Advocacy Skill Development in Public Health Education Curriculum: A Pilot Study.

IF 1.6 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Alexis Blavos, Heidi Hancher-Rauch, Antonio Gardner, Vincent Lam, Salma Haidar, Jodi Brookins-Fisher, Amy Thompson
{"title":"Advocacy Skill Development in Public Health Education Curriculum: A Pilot Study.","authors":"Alexis Blavos, Heidi Hancher-Rauch, Antonio Gardner, Vincent Lam, Salma Haidar, Jodi Brookins-Fisher, Amy Thompson","doi":"10.1177/15248399241287207","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The National Commission for Health Education Credentialing (NCHEC) released updated Responsibilities and Competencies for Health Education Specialists based on the 2020 HESPA II. For the first time, advocacy is a standalone area of responsibility (Area V: Advocacy) for health education specialists. Although this is exciting for the field of health education, there is limited consensus on how to effectively teach advocacy or what content and skills to include. Furthermore, while the HESPA II was updated, the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) criteria for advocacy have not been. This pilot study examined how CEPH-accredited programs in the United States are addressing the profession-wide advocacy competency in their health education curricula. A cross-sectional research design with single-point data collection was used to assess how CEPH-accredited university programs (including Standalone Baccalaureate Programs, Public Health Programs, and Schools of Public Health) are preparing health education students to meet the national advocacy responsibility. The survey included items from the Advocacy Area of Responsibility and potential barriers for faculty teaching advocacy. Results indicate that most programs are teaching something about advocacy, but there is no program teaching all listed sub-competencies. Barriers to including all components of the advocacy responsibility were largely related to faculty motivation, knowledge, and time. With a full responsibility area devoted to advocacy, it is reasonable to expect that programs will adjust with the profession. However, program administrators must be catalysts for these changes in their individual programs.</p>","PeriodicalId":47956,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Practice","volume":" ","pages":"15248399241287207"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Practice","FirstCategoryId":"92","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15248399241287207","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The National Commission for Health Education Credentialing (NCHEC) released updated Responsibilities and Competencies for Health Education Specialists based on the 2020 HESPA II. For the first time, advocacy is a standalone area of responsibility (Area V: Advocacy) for health education specialists. Although this is exciting for the field of health education, there is limited consensus on how to effectively teach advocacy or what content and skills to include. Furthermore, while the HESPA II was updated, the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) criteria for advocacy have not been. This pilot study examined how CEPH-accredited programs in the United States are addressing the profession-wide advocacy competency in their health education curricula. A cross-sectional research design with single-point data collection was used to assess how CEPH-accredited university programs (including Standalone Baccalaureate Programs, Public Health Programs, and Schools of Public Health) are preparing health education students to meet the national advocacy responsibility. The survey included items from the Advocacy Area of Responsibility and potential barriers for faculty teaching advocacy. Results indicate that most programs are teaching something about advocacy, but there is no program teaching all listed sub-competencies. Barriers to including all components of the advocacy responsibility were largely related to faculty motivation, knowledge, and time. With a full responsibility area devoted to advocacy, it is reasonable to expect that programs will adjust with the profession. However, program administrators must be catalysts for these changes in their individual programs.

公共卫生教育课程中的宣传技能培养:试点研究。
美国国家健康教育认证委员会(NCHEC)根据 2020 年 HESPA II 发布了最新的健康教育专家职责和能力要求。倡导首次成为健康教育专家的一个独立责任领域(领域 V:倡导)。尽管这对健康教育领域来说令人振奋,但对于如何有效地开展宣传教学或应包括哪些内容和技能,各方的共识还很有限。此外,虽然 HESPA II 已经更新,但公共卫生教育委员会(CEPH)的宣传标准却没有更新。这项试验性研究考察了美国经 CEPH 认证的课程如何在其健康教育课程中处理整个行业的宣传能力。研究采用了单点数据收集的横断面研究设计,以评估经 CEPH 认证的大学课程(包括独立学士学位课程、公共卫生课程和公共卫生学院)是如何培养健康教育专业学生履行国家倡导责任的。调查内容包括宣传责任领域的项目以及教师在进行宣传教学时可能遇到的障碍。结果表明,大多数课程都教授了一些有关宣传的内容,但没有一个课程教授所有列出的子能力。将宣传责任的所有内容纳入教学的障碍主要与教师的积极性、知识和时间有关。有了专门的宣传责任区,我们就有理由期待课程会随着专业的发展而调整。然而,项目管理人员必须在各自的项目中推动这些变化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Promotion Practice
Health Promotion Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.30%
发文量
126
期刊介绍: Health Promotion Practice (HPP) publishes authoritative articles devoted to the practical application of health promotion and education. It publishes information of strategic importance to a broad base of professionals engaged in the practice of developing, implementing, and evaluating health promotion and disease prevention programs. The journal"s editorial board is committed to focusing on the applications of health promotion and public health education interventions, programs and best practice strategies in various settings, including but not limited to, community, health care, worksite, educational, and international settings. Additionally, the journal focuses on the development and application of public policy conducive to the promotion of health and prevention of disease.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信