WACB100 Abdill College the Effect of Using Microneedle Patch Paper Follow the instruction to write 1200words research report The whole structure must be i

WACB100 Abdill College the Effect of Using Microneedle Patch Paper Follow the instruction to write 1200words research report

The whole structure must be in same order as the outline on instruction

Topic is Gender Income Inequality

Please have a look on my previous integrative summry to make sure you are writing the same thesis

You need to apply the graph I gave you on data commentary which would be included on Result part

You need to find other 5 sources and plus the one was given. The references should be made in harvard style

All the work must be original

Turitin report is required MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY INTERNATIONAL COLLEGE
ASSESSMENT TASK
Academic Communication in Business and Economics
(WACB100)
ASSESSMENT DETAILS
Unit Name:
Assessment
Task:
Total word
count:
Due:
Academic Communication in Business and
Economics
Social Inclusion
Research Report
Issue:
1200
Total 100
words
Marks:
See Unit Guide
Unit Code:
WACB100
Gender Income
Inequality
Weighting: See Unit
Guide
PURPOSE OF TASK
The purpose of a Research Report is to inform your audience about research that you have
conducted and to discuss the results you have found. Academic research aims to develop our
existing knowledge, so your Research Report should highlight the current understanding of
the subject by reviewing other studies. Your Research Report will then present your findings.
Your Research Report will conclude by examining the significance of your findings and their
relationship to the findings of other research already conducted. Your Research Report will
also discuss the limitations of your study and give suggestions for further research.
INSTRUCTIONS
Task:
Imagine that you have carried out a research project addressing the following question:
“How has the ratio of female to male full-time earnings changed over the past 60 years?”
The findings of your research are presented in a Figure on the following page.
Structure
A Research Report should include the following sections:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Abstract (Not required for this Research Report)
Introduction
Literature Review
Methods ( Not required for this Research Report since you did
not conduct the research)
Results (must include the Figure provided)
Discussion
Reference list
1
INSTRUCTIONS (continued)
Research Findings:
(Source: Blau, FD & Kahn, LM 2017, Figure 3, ‘The gender wage gap: extent, trends and explanations’, Journal of
Economic Literature, vol. 55, no. 3, p. 789-865, viewed 25 January, 2018, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/
pdfplus/10.1257/jel.20160995)
NB: Do not reference the figure above because this assignment imagines that you have
developed it as a result of your research. Do NOT include any table(s)/figure(s) from any other
sources.
NATURE OF THE TASK
This is an individual task.
HURDLE ASSESSMENTS
This is not a hurdle assessment.
HOW TO PRESENT YOUR ASSIGNMENT
Add a footer to each page of the assignment. The footer should include: student name and
student number, the unit code and page numbering. For example:
Robin Brown
40112233
WACB100
1 /14
All assignments should have standard margins of 2.5cm, be written in Times New Roman 12.0
font, and be double-spaced to allow room for detailed feedback. Please note that if the
assignment is single- spaced you will not receive detailed feedback.
The only accepted file types for upload are:
2
• Microsoft Word® (.doc and .docx)
• PDF (.pdf)
No other file types will be accepted.
SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
DRAFT AND FINAL SUBMISSION INSTRUCTIONS
On the designated Assignment Draft Submission due date, you are expected to bring a draft to
class. The assignments will be reviewed by your teacher and your peers.
You can submit your drafts to Turnitin before the final submission date. This will allow you to
check the Match Overview report generated by Turnitin. The Match Overview report is available
immediately the first time the assignment is submitted. The availability of the Match Overview
report takes 24 hours for subsequent submissions. Match Overview reports over 10% require
resubmission after further paraphrasing to comply with the University’s academic integrity
policy. You are responsible for checking back and ensuring the score is within the acceptable
range before the final submission due date.
You may make several submissions via Turnitin to check your work for plagiarism and make
adjustments accordingly up until the due date.
The final draft must be submitted via Turnitin in iLearn on the assignment submission due date.
Hard copies will not be accepted or marked. If you submit after the due date, your submission
will be counted as a late submission and penalties will apply (see Late Submissions section
below).
You must check that your submission can be opened in Turnitin after submitting it. When you
successfully submit your assignment in Turnitin, you will see a message that confirms receipt of
the assignment and includes the submission time and date. If you experience any problems with
online submission, you must:
1. Take a screenshot of the error message that is displayed.
2. Contact your teacher immediately via email advising him/her of the problem. You must
attach the screenshot to this email.
3. Attach a copy of your submission as a word document.
4. The email must be received by your teacher BEFORE the submission deadline. You must
use your student email to contact your teacher.
If you cannot access or view your submission via Turnitin in iLearn after you have submitted
it, you have not correctly submitted your work.
If you require assistance submitting through Turnitin, you may lodge a OneHelp Ticket or
refer to the IT help page. Please take a screenshot to include with any requests for assistance.
LATE SUBMISSIONS
Late submissions are possible but they will be penalised unless the student has been
granted an approved extension (refer to the Special Consideration Policy). Late penalties
will be calculated based on the marks allocated to the specific assessment task. The penalty
for late submission is as follows:
•
5% of the total possible marks will be deducted if it is late by up to 30 minutes
•
10% of the total possible marks will be deducted if it is more than 30 minutes late and
up to 24 hours late
3
•
A further 10% of the total possible marks will be deducted for each 24-hour period up to
3 days (including weekends)
•
100% of the marks will be deducted after 3 days and zero marks will be awarded
Please note that online submissions are electronically tracked, and the electronic record of
submission will be used to determine late penalties. This means that submitting your work even
a few seconds after the allocated deadline will result in a late submission which will attract the
penalty noted above. There is no flexibility with the applying of penalties as they must be
applied fairly and consistently to all students.
RETENTION OF RECORDS
You are required to keep a copy of all items submitted or completed for the purpose of
assessment or evaluation until the end of the grade appeal period.
INFORMATION ABOUT HOW AND WHEN FEEDBACK WILL BE PROVIDED
Grades and feedback will be available to you via Turnitin on iLearn.
ACADEMIC INTEGRITY
Using the work or ideas of another person, whether intentionally or not, and presenting them
as your own without clear acknowledgement of the source constitutes Plagiarism and thus is
considered a breach of Macquarie University’s Academic Integrity Policy. This policy requires
that:
•
All academic work claimed as original must be the work of the person making the claim
•
All academic collaborations of any kind must be acknowledged
•
Academic work must not be falsified in any way
•
When the ideas of others are used, these sources must be acknowledged in accordance with
the guidelines of a referencing system
All breaches of the Academic Integrity Policy are serious and penalties apply. You should be
aware that you may fail an assessment task, a unit or even be excluded from the University for
breaching the Academic Integrity Policy.
EXPECTATIONS OF STUDENTS
Students are responsible for their learning and are expected to:
•
Actively engage with assessment tasks, including carefully reading the guidance
provided, understanding criteria, spending sufficient time on the task and submitting
work on time.
•
Read, reflect and act on feedback provided.
•
Actively engage in activities designed to develop assessment literacy, including taking the
initiative where appropriate (e.g. seeking clarification or advice, negotiating learning
contracts, developing grading criteria and rubrics).
•
Provide constructive feedback on assessment processes and tasks through student
feedback mechanisms (e.g. student surveys, suggestions for future offerings, student
representation on committees).
•
Ensure that their work is their own; and
4
•
Be familiar with University policy and faculty procedures and act in accordance
with those policy and procedures.
MARKING CRITERIA
•
Please refer to the marking rubric on iLearn.
5
WACB Research Report data sources
Human Trafficking
Chon, KY & Khorana, S 2017, ‘Moving Forward: Next Steps in Preventing and Disrupting Human
Trafficking’, in M Chisolm-Straker & H Stoklosa (eds), Human Trafficking Is a Public Health Issue: A
Paradigm Expansion in the United States, Springer International Publishing, Cham, vol.
10.1007/978-3-319-47824-1_24, pp. 415-441, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-47824-1_24
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Mara, D, Lane, J, Scott, B & Trouba, D 2010, ‘Sanitation and Health’, PLoS Medicine, vol. 7, no. 11,
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000363
Gender Income Inequality
Shin, T 2012, ‘The gender gap in executive compensation: the role of female directors and chief
executive officers’, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 639,
no. 1, pp.258-278, doi 10.1177/0002716211421119
Refugee Resettlement
O’Dwyer, M & Mulder, S 2015, Finding satisfying work: the experiences of recent migrants with low
level English, viewed 17 October 2017,
https://www.ames.net.au/files/file/Research/AMES%20Australia%20Finding%20Satisfying%20Work.
pdf
The effect of using microneedle patch to vaccine delivery in
developing countries
Introduction
1
Vaccine-borne diseases cause millions of deaths each year in developing countries. 2Barriers
such as high vaccination costs, lack of trained medical staff to administer the vaccines and the
fear of vaccination impede the growth of immunization in these countries (Arya & Prausnitz
2016, p. 135; Norman et al. 2014, p. 1856; Rouphael et al. 2015, p. 650). 3In order to overcome
these barriers, an improved form of vaccine delivery system is needed. 4One such vaccine
delivery system offering hope for the future is the MicroNeedle Patch (MNP). 5The MNP is a
small adhesive patch consisting of microneedles less than one millimetre in length, which can
easily be applied to the skin by hand (Arya & Prausnitz 2016, p. 136). 6Animal and human
studies have demonstrated that MNPs are just as effective as traditional vaccine delivery
systems but with lower side-effects and physical discomfort (Rouphael et al. 2015, p. 655).
7
However, few studies have focussed on the use of self-administered MNPs in human subjects.
8
This report aims to examine the physical side-effects and pain associated with self-
administered MNPs, and to survey participants about their confidence in self-administration of
MNPs and preferences for MNPs over traditional vaccine delivery systems. 9More specifically, it
aims to assess how tolerable and acceptable the MNP vaccine delivery system is to human
subjects to determine if MNP is a practical solution to low vaccination rates in some developing
countries.
Literature Review
One of the proposed advantages of the MNP is the increased tolerability and acceptability of
1
MNPs to patients compared to traditional vaccine delivery systems. Several small studies have
compared the administration of MNPs in humans to the more traditional intramuscular (IM)
injection. Both Rouphael et al. (2015, p. 655) and Hirobe et al. (2015, p. 53) found that
participants receiving the vaccination via IM injection reported higher rates of pain than those
receiving the vaccination via MNP. This makes MNPs an attractive alternative to conventional
vaccine delivery systems, as many people avoid vaccination injections due to their fear of
needles and the associated pain of injection (Jacoby et al. 2015, p. 4702). Indeed, two recent
studies have found that participants preferred MNPs to traditional IM injections (Norman et al.
2014, p. 1861; Rouphael et al. 2015, p. 655). However, it should be pointed out that some
studies have found skin irritation such as redness and tenderness as a consequence of MNP
administration although these irritations are mild and disappear over time (Hirobe et al. 2015, p.
53; Rouphael et al. 2015, p. 654). Any measures that increase the acceptability of a vaccine
delivery method to individuals should increase the rates of vaccination, which have overall
economic benefits for developing countries including lower rates of sick leave from work, lower
hospital and medical clinic costs and lower mortality rates.
Another major benefit of the MNP vaccine delivery system is that it saves costs due to its ease
of use and waste disposal. The MNP has been designed to allow individuals to apply the patch
themselves, and Norman et al. (2015, p. 1860) showed that participants could self-administer
the MNP without a loss of effect. In addition, the patch dissolves over time thereby eliminating
waste (Rouphael et al. 2015, p. 650). Together, these attributes lower the need for trained
health professionals, who are traditionally responsible for both vaccine administration and
sharps waste disposal. Therefore, MNPs could potentially overcome two barriers to vaccination
in low-income countries: the high costs of large-scale vaccination programs and the lack of
trained medical staff to perform the vaccinations.
2
Method
[omitted]
Results
Skin reactions after self-administration of MNPs
Figure 1: Skin reactions after microneedle patch application using a placebo over a 7 day
period. Skin reactions were divided into four categories: Pain, tenderness, erythema
(redness) and swelling.
Figure 1 illustrates the prevalence of skin reactions experienced by subjects over the seven
days after application of the MNP. As can be seen from the graph, only very mild skin reactions
to MNP were found, with no pain or swelling noted at all and only one individual (7%) reporting
tenderness on day 1. The only skin reaction of note was erythema (redness), which occurred in
100% of cases on day one but gradually decreased over the seven days until it disappeared
completely by day 7. This suggests that MNP has low overall side-effects apart from initial
redness on the skin where the patch is applied, which makes MNP an attractive alternative to
traditional vaccination delivery methods. It is hoped that by reducing the side-effects of vaccine
delivery, the uptake of vaccination will increase.
3
Acceptability of MNP compared to traditional vaccination delivery methods
Figure 2: Acceptability survey results from subjects concerning microneedle patch
administration. (A: Subjects assessment of pain during administration of the MNP on a
scale of 0 (no pain) to 10 (the worst pain ever); B: Subjects rating of confidence about
self-administration on a scale of 0 (not confident) to 5 (very confident); C: Proportion of
subjects who would prefer the Microneedle patch or Intramuscular (IM) injection; D: The
proportion of subjects who would prefer MNP or a pill.
Figure 2 shows the results from a survey conducted to determine the acceptability of the MNP
vaccine delivery system amongst participants after self-administration of an MNP. Overall,
participants were positive about the MNP vaccine delivery system. As can be seen in the graph,
the vast majority of participants recorded no pain (>90%) associated with MNP administration
(figure 2a). In addition, most felt confident during self-administration with 86% recording a 4 or 5
on the self-confidence scale where 5 equates to a high level of confidence (figure 2b). When it
comes to preference for vaccination delivery systems, almost all participants (93%) preferred
the MNP to the traditional intramuscular (IM) injection (figure 2c). However, if an oral pill was
available, more than half (60%) of the participants would prefer that over the MNP (20%) (figure
4
2d). These results show that the MNPs offer a painless alternative to traditional vaccination
methods, which individuals can administer themselves. Finding an effective vaccination method
that is easily self-administered offers great hope for widening vaccination coverage in lowresource countries.
Discussion
Tolerability of MNPs to individuals
Overall, participants displayed high tolerability to MNPs, with very low skin reactions and pain
associated with application. The vast majority of participants recorded no pain associated with
the application (fig 2a), unlike traditional intramuscular injections. This finding is supported by a
study by Raphouel et al. (2015, p. 654), which demonstrated lower pain associated with MNP
application compared to IM injection, and by Hirobe et al. (2015, p. 53), which found no
differences between MNP and IM injection in terms of residual pain after administration.
Furthermore, the current study demonstrated that skin reactions to MNP were low: no pain and
swelling were found in any subject; only one instance of tenderness was found; and although
redness was found in all subjects on the day of injection, it disappeared completely by the
seventh day (fig 1). This is in contrast Hirobe et al.’s study (2015, p. 53), which found that the
MNP caused greater and longer lasting redness compared to the IM injection. This discrepancy
could be because the current study administered only a placebo via MNP whereas Hirobe et al’s
study administered an influenza vaccine, and the redness could indicate an immune response.
In future, studies should focus on the reactions of human subjects to MNP carrying different
vaccines to assess the true extent of skin irritations.
Acceptability of MNPs to individuals
The current study also found that participants’ attitudes towards the MNP vaccine delivery
5
system were overwhelmingly positive (fig 2b-d). Although, more participants would have
preferred to take a pill than the MNP (fig 2d), the vast majority of participants preferred MNP
over intramuscular injection (fig. 2c), which is the most common vaccine delivery system (Arya
& Prausnitz 2016, p. 135). This is consistent with previous studies, which have shown a
preference for MNP over intramuscular injection (Norman et al. 2014, p. 4702; Rouphael et al.
2015, p. 655). This is most probably due to the low incidence of side-effects and pain
associated with the MNP administration compared to IM injections. In addition, most participants
felt confident with self-administration (fig 2b), which is also supported by a previous study by
Norman et al., (2014, p. 1860). They found that not only were participants capable of selfadministering MNP vaccines, but were also more likely to take up vaccination if it could be selfadministered. The benefits of self-administration over assisted administration include a
reduction of vaccination costs and the decrease in the requirement to train health care providers
(Arya & Prausnitz 2015, pp. 138-139). The preference for MNPs and the ability to selfadminister vaccines should lead to expanded vaccination coverage in developing countries.
High vaccination coverage has an overall positive economic impact due to reduced mortality,
reduced sick leave from work and lower impact on hospitals and medical clinics.
Conclusions
The limitations of this research include the small sample size. A larger-scale study with more
participants is recommended in future to ascertain how wide-spread acceptance of MNPs are in
the public.
Overall, the current study demonstrates that MNPs have the potential to boost vaccination rates
in developing countries by overcoming some of the barriers to vaccination including high costs
of vaccination and lack of trained medical staff.
6
References
Arya, J & Prausnitz, MR 2016, ‘Microneedle patches for vaccination in developing countries’,
Journal of Controlled Release, vol. 240, pp. 135-141, viewed 27 July 2017,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment