After the field study, at the end of the course, each student write an individual paper (3000-4000 words, font Times New Roman 12, row 1,5). Departing in the course literature and perspectives relevant to the course the planed intervention is discussed. Since your intervention is described in the other text you may use parts of that description, 500 words, that may be transferred from the text describing the field study and intervention to this text in which you 7are supposed to discuss it. The individual text shall include the seven sections described below. It is important that you use and refer to thecourse literature.1.Present a summary of the aim and methods ofthe health interventionthat your group designed (maximum500 words) 2.Discussand problematize theoretical aspects of health promotion and disease prevention that influenced your design.3.Describe which participatory approachesyou used in the communityin order to get in contact with peoplewhen you wanted to understand their point of view of health and illness. 4.Problematize your experiences of the field study relatedto communication and health literacy. 5.Present theoretical aspects of one or more social cognitive modelsyou used in the health intervention and discuss the strength and weaknesses with this /these models. 6.Present and discussperspectives on cultureand religion that have informed your understandingof the health problem and the design of the intervention.7.Discuss ethical issues and professional conductin relation to the planning andperforming of health interventions and the communicating of healthimprovement information.8.Discuss the importance of evaluationwhen planning a health promotive or preventive intervention. After I wrote the paper the lecturer did not accept it and wrote these comments: The first two sections does not present the health intervention in an informative, easy to understand manner. You do not present the actual intervention, but some reasons for paying interest to immigrant women’s’ health, and the ways you gathered data. And, did you not conduct interviews? It is said that a questionnaire was distributed. These two sections are also very hard to follow due to the quality of the language. In the “Theoretical aspects” section a very brief introduction is given to HBM, you do not, however, discuss how this model may be used, what it in practice means to use HBM (for example in contrast to other “traditional” educational models/programs). The Social cognitive approach is also introduced briefly, what it means to work with such an approach, problems etc is not discuss. The section “Participatory approaches” deals mainly with some rather general methodological matters. Questions of how to include the participants and/or benefits associated with it are by and large not addressed. In “Communication and health literacy challenges” accounts from your informants of instances when communication appears to have failed are given. You present these, but you do not discuss how we should understand them. What are they examples of? Under the heading “The theoretical…” central aspects of HBM is presented briefly, you do however not discuss any strengths and weaknesses of SCM’s. In the section on culture it is difficult to see how perspectives on culture (and religion) has informed your understanding health problems or the design of the intervention. Have you read Edberg? Regarding ethics, what appears to be relevant perspectives and concepts are brought up, some of these are however not fully explained and the relation between the various parts of the text is somewhat hard to grasp. Important matters regarding evaluation are introduced and it is positive that you also comment on how you will evaluate your intervention. Parts of this section is difficult to understand, not least the paragraph ending with reference to Glanx, Rimer &Viswanath. The text needs be improved in relation to the problems pointed to above. Make also sure that you follow the guidelines in the coureguide. The quality of the language needs to be improved in the entire text, the text is extremely difficult to understand due to grammatical problems but also in many cases due to a lack of consistency between sentences and paragraphs. The list of references must also be neater – you write the references in somewhat different ways (spacing, primarily).