PUBH 310 Policy Brief: Reducing Mental Health Inequities among Young People

Unit Information

Course code: PUBH 310 (or equivalent “Public Health Policy” or “Health Policy and Advocacy” at undergraduate level)

Course title: Public Health Policy and Advocacy

Assessment title: Assessment 2 – Policy Brief on Youth Mental Health Inequities

Assessment type: Individual written policy brief for decision makers

Weighting: 20–30% of final grade (mid semester assignment)

Length: 1,200–1,500 word brief (approximately 2–3 pages, excluding references)

Due: End of Week 7 (see course schedule)

Assessment Description

You will prepare a succinct policy brief that addresses a clearly defined public health problem related to mental health inequities among young people, such as adolescents or young adults, within a specific jurisdiction. The brief must describe the problem and its significance, analyse the current policy context, propose evidence informed policy options, and present a focused recommendation aimed at a realistic decision making audience such as a health department, education ministry, or local government.

Task Instructions

Step 1: Select Topic, Population and Audience

  • Choose a specific mental health inequity affecting young people, such as higher rates of depression among LGBTQ+ youth, suicide risk in rural adolescents, unmet need for counselling in low income urban communities, or mental health impacts of climate related disasters on young people.

  • Specify the geographic context, for example a state or province, an Australian state, a UK nation, or a defined city or region.

  • Identify a realistic primary policy audience, such as senior officers in a state health department, a parliamentary committee, a school board, or a youth affairs ministry.

Step 2: Structure Your Policy Brief (1,200–1,500 words)

Use clear headings and subheadings as outlined below.

i. Title

  • Write a concise, informative title that signals the issue, population, and main policy focus, for example “Closing the Gap in Depression Care for Rural Adolescents in Victoria”.

    📝 Need Help With This Topic?

    Get a custom-written paper by an expert in this subject. Plagiarism-free, on time, any citation style.

    • ✓ PhD & Masters qualified writers
    • ✓ Turnitin-safe — 0% similarity
    • ✓ Free revisions + money-back guarantee
    Get My Paper Now

    From $11/page · All academic levels

ii. Executive Summary (approximately 150–200 words)

  • Provide a short overview of the problem, who is affected, why it matters now, and your key policy recommendation or recommendations.

  • Write this section last but place it at the beginning of the brief.

iii. Problem Statement and Background (approximately 300–350 words)

  • Define the public health problem precisely, including how it manifests as an inequity between groups such as age, gender, socio economic status, location, or ethnicity.

  • Present key data on prevalence, trends, and consequences for young people and for systems such as education, justice, or employment, drawing on recent epidemiological or survey data.

  • Explain briefly why the issue is urgent or politically salient, such as post pandemic mental health impacts, recent inquiries, or rising service demand.

iv. Current Policy Context (approximately 250–300 words)

  • Summarise existing relevant policies, programs, or funding streams in your chosen jurisdiction, such as national youth mental health strategies, school based wellbeing programs, or telehealth initiatives.

  • Identify gaps, limitations, or implementation issues, including uneven geographic coverage, long waiting times, lack of youth participation, or barriers for marginalised groups.

  • Note briefly any key stakeholders and their interests, such as youth organisations, professional bodies, parent groups, or non government organisations.

v. Policy Options (approximately 300–350 words)

  • Present two to three evidence informed policy options that could reduce the identified inequity, such as expanding school based mental health teams in low income areas, funding peer led digital support programmes, or integrating mental health screening into primary care for young people.

  • For each option, describe what it involves and how it would work, the expected benefits and supporting evidence, and key challenges or risks such as workforce capacity, costs, or political feasibility.

vi. Recommendations (approximately 150–200 words)

  • Select one preferred option, or a small package of complementary actions, and justify your choice with reference to impact, equity, feasibility, and alignment with existing strategies.

  • State clearly what you want the target decision makers to do, within what timeframe, and at what level, such as policy change, pilot funding, regulatory adjustment, or cross sector collaboration.

vii. Implementation and Evaluation Considerations (approximately 150–200 words)

  • Outline key steps for implementation, including which agencies or partners would need to be involved and how young people could be engaged in design and delivery.

    🌟 Writers Who Have Helped Students Like You

    Our expert writers specialise in this subject and deliver original, well-researched papers.

    S
    Dr. Sarah M.★★★★★ 4.97 · 1,240 orders
    Nursing & Healthcare · PhD Edinburgh
    J
    Prof. James K.★★★★★ 4.95 · 980 orders
    Business & Law · MBA London

  • Suggest a small set of measurable indicators to monitor progress and equity impacts, such as service access by demographic group, waiting times, or self reported wellbeing.

Formatting and Referencing Requirements

  • 1,200–1,500 words (2–3 pages), typed, single or 1.15 spacing, 11–12 point font, with clear section headings.

  • Write for an informed but non specialist policy audience, avoid unnecessary jargon and define technical terms briefly.

  • Use visuals only where they add clear value, such as one small table or figure summarising key statistics.

  • Use APA 7th edition for in text citations and the reference list.

  • Include at least 8–10 recent scholarly and grey literature sources from 2018–2026, including peer reviewed articles, government reports, and reputable NGO publications.

Marking Criteria / Rubric

Criterion 1: Problem Definition and Use of Evidence (30%)

  • High distinction: Provides a precise, compelling problem statement that clearly articulates the inequity and its significance, supported by high quality and recent evidence.

  • Pass: Identifies a relevant problem with some supporting evidence, though clarity or depth may be limited.

  • Unsatisfactory: Problem is vague or weakly evidenced, with limited or inappropriate sources.

Criterion 2: Policy Analysis and Options (35%)

  • High distinction: Demonstrates strong understanding of the policy context and develops realistic, evidence informed policy options with critical analysis.

  • Pass: Describes current policies and options with some analytical commentary.

  • Unsatisfactory: Limited policy context and poorly developed or unsupported options.

Criterion 3: Audience Focus, Structure and Style (20%)

  • High distinction: Clear brief format, concise language, and strong alignment with the intended policy audience.

    🎉 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed — or Your Money Back

    Join 12,400+ students who trust us with their academic success. Every order includes: free revisions within 30 days, plagiarism report, on-time delivery guarantee, and full confidentiality.

    ★★★★★

    4.9/5 from 12,400+ reviews

    Order & Get 20% Off

  • Pass: Generally clear structure with minor issues in flow or focus.

  • Unsatisfactory: Poor organisation or inappropriate tone for policy audiences.

Criterion 4: Referencing and Academic Integrity (15%)

  • High distinction: Accurate and consistent APA referencing with all claims properly attributed.

  • Pass: Adequate sources with minor referencing errors.

  • Unsatisfactory: Insufficient sources or frequent citation errors.

Sample Analytical Passage (Problem and Recommendation)

Rates of psychological distress and suicidal ideation among young people have risen markedly over the past decade, yet these increases are not evenly distributed across populations. Evidence from high income countries indicates that young people experiencing intersecting disadvantages, including poverty, minority status, or rural residence, are significantly more likely to report unmet mental health needs and delays in accessing care. Service gaps are particularly visible during the transition from child to adult mental health services, where age based eligibility criteria and fragmented commissioning models result in discontinuity of care. Expanding youth friendly mental health hubs in underserved communities offers a practical and evidence informed response. These hubs integrate clinical care with outreach, peer support, and social services, reducing barriers related to cost, stigma, and service navigation. Targeted investment in such models, combined with routine collection of disaggregated data, would support progress toward reducing inequities while aligning with broader commitments to parity between mental and physical health.

International evidence shows that early intervention and community based youth mental health services are associated with improved access, better continuity of care, and reduced severity of mental health outcomes among disadvantaged young people. Evaluations of integrated youth mental health models demonstrate positive impacts on service engagement and client satisfaction, particularly when services are designed with active youth participation and delivered in non clinical settings (McGorry et al., 2019).

Learning Resources / References

  • World Health Organization. (2021). Guidance on mental health policy and service development for adolescents and young people. Geneva: WHO.

  • Patel, V., Saxena, S., Lund, C., Thornicroft, G., Baingana, F., Bolton, P., et al. (2018). The Lancet Commission on global mental health and sustainable development. The Lancet, 392(10157), 1553–1598. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31612-X

  • O’Dea, B., O’Young, M., Hughes, T., & Batterham, P. J. (2021). Youth mental health service models and outcomes: A systematic review. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 15(3), 595–608. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12966

  • Shaw, S., Mather, S., & Kelly, C. (2020). Policy responses to rising youth mental health problems: A scoping review of high income countries. Health Policy, 124(11), 1207–1218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2020.07.007

  • American Public Health Association. (2025). Proposed public health policy briefs outline.

  • McGorry, P. D., Mei, C., Chanen, A., Hodges, C., Alvarez-Jimenez, M., & Killackey, E. (2019). Designing and scaling up integrated youth mental health care. World Psychiatry, 18(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1002/wps.20598