Research article
Graduate programs: What is their contribution to the training of the public health workforce?

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(03)00016-3Get rights and content

Abstract

Objectives

To determine characteristics of community health/preventive medicine and community health education graduate programs.

Methods

Forty-eight graduate programs were identified as potential respondents and sent a written survey to complete.

Results

Forty programs responded; 82% of programs accredited or applying for accreditation responded. During the 1998–1999 period, 3456 students were enrolled and 773 students graduated from these programs, 91% earning the master of public health (MPH) degree. Two thirds of students were employed while enrolled in these programs.

Conclusion

Graduate programs train a significant number of public health students, meeting the needs of health professionals with flexible course formats in locations where schools of public health are not available.

Introduction

T he need for well-trained public health workers has never been greater. Well-documented threats, from bioterrorism to emerging infectious diseases and environmental contamination, face the nation.1 Recent reports and initiatives emphasize (1) the various educational and experiential paths leading to careers in public health; (2) the lack of formal education in public health by a majority of the public health workforce; (3) the aging of the public health workforce; and (4) the tremendous changes in the functions of the public health system.2, 3, 4, 5 The 1988 Institute of Medicine Report, The Future of Public Health,2 charged schools of public health and other educational institutions with educating new students and existing public health workers to assume leadership positions and to practice public health in new and different settings. What do we know about the academic public health institutions where this education occurs?

Academic public health encompasses the schools of public health (SPH), graduate programs in community health/preventive medicine (CHPM), and graduate programs in community health education (CHE). The Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) accredits all of these academic public health institutions, and the accreditation procedures for all institutions are the same. In 2000, Clark and Weist6 reported that approximately 4800 masters-prepared students completed their training in the 28 SPH existing at that time.

The CHPM programs offer masters degrees in a variety of concentrations and fields, while the CHE programs offer degrees solely in health education. Throughout the United States, the number of graduate public health programs is growing more rapidly than the schools of public health.7 The CHPM and CHE graduate programs are a vital resource for the training of the public health workforce; however, data on these programs have not been collected and published since 1994.8

CEPH defines three accreditation categories: accredited, pre-accredited, and applicant.9 Schools and programs have similar but distinct accreditation criteria.10, 11, 12 The differences follow:

  • 1.

    A school of public health must demonstrate organizational independence; that is, it must have the same status and independence afforded to other professional schools (e.g., medicine) at the university. A program can be housed within a school of medicine or another professional school.

  • 2.

    A school of public health must offer an MPH degree concentration in each of the five core disciplines: epidemiology, biostatistics, environmental health, the social and behavioral sciences, and health administration. A program can offer one or more MPH degrees in any discipline or a generalist emphasis.

  • 3.

    A school of public health must offer at least one doctoral degree. There is no such requirement for programs.

Between the CHPM and CHE programs there is only one major difference in accreditation criteria.11, 12 The health education criteria (Criterion V, B) delineate specific health-education competency areas that a CHE program must provide.12 The CHPM criteria are not specific as to teaching particular competencies.

The accreditation criteria for schools and programs are otherwise the same. CEPH requires that accredited educational institutions periodically provide data as the basis for longer terms of accreditation. The data have consistent definitions and methodologies within each of the three sets of accreditation criteria. The Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine (ATPM), through its Council of Graduate Programs in Preventive Medicine and Public Health, facilitates collection of data on graduate programs.

In 1999, the Council of Graduate Programs decided to survey the CHE and CHPM programs in collaboration with CEPH. The Health Resources and Services Administration provided support to ATPM to identify the sample, create the survey instrument, analyze the data, and prepare the report. CEPH provided mailing services for the survey, created a database, and provided data entry services.

Section snippets

Creating the survey instrument

A committee of the Council of Graduate Programs created the survey instrument. The committee reviewed the 1994 graduate programs survey and the survey instrument used by the Association of Schools of Public Health to create an updated survey instrument with two sections. The first section queried data on degrees and concentrations offered; course formats; degree requirements; financial information; additional program offerings, such as residencies; and general information on students,

Response rate

Table 1 presents the number of responding and nonresponding programs by CEPH affiliation. Thirty-seven (82%) of the 45 CEPH-affiliated programs that had students during the period surveyed returned the survey. For fully accredited programs, the response rate was 79%. Twenty-two (85%) of the 26 CHPM-accredited programs and 8 of the 12 (67%) CHE-accredited programs returned the survey. All CHPM pre-accredited programs and one third of the applicant programs (two CHPM and one CHE) responded to the

Findings

With more than 3000 students seeking MPH degrees, the CHPM and CHE graduate programs are training a significant number of public health students. These programs add more than 700 MPH graduates a year to the 4800 reported by the schools of public health,6 with one out of every eight MPH degrees awarded by a graduate program.

Two thirds of the students in these programs continued to work while studying for their masters degree, with almost half working full-time. More than half of the students

Conclusion

This survey provides an overall picture of how 40 graduate programs in public health contribute to educating the future public health workforce. In states or cities lacking schools of public health, the graduate programs provide the only graduate-level training for many students interested in entering public health and continuing education for current public health employees. While some institutions may start with a graduate program and later transition to a school of public health, other

Acknowledgements

This project was funded by the Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine (ATPM)/Health Resources and Services Administration cooperative agreement 6U76AH000001. The Council on Education for Public Health provided in-kind services to support this effort. We are grateful to Antigone Recachinas, MPH, and Patricia Evans of the Council on Education for Public Health for their support and assistance of this effort. We also acknowledge the work of the ATPM Council of Graduate Programs in creating

References (15)

  • D.S. Lane

    A threat to the public health workforceevidence from trends in preventive medicine certification and training

    Am J Prev Med

    (2000)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC/ATSDR strategic plan for public health: workforce development summary....
  • Institute of Medicine. The future of public health. Washington, DC: National Academy Press,...
  • Health Resources and Services Administration. Health personnel in the United States: eighth report to Congress....
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health’s infrastructure: every health department fully prepared;...
  • N. Clark et al.

    Mastering the new public health

    Am J Public Health

    (2000)
  • Evans P. Alive and well? Yes! Presented at Association of Teachers of Preventive Medicine 59th Annual Meeting,...
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (0)

View full text