issues.
mainly descriptive. General difficulty with
39% Satisfies Difficulty with theory and
structure/ accuracy in expression. Practical/
default problem solving in
professional/problem-solving skills that are
qualifying discipline
not yet secure
mark
 Little evidence of Little evidence of use of learning resources.
knowledge base. Little Unable to work autonomously. Little input to
evidence of understanding teams. Little evidence of academic/
20- of discipline/ ethical intellectual skills. Work significantly

29% issues. Significant descriptive. Significant difficulty with

difficulty with theory and structure/accuracy in expression. Little
problem solving in evidence of practical/professional/ problem-
discipline solving skills

Deficient knowledge base. Deficient use of learning resources. Unable to

Fails to Deficient understanding of work autonomously. Deficient input to teams.
10- achieve discipline/ethical issues. Deficient academic/intellectual skills. Work
module Major difficulty with theory significantly descriptive. Major difficulty with
19%
outcome(s) and problem solving in structure/accuracy in expression. Deficient
Qualifying discipline practical/professional/problem-solving skills
mark not
satisfied No evidence of No evidence of use of learning resources.
knowledge base; no Completely unable to work autonomously. No

1- evidence of understanding evidence of input to teams. No evidence of

of discipline/ethical academic/intellectual skills. Work wholly
9% issues. Total inability with descriptive. Incoherent structure/accuracy
theory and problem and expression. No evidence of
solving in discipline practical/professional/ problem-solving skills

Awarded for: (i) non-submission; (ii) dangerous practice and; (iii) in situations
0% where the student fails to address the assignment brief (eg: answers the
wrong question) and/or related learning outcomes