Training Future Health Practitioners

1. Training Future Health Practitioners Suzanne F. Jackson, Lindsey Thompson, Aaron Thompson, Rachel Zulla Dalla Lana School of Public Health CPHA May 28, 2014

2. Background • Multidisciplinary Curriculum Review Task Force set competencies in common for all students • Core course for ALL incoming Masters and PhD students to DLSPH, for streams in: • Epidemiology • Biostatistics • Health promotion • Community Nutrition • Occupational and Environmental Health • Community Medicine • MHScCH programs • PhD programs in Epi, Soc & BehavSci, Biostats • + others (e.g. Public Health Dentistry)

3. Competencies to be Addressed • Knowledge Competencies: • Knowledge of Canada’s public health system • Recognize role of SDOH in health & well-being • Communicate effectively using current technology • Apply approaches suited to diverse populations • “Softer” Process Competencies: • Team-building, conflict mgmt, group facilitation • Collaborative problem-solving • Appreciate strengths of different disciplines • Set priorities within limits of resources

4. Design Elements of Course • Knowledge/Content Components: • Short lectures (1 hr) with longer workshops (2 hr) • On-line PHAC public health course • Focus on case study in each team to apply concepts • Process Learning Components: • Small group work in self-led inter-disciplinary teams • Skills-building workshops • Individual Reflection papers on interdisciplinary work • Masters students mixed, PhD students in 1 group • Poster & workshop re communication skills

5. Case Studies - Content • 7 case studies prepared on different issues • Located in real communities in Canada with real data • In 4 sessions, students tasked to: • identify nature of the issue and the community, • identify the root causes, • propose possible solutions. • 3 group reports on above tasks + poster presentation

6. Case Studies - Process • Interdisciplinary groups of 10-15 students created • Required to rotate the roles of moderator, time-keeper, minute-taker, recorder at each session • Given questions to ask from different streams or “disciplines” (students do not know their public health discipline yet) • Individual reflection papers re interdisciplinary work

7. Objectives of Case Studies • Identify the root causes (social, political, historical, etc.) of a health issue; • Unpack the health issue using an interdisciplinary perspective; • Negotiate the dynamics of working with diverse disciplines to set health priorities for a community; • Co-create resolutions that fit the community’s context; • Experiment with types of research and data used to support solutions.

8. Evaluation Methods • Hard copy evaluations for all students: • At end of first week • In December, at end of last case study session • At end of last day in February • After each skills development workshop • Quantitative analysis and themes for qualitative answers • 170 students (13 PhD)

9. Process Results - 1 • 158/170 responded to Sept evaluation (93%) • Very enthusiastic response to speakers & workshops with only 1 session receiving score <4 out of 5. • Students liked the breadth of topics covered, engaging speakers, Last Straw game, small group work • Students did not like long hours, jam-packed sessions, feeling rushed • 140/157 Masters re Dec eval re case studies (89%) • 3.4-3.9 mean scores re quality & usefulness of case study small group work • 2.9-3 lowest scores for relevance to field of study

10. Process Results - 2 • 10/13 PhD students responded re case studies (77%) • Scores 2.2 – 3.6 re usefulness and quality of case study work in small groups • Highest scores for respect within team and workload distribution (>4) and for opportunity to build interdisciplinary relationships (3.8) • 103/170 students answered Feb eval (60%) • Usefulness & quality of speakers scored 2.6 – 4.1

11. Knowledge Results

12. Soft Skills Results

13. Lessons Learned • Content aspects of course were very good • Process aspects need improvement: • 15 people in one group too big for group work – need to be in smaller groups of 6-8 students • Students did not always “see” their discipline in the case study (e.g. OEH, biostats) • Role of mentors is helpful in case study work • Timing of professional skills workshops did not work out well for some groups • PhD students have different competency needs