Evaluate one or more studies related to prevalence rates of health problems.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks. These can be found under the “Your tests” tab > supplemental materials.

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up strengths and limitations of one or more studies related to the prevalence rates of health problems. The focus of the evaluation should be upon the study/studies, not on prevalence rates of health problems. Although both strengths and limitations should be addressed, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Health problems are likely to come from the list in the guide:

• stress
• addiction
• obesity
• chronic pain
• sexual health.

Relevant studies may include, but are not limited to:

• Rhani, Bonu, Jha, Nyguen and Jamjoum’s (2003) study in tobacco use prevalence rates in India
• Thoits’s (1995) study of gender prevalence in giving and receiving social support
• Parker et al.’s (2005) study of prevalence rates from 1992 and 2002 showing increasing health problems among Swedish elderly population
• Makino et al.’s (2004) study of prevalence rates in eating disorders in Western and non-Western countries
• Weinberger et al.’s (2019) study on increasing prevalence rates of smoking in US adults with mental health and substance use problems
• Zheng et al.’s (2018) study of prevalence rates of smoking and knowledge of health hazards among internal migrants in China
• Agha et al.’s (2017) study related to rising prevalence rates of obesity and related effects on public health.

Evaluation of the selected studies may include, but is not limited to:

• methodological and ethical considerations
• cultural and gender considerations
• supporting and/or contradictory findings
• the applications of the empirical findings
• how the findings of research have been interpreted
• implications of the findings.

If the candidate addresses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [3] for criterion D: critical thinking. All remaining criteria should be awarded marks according to the best fit approach.

In questions that ask for evaluation of studies, in criterion A we assess to what extent is the response focused on the question. Responses that are generic, lack a focus on the specific question and seem as pre-prepared essays of relevance to the general topic (but not to evaluation of one or more studies) should be awarded [0]. If the response identifies which studies will be evaluated but there is also extra information that is not relevant or necessary for the specific question then [1] should be awarded. Responses that are clearly focused on evaluating one or more studies should gain [2].

Marks awarded for criterion B should refer to definitions of terms and concepts relating to research studies. Overall this could include some knowledge of topic but more specifically knowledge and understanding related to research methods and ethics of chosen studies.

Marks awarded for criterion C assess the quality of the description of as study/studies and assess how well the student linked the findings of the study to the question – this doesn't have to be very sophisticated or long for these questions but still the aim or the conclusion should be linked to the topic of the specific question.

Criterion D assesses how well the student is explaining strengths and limitations of the study/studies.

This was the least popular question in this paper. When it was addressed it tended to attract well-prepared candidates who clearly focused on studies. A popular choice were studies related to rising prevalence rates of obesity and/or rising prevalence rates of smoking.