Chat with us, powered by LiveChat HLSC122 Drug Check and Harm Reduction Health Scenario and Research Paper | All Paper
+1(978)310-4246 credencewriters@gmail.com
  

Below is the question attached along with health scenario and research paper. Assignment should be 1200 words and also needs at least six academic based references in APA style. Note: References mentioned in question (Greenhalgh et al.2018) and (Hoffman et al. 2017) are mandatory to use in the assignment. I have also attached the template that needs to be followed for this assignment.Thank you
assessment_question.pdf

health_senario.pdf

primary_research_paper.pdf

answer_template__need_to_use_this_.docx

Unformatted Attachment Preview

ASSESSMENT 3 OVERVIEW – Critical appraisal of evidence
For Assessment 3 students are required to demonstrate their ability to reflect on a health
scenario and critically appraise the evidence (primary research paper) provided in relation
to a health scenario. The scenario is available under the Assessment 3 tile.
Students are required to identify strengths and limitations of a research paper at a
beginning level. The research paper can be located under the Assessment 3 tile. Finally,
students are required to discuss the factors which influence the use of evidence in
practice. The critical appraisal of evidence must be supported by a minimum of four (4)
references which are valid and varied academic sources (e.g. Greenhalgh et al. 2018;
Hoffman et al. 2017).
Instructions:
Critically appraise the research paper provided in LEO located under the Assessment
3 tile, and read the corresponding health scenario. The research paper should be
accessed as a full text and critically appraised using the questions identified in Part A
& B, which are based on Greenhalgh et al. (2018). The research paper being critically
appraised should be written as a full reference at the beginning of the essay (and
included in the reference list). The paper should be referenced in-text according to
APA (i.e. author, year) required for direct quotes only.
Writing in an essay format (introduction, body, conclusion, reference list) answer the
questions in Part A and Part B. Students should refer to the ACU Study Guide: Skills for
Success (2017) – available online – to ensure they follow the university’s essay writing
and referencing guidelines.
Small/short headings may be used. Do not repeat the questions or scenario.
Part A
Consider the strengths and limitations (critically appraise) the research paper using the
following questions. Each paragraph should be supported with a high quality, valid, varied
academic reference. This reference is supporting your knowledge and understanding of
critical appraisal related to the research paper.
Authorship
1. Discuss the strengths and limitations of the:
a. Authors’ expertise, based on their cited qualifications and affiliations;
b. Possible conflicts of interest or possible grounds for bias in the paper.
Research Questions, aim or hypothesis
2. Outline the research study’s question/s, aim or hypothesis and present the author’s
justification/s as to why their study was needed.
1
Research Design
3. Discuss the research design and how the authors justified their choice of design for
their stated research question.
Research Methods
4. Discuss the methods the researchers used for: selecting study participants and for
collecting and analysing data?
What were the strengths and limitations of the methods used?
Results and limitation of the study
5. Discuss whether the results/conclusions of the study answer the research study’s
question/s.
Describe how the limitations impact the application of the study findings?
Part B
Application of research evidence into clinical practice considering the given
scenario and clinical question.
Adoption of research findings is often restricted due to a range of key enablers and
barriers. Reflecting on your scenario describe some of the enablers and barriers to the
uptake of your papers research findings.
Due date:
Part A and B are to be submitted on Wednesday 22nd
May by 2359 Hours
Weighting:
50%
Length and/or format:
Assessment 3 (Part a & b) should not exceed 1200
words +/-10% (including in-text citations)
Purpose:
The written assignment is required to provide the
students with an opportunity to demonstrate
fundamental skills required for sound appraisal of
research. These assessments are designed to engage
students with content that will build knowledge which,
by the conclusion of this programme, will allow the
student to graduate as a health care professional who
can locate and critically appraise discipline specific
literature.
Learning outcomes assessed: 3, 4, 5
How to submit:
Submission is via the Turnitin Dropbox available in
LEO HLSC122 (Campus tile).
2
Return of assignment:
Feedback (written, rubric and/or voice comments) will
be available in the Turnitin Dropbox in LEO when the
final unit grades are released.
Assessment criteria:
Critical appraisal,
presentation
knowledge,
critical
thinking,
Please include the word count of your assignment on
the front page of your assignment or in a header.
Please note that in-text citations are included in the
word count whilst the reference list is not included in the
word count. Words that are more than 10% over the
word count will not be considered.
Please see further information in the section below
titled ‘Word Count’.
WORD COUNT
Writing requires skill and being able to write within a specified word limit is an essential
component of professional and academic work. Reading and writing critically are
fundamental skills which demonstrate an understanding and an ability to make
judgements and solve problems, hence why only 10% of a word count should be direct
quotes. That is, if the word count is 1500 words only 150 of those words should be direct
quotes. Word counts provide students with an indication of the amount of detail and work
required for each assessment item.
What is included in a word count?
Essentially, all text within an assessment item from the introduction through to the
conclusion is counted in the word count. This includes all in-text citations, direct quotes
and headings.
The word count does not include the following:

Title page

Reference list

Appendices

Tables

Figures and legends
AVOIDING PLAGIARISM
Please note that if you submit your assignment, notice that the similarity index is high
but do not have time to revise your assessment task before the due date has passed,
then you are advised to:
• contact the Lecturer in Charge and request that your assignment be removed.
3

revise the assignment, submit it within three days of the due date and incur a late
submission penalty.

submit it into the regular Dropbox. Do not submit into the extension Dropbox.

Please review the Academic Integrity and Misconduct policy if you choose not to
do this.
REFERENCING
This unit requires you to use the APA referencing system.
See the ‘Academic referencing’ page of the Student Portal for more details.
4
Case Scenario: Assessment 3 HLSC122
Assessment Task 3 comprises of Part A and Part B. The following information relates to
Part B only. Please ensure that you review the Unit Outline to determine what is required
to complete Part A.
Case Scenario
Emily is attending a music festival in Melbourne this weekend. Emily’s mother has many
concerns, as she has heard drug testing is being done at this concert. Her mother believes
that drug testing at music festivals encourages young people to use illicit drugs at music
festivals.
As a future health professional, you are interested in learning if drug testing at music
festivals promotes illicit drug use amongst teenagers.
For Part B of Assessment 3 students are required to reflect on the above scenario and the
findings of the research paper titled ‘Music festival attendees’ illicit drug use, knowledge
and practices regarding drug content and purity: a cross sectional survey,’ and describe
some of the enablers and barriers to the uptake of this papers research findings.
Students can locate the above research paper via Leganto found under the tile called
HLSC122 Weekly Readings. Once you have opened Leganto please scroll down to Week 10
where this article can be located.
The full reference for the article that students are required to critique is below:
Day, N., Criss J., Griffiths, B., Gujral, S.K., John-Leader, F., Johnson, J., & Pit, S. (2018). Music festival
attendees’ illicit drug use, knowledge and practices regarding drug content and purity: A
cross-sectional survey. Harm Reduction Journal, 15(1), 1-8. doi: 10.1186/s12954-017-0205-7
Day et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2018) 15:1
DOI 10.1186/s12954-017-0205-7
RESEARCH
Open Access
Music festival attendees’ illicit drug use,
knowledge and practices regarding drug
content and purity: a cross-sectional survey
Niamh Day2,4†, Joshua Criss2,4†, Benjamin Griffiths 2,4†, Shireen Kaur Gujral 2,4†, Franklin John-Leader1,
Jennifer Johnston3,4 and Sabrina Pit2,3,4*
Abstract
Background: Drug checking is a harm reduction strategy which allows users to check the content and purity of
illicit drugs. Although drug checking has been trialled internationally, with demonstrated value as a harm reduction
and health promotion strategy, the use of such services in Australia remains a contentious issue.
This study aimed to investigate the proportion and patterns of illicit drug use among young people, their attitudes
towards drug checking at festivals and the potential impact of drug checking on intended drug use behaviour.
Methods: The survey was conducted at a major Australian music festival in 2016. Data was collected from a sample
of festival attendees (n = 642) aged between 18 and 30 years. A descriptive analysis of the data was performed.
Results: Nearly three-quarters (73.4%) of participants reported that they had used illicit drugs in the past 12 months,
most commonly cannabis (63.9%) and ecstasy (59.8%). A large proportion of participants believed ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’
that drug checking services could help users seek help to reduce harm (86.5%) and that drug checking services should
be combined with harm reduction advice (84.9%). However, two thirds of the participants agreed ‘somewhat’ or ‘a lot’
that drug sellers may use this service as a quality control mechanism (68.6%). Approximately half (54.4%) indicated they
would be highly likely and a third (32.7%) would be somewhat likely to utilise free drug checking services should they
be available at music festivals. When asked whether the results of drug checking would influence their drug use
behaviour, participants reported that they would not take substances shown to contain methamphetamine (65.1%),
ketamine (57.5%) or para-methoxyamphetamine (PMA) (58.4%).
Conclusion: The majority of festival attendees aged 18–30 participating in this study reported a history of illicit drug
use and were in favour of the provision of free drug checking at festivals. A considerable proportion reported that the
results of drug checking would influence their drug use behaviour. The findings of this study can contribute to the
debate regarding whether drug checking services could potentially play a major role in harm reduction and health
promotion programming for young people attending festivals.
Background
In the most recent National Drug Strategy Household
Survey (NDSHS) in 2016, almost 8.5 million (42.6%)
Australians aged 14 years and over reported use of illicit
drugs in their lifetime, with 3.1 million (15.6%) reporting
use in the last month [1]. Prevalence was highest in the
* Correspondence: sabrina.pit@sydney.edu.au

Equal contributors
2
School of Medicine, University of Western Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
3
School of Public Health, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney,
Sydney, NSW, Australia
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article
20–29 years age group, of which 28.2% reported use in
the last 12 months [1].
Internationally, music festival attendees report particularly high levels of illicit drug use compared with the
general population [2–4]. Consistent with this, studies
undertaken at festivals across Australia reflect a considerably higher rate of illicit drug use than is seen in
same-age groups in the general population. A crosssectional study of 1365 adolescents, conducted at a
music festival in Australia in 2011, found 52% had used
illicit drugs at least once, with 25% doing so in the previous month [5]. Another study conducted from 2005 to
© The Author(s). 2018 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Day et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2018) 15:1
2008 in Australia demonstrated that 44% of music festival attendees had used illicit drugs in the last month [6].
Risks associated with the use of illicit drugs such as
methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDMA (3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine) or ecstasy) include adverse
side effects such as hyperthermia, seizures, hyponatraemia, rhabdomyolysis and multi-organ failure causing
death [7]. In addition, the inclusion of other substances
in illicit drugs may also cause significant harm, both
through an unexpected increase in purity resulting in
overdoses and through the undesired inclusion of additives such as paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), butylone and methylone [8, 9].
Due to the considerable discrepancy between the
prevalence of drug use in populations of festival goers
and the general population, it can be theorised that festival goers are more vulnerable to these harmful outcomes
and are therefore an important group to be targeted for
harm reduction and education.
Harm reduction
Several organisations in the USA and Europe offer anonymous drug checking services to the public [10].
Countries such as France and Spain, which have a comparable legal stance on drug use to Australia, have active
drug checking services available as a harm reduction
intervention by communities and local governments [11,
12]. On-site drug checking interventions are already in
place in the Netherlands and Austria [13]. Dutch citizens
have been able to test their illicit drugs at governmentfunded Drug Information and Monitoring System
(DIMS) facilities since the 1990s, for the purposes of
harm reduction and prevention [14]. Utilisation of these
services has been demonstrated to influence user behaviour [15]. The Trans European Drug Information (TEDI)
program saw drug checking being offered at a number
of festivals across Europe, helping to profile the global
drug market and creating a number of harm reduction
avenues that are aligned with drug checking [16]. Substance education, psychosocial counselling and referral
options can be offered to an at-risk population while
drug analysis is being performed [17]. Drug checking
has led to an awareness of circulating harmful substances, which has resulted in a decline of these products on the market in subsequent years [2, 18, 19]. It
may also allow for the implementation of early warning
systems to inform drug users of dangerous substances
before additional harm can result [2, 16].
However, some concerns exist regarding drug checking being perceived as encouraging drug use and the
limitations of accurate substance detection of reagent
testing kits [20]. These kits are limited in the number of
substances they can identify, are operator-dependent
and do not identify non-drug components [21]. On-site
Page 2 of 8
laboratory-grade testing, as used in the CheckIt program
in Austria [17], provides more accurate and detailed analyses for consumers about a wider range of substances.
There is also the perception that drug checking could
act as a quality control mechanism for drug dealers [22].
Community perceptions
Research commissioned by the Australian National
Council on Drugs found that more than 82% of a sample
of 2335 Australians aged between 16 and 25 years were
in favour of the introduction of drug checking [23].
Despite public support and backing from numerous
prominent political and law enforcement figures [24, 25],
legislation for drug checking at festivals has yet to be
passed by any state government in Australia. The main
arguments against drug checking are that there is a lack of
evidence to support its efficacy and that it may appear that
the government is condoning drug use [26]. However, a
motion in August 2016 passed unopposed through the
Australian Senate calling for the introduction of evidencebased harm reduction policies to counteract harmful drug
use, including the cessation of sniffer dog use at festivals
and implementation of drug checking trials [25].
This study aims to increase our understanding of attitudes and behaviours towards drug checking services
among music festival patrons. To our knowledge, this is
the first study based at a music festival to survey attendees about drug checking services in Australia and
will provide valuable knowledge that will contribute to
the ongoing debate surrounding drug testing.
Methods
Survey development and outcome measures
The survey content and structure was guided by previous research in the area [1, 13, 27] and members of the
research team with expertise in the fields of drug and alcohol, sexual health, health promotion and public health.
All survey respondents were asked about their demographics, illicit drug use and attitudes towards drug
checking services. Those who indicated a history of illicit
drug use were further questioned about their attitudes
and concerns towards drug content and purity, attempts
to find out about the content and purity of drugs they
had previously taken and the likelihood of using a free
drug checking service.
The data collected was predominately quantitative,
with the exception of one open-ended question asking
drug users why they had never attempted to find out
about the content/purity of their drugs (if applicable).
Two waves of pilot-testing of the survey were conducted
with groups of young adults (n = 10 and n = 12, respectively) who were representative of the target audience,
with the data collection tool refined after each wave.
Day et al. Harm Reduction Journal (2018) 15:1
Recruitment and data collection
The data collection for this study was undertaken over
2 days at a major Australian popular music festival as
part of an established sexual health promotion stall. Participants were recruited based on their estimated age being within the target range of 18–30 years. Participants
were given a participant information statement and were
informed about what the survey involved and the purpose of the study. Completion of the survey was taken
as consent. Participants completed the paper-based survey
anonymously and independently and placed the survey in
a closed box to ensure confidentiality. No identifying information was collected to ensure anonymity of participants. Participants were only approached during daylight
hours to minimise the likelihood of participants being intoxicated at time of completion and were not eligible to
participate if they were visibly intoxicated. No incentives
were provided. The surveys were provided by independent
researchers not linked to the health promotion stall, who
were available to answer participants’ questions if required. Participants were given a short summary of what
drug checking is and the information it can provide.
Data analysis
Analyses were conducted using SPSS Version 22. Chisquare tests were conducted to determine associations
between categorical variables and t test for continuous
variables. A p value of < 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant. Missing data was treated by excluding the participant from that question. The open-ended question was coded thematically to identify reasons for not attempting to find out about drug content and purity. Initial codes were created based on a review of the complete data set by two researchers, who then created the coding scheme through discussion and reaching consensus. This coding scheme was then applied to the data. P ... Purchase answer to see full attachment

error: Content is protected !!