ENH70003 BECOMING AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL
Digital portfolio
Due Date:
23:59 p.m.AEDTOctober 31
Weighting:
10% of overall unit grade
Submission:Turnitin
Overview
Your digital portfolio should include:
- Title page
- Table of contents
- Executive summary
- Professional purpose statement (initial)
- Professional purpose statement (final)
- Interview report
- Meeting reflection
- Symposium abstract
- Reflective summary
- Appendices (i.e. Interview protocol, post-interview reflection notes, PowerPoint presentation slides and any other relevant supporting documents)
You may additional narrative sections (i.e. introduction to each assessment) to connect the different sections of the digital portfolio.
Format
The overall format of the digital portfolio is up to you, but it is important to be consistent to ensure that the overall document is cohesive. This type of editing is an important skill! Please be aware that it can take longer than you anticipate to ensure that the merged documents have consistent page margins, headings, page numbering, etc. so make sure you don't leave it to the last minute.
Marking
Please see rubric below.
solutions/9200628092021-avumhp5p.docx DEALING WITH UNCERTAINTY IN COMPLEX ENVIRONMENTS Table of Contents Article 1: Understanding Coronavirus disease COVID-19 risk perceptions among the public to enhance risk communication efforts: a practical approach for outbreaks, Finland February, 20203 Aims of the Research3 Qualitative Methodology3 Research Design4 Recruitment Strategy4 Methods of Data Collection4 Relationship between Researcher and Participant5 Ethical Issues5 Data Analysis Approach6 Findings6 Significance of the Research6 References8 Article 2: Public knowledge, attitudes and practices towards COVID-19: A cross-sectional study in Malaysia9 Introduction9 Aims9 Methods9 Research Design9 Sample Size9 Population of the Research10 Validity of the Sample and Population10 Selection Process10 Measures to Categorize Non Responders10 Risk Factors and Outcome Variables11 Statistical Methods Used11 Results11 Data Analysis11 Non Response Bias11 Internal Consistency12 Consistency of the Research Results with the Methods used12 Discussion12 Justification of the Conclusion and Recommendation12 Limitation of the Study12 Others13 Funding of the Research13 Ethical Issues13 References14 Article 1: Understanding Coronavirus disease COVID-19 risk perceptions among the public to enhance risk communication efforts: a practical approach for outbreaks, Finland February, 2020 Aims of the Research The article aims to evaluate and understand the risk perceptions of the public which is effectively critical for the risk communication. However, the aims and objectives of the paper were not explicitly mentioned in the research. Although, the introduction of the research paper mentions about the research aspects and the effective field on which the research is conducted. The aims and objectives of the research are not clearly mentioned in the paper. The authors could have projected the research objective and the purpose of the paper in the very opening paragraph. Instead the process and the methods of the research are mentioned in the introductory part of the paper. Moreover, the aim of the paper is just mentioned in a single line and no explicit definition for or understanding is provided. The introductory part of the research paper must explore the aims and objectives of the research to provide the purpose of the research to the readers. Qualitative Methodology The research paper effectively uses qualitative methodology for the purpose of collecting data and also for the purpose of obtaining results in the research. The author proposes to use thematic analysis of emails and social media messages that they obtained from the public. Consequently the paper had identified the probable factors that are related with the risk magnitude by analyzing the narrative data that they have obtained from email accounts and social media channels (Raynaud et al., 2021). The results were evenly shaped after considering the narrative data according to the risk models, identifying codes and were further categorized in several domains. It is significantly mentioned in the study that the methodology uses knowledge of several disciplines to ensure that the outcomes and the findings are relevant to the research purpose. The methods used in the research were proposed to use robust methods of retrieving data from various sources and an expert aspect of qualitative analysis was used in the research. This validates the fact that qualitative analysis was effectively used in the research. Research Design The design of the research was effective enough to evaluate the risk perception of the public about the COVID-19. The paper effectively describes the concepts of risk perception and the risk communication recommendation by analyzing the data collected from the social media and email. These narrative data was based on 116 social media post and emails from the public. The findings after evaluating the narrative data were further categorized into five risk perception domains viz; catastrophic potential, probability of dying, reasons for exposure, the belief of being in control of the situation and cross towards authorities. Thereafter the data in each of these categories were again evaluated on the basis of certain concepts and risk communication recommendation. Thematic analysis was performed in collaboration with medical anthropologists and experts in risk communication and public health. The research effectively uses the methodologies that they have mentioned in the introductory part of the paper. This signifies the fact that the paper justifies the research design as proposed in the opening paragraph. Recruitment Strategy The paper has not explicitly defined the Strategies for recruiting the participants or selection of the participants in the collection of data. Although, the authors mentioned about the route by which data were obtained that is by the social media post and emails. There was no such explanation regarding how the participants were selected, what are the factors that was taken into account for the selection of the 116 participants in their research and there were no discussion about the non-responders or for the people who did not take part in the survey. Hence, the recruitment strategy was not appropriate to the aims of the research. There are no clear evidences regarding the methods followed and the factors considered in selection of the participants in the survey. Moreover, there is no such discussion about the non respondents in the research (Long, French & Brooks, 2020). Methods of Data Collection The authors in the article only mentioned about the route through which the collected data. They effectively mentions about collecting narrative data from 116 participants through social media posts and emails. These contemplate with the fact that the data collection method which relates to a qualitative aspect was justified. However, the focus groups where introduced in the research. It suggested that the members of the public who requested information about the health and welfare or commented on the pandemic aspects via mail or social media where the potential members who are considered for the research. The research mentions to have collected narrative data through males and social media post. Therefore the researcher clearly mentions about how data were collected. However the search did not effectively justify the methods chosen for the research. No explicit information was provided regarding the aspects that were considered while collecting the data although they were provided to some extent while analyzing the data. Moreover, the researcher has not discussed about the saturation of data. Therefore, it can be contemplated that all the data collection aspects were not effectively mentioned in the research. Relationship between Researcher and Participant The relationship between the researcher and the participants were not effectively mentioned rather the study has not mention anything about the participants except for the fact that the focus groups were mainly those people who requested for information from the health and welfare or commented on covid-19 the health and welfare Civil and social media. Therefore, there are no potential aspects that mention the relationship between the researcher and the participants in the research. There was no such point or discussion regarding the potential bias that influenced the formulation of the research question for data collection. However the researcher made a critical analysis of the sample that they have used for the study. For instance it is mentioned in the research paper that the people who contacted health authorities during an emergency were emotional and they do not represent the risk perception of the entire population of Finland. Ethical Issues Ethical issues were not considered in this research because most of the data that was collected where in general context. However, emotional aspects are considered in the research which contemplates the fact that there might be some aspects of ethical issues in the data collection. But as data collection details are not explicitly mentioned in the research it is difficult to speak about the ethical issues considered during the research (Elessi et al., 2019). There are no sufficient details about how the research was explained to the participants and the researchers have not discussed any such issues in the study. Data Analysis Approach The data analysis is sufficiently rigorous. The researcher has provided an in-depth the description of the analysis process and a thematic analysis is used effectively by which the categories were derived and attained data were effectively evaluated on the basis of the respective aspects under each category. The data were effectively presented that were considered for the analysis. However, the raw data from the original sample was not demonstrated in the research. The number of sample that the researchers considered for this particular study is 116 which are sufficient in terms of qualitative studies of the data. No recommendations or discussions pertaining to the contradictory data are presented in the research while the limitation of the data extent was not considered for the study (Abu-Zaid, 2020). Findings The findings are effectively considered and are effectively described in the research. There is adequate discussion of the evidences regarding findings of the study. The analysis under each category is potentially described in the research. All the categories that were taken into consideration viz; the catastrophic potential, the probability of death, the reasons for exposure, controllability beliefs and trust were effectively analyzed to evaluate the degree of risk perception. Thus the findings are effectively elaborated in the study. Significance of the Research The research aims to analyze the degree of risk perception of COVID-19. The researcher has discussed about the contribution of the study. They have discussed how risk perception influences a complex phenomenon which is coherently affected by multiple psychological, societal and cultural factors (Lock, Walker & Browne, 2021). The research is significant and has an effective contribution in the field of risk perception of the pandemic in recent times. It has considered and evaluated the degree of risk that is contemplated by the general public. The research was significant enough to evaluate the emotional aspects of the citizens of Finland in response to the spread of pandemic. Moreover the research also mentions that the qualitative data collection provided evidence based recommendation about the risk communication purposes. It is evident from the paper that the researcher discusses the contribution of the study that it makes to the existing knowledge or understanding. Although, the pandemic aspect is a new issue in this century there are very limited literature pertaining to this aspect. However, the research proves to be significant in the area of risk perception in health and welfare going to pandemic. References Abu-Zaid, A., 2020. Training in critical appraisal skills. The Lancet, 395(10229), p.e58. Elessi, K., Albarqouni, L., Glasziou, P. and Chalmers, I., 2019. Promoting critical appraisal skills. The Lancet, 393(10191), pp.2589-2590. Lock, M.J., Walker, T. and Browne, J., 2021. Promoting cultural rigour through critical appraisal tools in First Nations peoples’ research. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 45(3), pp.210-211. Long, H.A., French, D.P. and Brooks, J.M., 2020. Optimising the value of the critical appraisal skills programme (CASP) tool for quality appraisal in qualitative evidence synthesis. Research Methods in Medicine & Health Sciences, 1(1), pp.31-42. Raynaud, M., Zhang, H., Louis, K., Goutaudier, V., Wang, J., Dubourg, Q., Wei, Y., Demir, Z., Debiais, C., Aubert, O. and Bouatou, Y., 2021. COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal