Association Of Schools Of Public Health Research Articles

Developing core competencies for monitoring and evaluation tracks in South Asian MPH programs.

BackgroundMonitoring and evaluation (M&E) provides vital information for decision-making and its structures, systems and processes are expected to be integrated throughout the life-cycle of public health programs. The acquisition of these skills should be developed in a structured manner and needs educational systems to identify core competencies in M&E teaching. This article presents our work on harmonizing M&E competencies for Masters level programs in the South Asian context and undertaking the global review of M&E track/ concentration offered in various Masters of Public Health (MPH) programs.MethodsThrough an online search and snow-balling, we mapped institutions offering M&E tracks/ concentrations in Masters of Public Health (MPH) programs globally. We obtained detailed information about their M&E curriculum from university websites and brochures. The data on curricular contents was extracted and compiled. We analyzed the curricular contents using the framework for core competencies developed by the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH); and the Miller’s triangle. This data was then used to inform a consultative exercise aimed at identifying core competencies for an M&E track/ concentration in MPH programs in the South Asian context.ResultsOur curricular review of M&E content within MPH programs globally showed that different domains or broad topic areas relating to M&E are covered differently across the programs. The quantitative sciences (Biostatistics and Epidemiology) and Health Policy and Management are covered in much greater depth than the other two domains (Social & Behavioral Sciences and Environmental Health Sciences). The identification of core competencies for an M&E track/ concentration in the South Asian context was undertaken through a consultative group exercise involving representation from 11 institutions across Bangladesh, India, Nepal and Sri Lanka. During the consultation, the group engaged in a focused discussion to reach consensus on a set of 15 core competencies for an M&E track in South Asian MPH programs.ConclusionThis work presents an opportunity for institutions to identify and re-examine their M&E competencies as a part of their specialized tracks within MPH programs. Our curricular analysis approach has the potential for adaptation and further use in curriculum analysis across different academic specialties.

Contributions of academia to public health preparedness research.

The 2006 Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act (PAHPA) resulted in the development of several major program areas designed to respond to its legislation, “to improve the nation's public health and medical preparedness and response capabilities for emergencies, whether deliberate, accidental, or natural.”1 In 2008, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Office of Public Health Preparedness and Response (OPHPR) created seven Preparedness and Emergency Response Research Centers (PERRCs) in an effort to support the goals of PAHPA. The program expanded to nine centers in 2009. PERRCs, located at Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH)-accredited schools of public health, were tasked to improve “public health practice for preparedness and emergency response planning and policies at the local, state, federal, and tribal level.”2 CEPH is an independent agency certified by the U.S. Department of Education that accredits schools and programs of public health to assure compliance with well-defined standards. CDC established a cooperative agreement in 2008 with the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), now known as the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health (ASPPH), to provide programmatic support to the PERRCs (“Year Four: ASPH Continuation Application,” application by CDC, June 2008). As the voice of accredited public health education, ASPPH works to transform public health by strengthening and promoting the education, research, service, and practice activities of CEPH-accredited schools and programs of public health and by advocating for the investments in science that will advance population health. A commitment to advocating for evidence-based public health policies and programs lies at the core of the ASPPH mission (Unpublished document, ASPPH Strategic Framework, ASPPH, 2013). PERRCs conduct research that can be used to enhance public health preparedness (PHP) policies, planning, and response.2 Most health departments lack the resources to test new theories or concepts, but the federal funding allocated for these centers allows researchers to be more innovative in their work.3 The PERRCs have formed numerous collaborations with community partners and performed extensive outreach, including to disciplines not traditionally engaged in public health activities, such as engineering, law, and public policy. Involving stakeholders is a crucial component of translational research.4 As a result, those working with communities can feel confident that their activities and trainings are rooted in evidence.

Nutrition and Public Health: Preparing Registered Dietitian Nutritionists for Marketplace Demands

Since its founding in 1917, the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (Academy), formerly known as the American Dietetic Association, has been committed to improving the nation's health and advancing the profession through education, research, and advocacy. 1 Bittle C. Dwyer J.T. Hughes B.A. Robinson G. Samour P. Legislative and Public Policy Committee of the American Dietetic AssociationADA's historic commitment to improve nutrition policy. J Am Diet Assoc. 2001; 101: 406-407 Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (2) Google Scholar , 2 Chambers M.J. Professional dietetic education in the US historical notes. J Am Diet Assoc. 1979; 72: 596-599 Google Scholar , 3 Cody M.M. The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics' public policy priorities overview. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013; 113: 392-394 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar With an appreciation of the developments in science and technology and the recent transformation of the complex health care environment, 4 The Academy Quality Management Committee and Scope of Practice Subcommittee of the Quality Management committeeAcademy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Scope of Practice for the Registered Dietitian. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2013; 113: S17-S28 PubMed Scopus (43) Google Scholar , 5 Jacobson P.D. Gostin L.O. Restoring health to health reform. J Am Med Assoc. 2010; 304: 85-86 Crossref Scopus (10) Google Scholar , 6 Haughton B. Stang J. Population risk factors and trends in health care and public policy. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112: S35-S46 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar the Academy recognizes the need for the profession to prepare the registered dietitian nutritionist (RDN) for these new public health priorities. 6 Haughton B. Stang J. Population risk factors and trends in health care and public policy. J Acad Nutr Diet. 2012; 112: S35-S46 Abstract Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (30) Google Scholar , 7 Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH). ASPH Policy Brief. Confronting the Public Health Workforce Crisis. Executive Summary. December 2008. Google Scholar This commentary reflects on the expanding role and credentials of the RDN in the field of public health and anticipates potential opportunities for additional research on best instructional practices to prepare the RDN for emerging marketplace demands. A. M. Davis is an assistant professor of nutrition, Department of Nutrition and Public Health, University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT. S. G. Affenito is dean and professor of nutrition, School of Health and Natural Sciences, University of Saint Joseph, West Hartford, CT.

Improving Global Health Education: Development of a Global Health Competency Model

Although global health is a recommended content area for the future of education in public health, no standardized global health competency model existed for master-level public health students. Without such a competency model, academic institutions are challenged to ensure that students are able to demonstrate the knowledge, skills, and attitudes (KSAs) needed for successful performance in today's global health workforce. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) sought to address this need by facilitating the development of a global health competency model through a multistage modified-Delphi process. Practitioners and academic global health experts provided leadership and guidance throughout the competency development process. The resulting product, the Global Health Competency Model 1.1, includes seven domains and 36 competencies. The Global Health Competency Model 1.1 provides a platform for engaging educators, students, and global health employers in discussion of the KSAs needed to improve human health on a global scale.

Core Competencies for Doctoral Education in Public Health

The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) released the Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) Core Competency Model in 2009. Between 2007 and 2009, a national expert panel with members of the academic and practice communities guided by the ASPH Education Committee developed its 7 performance domains, including 54 competencies. We provide an overview and analysis of the challenges and issues associated with the variability in DrPH degree offerings, reflect on the model development process and related outcomes, and discuss the significance of the model, future applications, and challenges for integration across educational settings. With the model, ASPH aims to stimulate national discussion on the competencies needed by DrPH graduates with the new challenges of 21st-century public health practice and to better define the DrPH degree.

Tsunamis Slosh Public Health Practice And Scholarship Together

Marion County Public Health Department and Division of Infectious Diseases, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana (Dr Caine); and National Association of County and City Health Officials, Washington, District of Columbia (Mr Pestronk). Correspondence: Virginia A. Caine, MD, Marion County Public Health Department, 3838 N. Rural Street, Indianapolis, IN 46205 ([email protected]). The Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, and the Editor-in-Chief Lloyd Novick, graciously agreed to host this special issue called “Teaching and Learning in the Community.” The authors thank Dr Novick and his staff for their support, advice, and technical expertise. They also thank ASPH (Association of Schools of Public Health), Pfizer, and the members of the Academy of Distinguished Public Health Teachers, along with Elizabeth Weist of ASPH, who played a key role in initiating this project for their support of linkages between academic public health and communities. Finally, they thank their colleagues who submitted their work for peer review, and the volunteer reviewers who maintained the journal's high standards of excellence.

Opportunity Knocks but Twice for Public Health Preparedness Centers

Opportunity Knocks but Twice for Public Health Preparedness Centers

Crosswalking Public Health and Health Education Competencies

This article highlights similarities and differences between the public health competencies recently developed by the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) and one public health specialty, health education (HE), which has used competencies in its quality assurance systems for more than 20 years. Based on a crosswalk methodology developed for this analysis, some 50 percent to 61 percent of the HE and ASPH competencies had similarities of varying degrees; 18 percent were deemed matches due to sameness in skill or content. Most similarities were found between the ASPH social and behavioral sciences competencies and the HE competencies. Significant domains of "no match" were found between the HE and ASPH competencies in the areas of Systems Thinking, Leadership, and Public Health Biology. The study results have implications for academic programs related to curricula review and revision, continuing education providers who are developing training agendas for the workforce, employers anticipating competencies in new job hires, and prospective students and practitioners who are considering a form of certification. Qualitative insights from the study related to professional culture, purpose, age, and consistency of the scope or depth of the two competency sets, as well as the crosswalk methodology itself, may be useful to those comparing other competency sets.

Demonstrating excellence in the scholarship of practice-based service for public health.

Practice-based scholarship in public health addresses community health issues. The accredited schools of public health (SPHs) have played a significant role in defining and implementing the multidisciplinary, interprofessional, ecological approach to improving the health and safety of communities through academic public health practice. These schools have addressed the challenges raised by the Institute of Medicine for enhancing academic-practice linkages. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) established the Council of Public Health Practice Coordinators (Practice Council), whose members are delegates from each of the SPHs accredited by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH); there were 40 as of 2008. The Practice Council's priorities are to (1) promote greater commitment to scholarship in public health practice-based research, teaching, and service within SPHs, and (2) facilitate recognition and reward for practice-based scholarship in academic institutions. Extensive alignment of efforts by the Practice Council, SPHs, federal agencies, private institutions, and the practice sector have invigorated scholarship in academic public health practice.

Public Health Certification

In 2003, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended voluntary certification of graduates achieving the Master of Public Health degree. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), the American Public Health Association, the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials, the National Association of County and City Health Officials, and the Association for Prevention Teaching and Research joined together to establish the National Board of Public Health Examiners (5). This new body will certify graduates of accredited schools and programs of public health who successfully pass their examination. If this certification becomes common, the debate will move to other questions such as (a) can those who lack a degree from a school of public health be certified through the same examination, or a similar one; (b) how will this general certificate relate to specialized areas of public health practice which are also learned elsewhere; and (c) how will we assess the public health competence of public health workers who do not have a professional education?

On Academics: A Review of the Status of the Doctor of Public Health Degree and Identification of Future Issues

The doctor of public health (DrPH) degree is currently receiving a resurgence of attention in schools of public health (SPHs), including the establishment of new degrees and the revision of existing degrees. In an effort to increase understanding of the degree, the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) conducted studies in 1993 and 1999. In 2003, the DrPH degree was a topic of the 2003 ASPH Associate Deans’ Retreat. Following a preconference survey, the associate deans were divided into breakout groups to discuss and make conclusions addressing four areas of interest to the DrPH degree: (1) general issues, demand, and accreditation; (2) program admission criteria; (3) didactic course content; and (4) field experience, examination, and capstone/dissertation requirements. The conclusions of these associate deans led to a series of general questions for further consideration in the evolution of the DrPH education and may offer guidance to the recently begun ASPH DrPH competency development project (available from: URL: http://www.asph.org/document.cfm?page=1004) as well as individual programs.

Core Academic Competencies for Master of Public Health Students: One Health Department Practitioner’s Perspective

The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) has developed a comprehensive set of core academic competencies for master of public health (MPH) graduates. The ASPH core MPH competencies delineate fundamental knowledge, attitudes, and skills that every MPH student, regardless of their major field, should possess upon graduation. From a public health agency perspective, this is a promising development. The ASPH MPH core competencies are complementary to the Core Competencies for Public Health Practice developed by the Council on Linkages Between Academia and Public Health Practice. Although a useful development, the academic MPH core competencies should not be confused with a conclusive definition of what constitutes a public health professional.

Untapped Resources: Exploring the Need to Invest in Doctor of Public Health–Degree Training and Leadership Development

As stated in the Institute of Medicine report Who Will Keep the Public Healthy? the doctor of public health (DrPH) degree is offered for advanced training in public health leadership.1 The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) classifies the DrPH as a professional degree, as opposed to the more academic, research-oriented PhD degree.2 As a professional degree, the DrPH is oriented toward practice (i.e., the strategic, interdisciplinary application of knowledge and skills necessary to execute the public health core functions of assessment, policy development, and assurance3) in public health settings, including community, state, federal, and international agencies.2 These descriptions of the DrPH degree are consistent with those presented on the Web sites of the 23 of 38 ASPH-accredited schools of public health that offer the degree.4 Based on these widely endorsed descriptions of the DrPH degree, it is appropriate to recognize it as the highest professional degree in public health. Unfortunately, despite the degree’s significance, there is currently no national competency model for DrPH training. In addition, the fieldwide leadership role of DrPH practitioners is relatively undefined. Incomplete and inefficient treatment, combined with the collapse of public health systems in Abkhazia, have helped create strains of bacilli that are resistant to antituberculosis drugs. Used with permission of Aurora Photos. Copyright by Serge Sibert/Cosmos/Aurora.

On Academics: Teaching Excellence in Public Health: A Call to Action

'Publish or perish' is the mantra of faculty members at most major universities nationwide. While research and its resulting publications are vital to [universities], teaching excellence must be, too. But unfortunately, that is not always the case?especially in professional schools that rely on 'soft' money, salary funding that individual researchers raise for themselves through grants.1 ?David Kleinbaum, first recipient of the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH)/ Pfizer Award for Teaching Excellence

On academics: perspectives on the future of academic public health practice.

The Center for Public Health Practice at the University of Pittsburgh’s Graduate School of Public Health started in 1995, simultaneously with similar units at virtually every other Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) member school of the mid-1990s. It was a time when the academic public health community, motivated by the Institute of Medicine’s 1988 report,1 was attending seriously to the quality and dimensions of its relationships with the professionals, agencies, and organizations that made up the field of public health practice. Of the then 28 fully accredited schools of public health, all were conducting continuing education programs, student internships and practica, and faculty members’ consultation services to the field.2 However, at that same time, academic approaches to meeting the needs of research, teaching, and service for professional practice were not very deeply institutionalized. Institutional funding for practice activities was rare; and, most often, such activities were left to the discretion of individual faculty members.2 A high degree of variability in emphasis on professional practice existed among schools and among departments within schools. For example, well into the late 1990s, not all schools had been assessed for adherence to a new accreditation criterion requiring that students in the curricula of every master’s degree in public health (MPH) have a directed practice experience.3 By 2005, much had changed. By then, the ASPH Council of Practice Coordinators had advanced standards for academic public health practice (APHP), defining it as the applied, interdisciplinary pursuit of scholarship in the field of public health.4 The Council had also written about practice-based teaching5 and practice-based research.6 In 2005, deans of schools of public health recognized the centrality of practice to their schools’ missions by organizing a Practice Committee within the ASPH governing structure. Much of the early vision for practice-oriented scholarship had been realized, and it was time to pause and reflect. In October of 2005, the University of Pittsburgh’s On Academics Center for Public Health Practice (CPHP) celebrated its 10th anniversary by hosting a one-day symposium titled “Perspectives on Transforming the Field of Academic Public Health Practice.” The goals of the symposium were to: (1) reflect upon the history of academic public health practice; (2) identify the successes, experiences, considerations, and perspectives related to APHP; and (3) recommend ways of transforming it. The presenters were outstanding scholar-practitioners whose experience spanned national to local practice and whose affiliations included government as well as academia. This article is a synthesis of the themes and ideas that emerged throughout the symposium.

A scan of program evaluation at the Houston Department of Health and Human Services.

This article describes a project designed to build on the existing relationship between The University of Texas School of Public Health (UTSPH) and the Houston Department of Health and Human Services (HDHHS) to develop an active and participatory academic health department. Both organizations agreed that a partner ship strengthens public health practice in the city and that the time has come to harness the strengths of each entity and partner to enhance public health practice in the city. Furthermore, the mission and values of the UTSPH and HDHHS complement each other and provide guidance for such a partnership, especially as it pertains to the three main functions of public health: (i) assessment of the health and well-being of the community; (2) development of initiatives to improve health, reduce risks, and reduce injuries and disabilities; and (3) ensuring that these initiatives are applied as intended and are effective. Several Institute of Medicine (IOM) reports and Practice Coordinators' Council of the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) reports have called for better linkages between academic and govern mental public health institutions. One specific rec ommendation from the 1999 ASPH report is relevant to this project: establish and enhance linkages with practice-based and community sector partners, which will cement channels for interaction and increase the

Injury Prevention and Control Research and Training in Accredited Schools of Public Health: A CDC/ASPH Assessment

The 1999 report by the Institute of Medicine (IOM), Reducing the Burden of Injury, notes that in the USA injury prevention is the only major field of public health where sustained training programs do not exist. In 2001, the CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (CDC Injury Center) asked the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) to determine the extent to which schools of public health are currently providing and supporting injury research and training. ASPH conducted a baseline assessment on the extent of injury research, faculty expertise, curricula, and training in schools of public health. Injury prevention was defined as activities to prevent, ameliorate, treat, and/or reduce injury-related disability and death. The definition of injury covered two general categories: general injuries -- unintentional (including poisoning, spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries, motor vehicle injuries, falls, fires, pedestrian-related injuries, water-related injuries, and natural disasters), and violence (child maltreatment, intimate partner violence, sexual violence, suicide, youth violence, and terrorism). The assessment excluded injuries that occur within occupational and/or industrial environments. ASPH queried all department chairs and each dean of academic affairs at the 33 accredited schools of public health in 2002-2003. Overall, 30 of the 33 member schools (93%) responded. Two different surveys were administered to provide information on the breadth and scope of injury activity. Thirteen schools of public health operate a total of 17 formal injury structures, such as a center, institute, office, or division. Of the 163 courses identified, only 35 (21%) have injury or violence prevention as the primary focus. Such courses are primarily offered through the departments of health behavior/health education (28%) and epidemiology (25%). Three schools require an injury course for injury-related doctoral programs. No school required an injury course for any master's degree. Respondents noted the top three needs of schools of public health to better prepare students and current practitioners as: (1) recruitment of faculty with injury expertise; (2) student training funds; and (3) faculty development funds. Further, the top three barriers to better promoting the principles of injury prevention and control mirrored the top three needs: (1) insufficient faculty, (2) limited courses, and (3) lack of student training funds. The main types of funders for injury research in schools of public health are federal agencies and foundations. Three federal agencies -- the CDC, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) -- provided the most ongoing support to two or more schools of public health between January 1999 and July 2002 (30%). Two foundations, the MacArthur Foundation and the David & Lucille Packard Foundation, provided support to two or more schools of public health between January 1999 and July 2002. Language: en

Academic Centers for Public Health Preparedness: A Giant Step for Practice in Schools of Public Health

(Authors' note: This article was originally written and submitted in April 2004. Since then, substantial changes have been made to the Academic Centers for Public Health Preparedness [ACPHP] program. The 23 ACPHP have united with earmarked specialty centers located in schools of medicine, dentistry, and veterinary medicine to become a network of 40 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Centers for Public Health Preparedness [CPHP]. The Association of Schools of Public Health [ASPH] continues to play a vital role in coordinating network activities. To learn more about the CPHP network's current activities, visit ASPH's website at http://www.asph.org.) Before the 1990s, it was difficult to find tangible evidence of a serious focus on public health practice in most of the U.S. schools of public health. In the years since, national and public health community events have affected changes to refocus the schools of public health to start dealing seriously with the issues of training, service, and research in public health practice. Established in 2000 to improve the safety of our communities, the Academic Centers for Public Health Preparedness (ACPHP) have not only made significant contributions to workforce readiness, but have advanced academic-practice partnerships. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH), the coordinating body of the ACPHP network, undertook a qualitative evaluation of the program. Results demonstrated that the ACPHP were developing valuable expertise in preparedness issues, assessing the training needs of their partners, and testing the effectiveness of the trainings using exercises and drills. During February and March 2004, 21 ACPHP located at 23 schools of public health, along with their practice partners, participated in a qualitative Peer Review and Practice Evaluation (also called reverse site visits) hosted by ASPH and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta. This article provides background on the historical context of the establishment of the ACPHP, then presents themes learned from the ACPHP evaluation process and offers commentary on how a program focused on increasing public health workers' ability to respond to terrorist threats also significantly advanced academic-practice partnerships, which have been struggling for years.

From the Chair of the ASPH Board

Preparedness of the workforce has relationships with many sectors within the public health system. Accomplishment of preparedness at any level requires cooperation on many levels. Professionals in the practice community and those from schools of public health need to work together to build the United States' capacity to respond to the needs of individuals and populations as a result of terrorism and other threats. While this may seem like something new, in reality this is similar to what public health has always done. Gains in the health of the American population can be attributed in major part to the collaborative pathway of understanding from the scientists to the bedside to the community. These successes highlight the invisibility of successful public health and prevention strategies and explain the complacency that plagues us in public health. The threat of terrorism shatters this sense of complacency and increases the need for public health professionals at all levels. We need to strengthen existing and establish new partnerships beyond public health with state and local colleagues who share the concern for the health and safety of the public. Terrorism engenders the need for urgency. Urgency highlights the gaps in trained personnel who will be needed to work across the community agencies responding to an emergency. It mandates the need for operational research that can help accelerate the translation of science into clinical and population-based practice. The Academic Centers for Public Health Preparedness (A-CPHP) within the schools of public health are vital conduits to assist in filling the gaps in trained public health professionals and in hastening the translation of science into practice. This investment will help prepare the academic and practice communities to build a new public health infrastructure that can function within the continuous presence of new and emerging threats. The Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) is grateful to have a role in the design and implementation of the A-CPHP program. We thank the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for its leadership in recognizing early on the need for advanced training for the public health workforce and involving the ASPH, its staff, and its member schools as leaders in this process.

ASPH/American Legacy Foundation STEP UP Program: An innovative partnership for tobacco studies in the schools of public health.

In 2001, the Association of Schools of Public Health (ASPH) and the American Legacy Foundation teamed up on the Scholarship, Training, and Education Program for Tobacco Use Prevention (STEP UP). This five-year project seeks to accomplish three goals: (1) to increase the number of graduate students and faculty in public health who specialize in tobacco studies and research; (2) to better integrate tobacco-related issues into graduate public health education; and (3) to build a stronger infrastructure for tobacco-related education in schools of public health. The ASPHLegacy partnership aims to increase the visibility of tobacco control topics within the graduate public health educational setting. STEP UP’s ultimate goal is to create sustainable academic environments for training students and to support post-doctoral and faculty development in tobacco prevention and control. This project is consistent with the ASPH’s mission to support and promote research, teaching, service, and practice excellence in the member schools of public health.