Search

The objective of this study was to describe characteristics of effective pediatric primary care interventions that focused on parenting education about healthy parent-child relationships. A scoping review of 4 electronic databases searched for related systematic reviews published in English from January 2000 to June 2023. The full texts of 14 systematic reviews were evaluated by 2 independent reviewers and used to identify 25 unique parenting interventions of which 21 improved outcomes more than the comparison group. Results demonstrate that a range of low to high intensity interventions can improve parent-child relationships, and many of these also improve parent mental health and child behaviors. By contrast, multi-component interventions were needed to improve child development and reduce injuries. Interventions that decreased child injuries focused on reducing parental stress through professional support, access to community resources, and mental health information. Future research is needed on pediatric primary care parenting education that incorporates responsive parenting, includes patient samples with ACEs, and measures physical health outcomes or biomarkers.

Abstract Background The Doctor of Public Health (DrPH) is the highest attainable degree in the field of public health, specifically designed to prepare professionals to address complex public health challenges in practical settings. This study was designed to explore the importance of achieving a shared and uniform understanding of DrPH education, assess the optimal direction for DrPH training, and investigate the specific curriculum requirements by gathering insights from current DrPH students and alumni in the United States. Methods A total of 13 focus group discussions and two in-depth interviews (total participants: 50) were conducted through Zoom to see how DrPH students and alumni assessed their DrPH educational programs. Results Three overarching findings emerged from the analysis of focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. First, participants expressed a preference against a national DrPH board examination, but advocated for a standardized common core curriculum that extends across the entire nation. Second, the ideal direction for DrPH training was perceived to involve a practice-based approach, emphasizing the importance of multi-, inter-, and trans-disciplinary instruction delivered by faculty with practical experience. Last, there was a demand for a DrPH-specific unique curriculum encompassing areas such as mixed method analysis, leadership and management, applied communication, crisis and change management, proficiency in addressing contemporary topics, and tailored applied and integrative learning requirements specific to the DrPH program. Conclusions We explored a range of DrPH training and identity needs among 50 participants, comprised of students and alumni who directly benefit from DrPH education. By considering these inputs, individuals from institutions that offer the DrPH degree can further enhance the quality of public health practice training and make significant contributions to the overall advancement of the field of public health.

Abstract Background This study explored the current and desired identity of the DrPH degree, focusing on whether the competencies set by the Council on Education for Public Health (CEPH) adequately prepare DrPH graduates for effective public health practice. Additionally, the study investigated the necessity of standardization in DrPH training, referring to a consensus-driven approach that equips future public health practitioners with practical skillsets applicable in real-world scenarios. Methods A national cross-sectional online survey titled “National DrPH leaders & practitioners needs assessment” was conducted from November 2020 to February 2021. The survey was based on a self-report by DrPH students and DrPH professionals, consisting of the following two main components: (1) how their DrPH training aligns with CEPH competencies and (2) how they perceive the identity of the DrPH degree. Convenience sampling was used to collect the data, which may have limited representation for all DrPH institutions in the United States. Results A total of 222 participants (140 current DrPH students and 82 alumni) completed the survey. The mean of the 10-point Likert scale for the degree to which the DrPH training aligns with 26 CEPH competencies (1: not at all – 10: absolutely) ranged from 6.3 (SD: 2.78) to 7.96 (SD: 2.16). The majority of participants (191/222, 86.04%) were satisfied with the knowledge and skills reflected in their training based on the CEPH competencies. However, more than half of the participants (117/222, 52.70%) sought additional professional development/training outside their institutions. DrPH leaders and practitioners faced barriers where the value of their work might not be fully recognized and endorsed. Participants indicated that the DrPH education should be further distinguished from the PhD education. Conclusions The DrPH degree holds significant value within the academic sphere of public health practice in the United States. However, its distinction from PhD programs poses a challenge for employers and organizations in the field, requiring attention from higher education programs. By solidifying the DrPH’s identity, graduates can effectively address diverse public health issues and contribute to creating a safe and healthy environment, including addressing the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic.