Public health professionals are at the forefront of the COVID-19 pandemic response. However, the roles and responsibilities of health educators in pandemic response are unknown. Researchers examined multiple factors that described how health educators’ work priorities and lives have been affected by COVID-19. An electronic questionnaire was administered nationally to health educators to assess the effect of the pandemic on their professional responsibilities, the challenges they are facing, and their fears about the future. Of the 913 respondents, 487 (43%) reported changing work priorities, with 80% of that group (389) sharing that their work priorities shifted focus to COVID-19. Most felt qualified to take on the new job responsibilities, but many feared the inability to get back to previous work roles or for their organizations to financially withstand the pandemic. Regardless of workplace setting or job priorities, health educators are prepared in the skills outlined in the Responsibilities and Competencies for Health Education Specialists, which may have led to their abilities in shifting roles so quickly and effectively. Findings from this study may prepare public health agencies to better use and train health educators for their roles in rapidly shifting public health priorities.

Health advocacy is a central responsibility for health educators and public health practitioners, as documented clearly in our professional competencies. Professional organizations such as the Society for Public Health Education and the American Public Health Association undertake frequent advocacy initiatives and strive to engage their members in advocacy strategies on a regular basis. Despite this understanding and advocacy training requirements in academic preparation programs for public health professionals, students and emerging professionals often lack advocacy experience. In this article, we provide descriptions of multiple effective health advocacy strategies spread across the time intensity spectrum, in order of least time intensive to most. Advocates may select the best strategy based on the needs of their target audience, the amount of time and energy they have for the task, and the level of confidence they have in practicing the strategy itself.

Leaders in the fields of public health and health education/health promotion have been advocating for required credentialing for almost two decades. Recently, some have questioned whether increasing the number of certified professionals could help better differentiate properly trained health educators and public health professionals from others seeking to fill jobs in this professional area. The purpose of this article is to determine how the CHES/MCHES (Certified Health Education Specialist/Master Certified Health Education Specialist) and CPH (Certified in Public Health) credentials are regarded and promoted within the field of health education/health promotion. A cross-sectional survey research design was employed to determine program directors’ ( N = 90) views of credentialing issues. The health belief model and the transtheoretical model were used to determine perceived barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy with regard to promoting credentialing and readiness to require the CHES or CPH exam as part of the undergraduate curriculum. Ninety undergraduate programs completed the survey with the majority reporting that they do not require credentialing of faculty and students as part of their program of study. More than 70% of respondents, however, indicated that they thought credentialing in the fields of public health and health education/health promotion is an important issue. Most program directors indicated there is value in having students credentialed in health education or public health, yet few programs required the CHES or CPH exam as part of their curriculum or exit assessment. There are opportunities to use credentialing both in assessing program curriculum alignment with competencies and student mastery of said competencies.

Universities have the ability to be a strong community collaborator in mitigating the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) pandemic and ensuring that vaccination becomes a community norm. With their in-house expertise, ability to increase the reach of a message, and potential for vaccinating a large number of people, universities can be at the forefront of leading our country back to prepandemic times. This article discusses how universities can collaborate with communities to ensure mass vaccination, as well as give strategies to increase immunization rates on campus and beyond.

The purpose of this article is to provide public health organizations and practitioners a guide for organizing an advocacy summit to develop and practice advocacy skills. Further development of advocacy skills in current and prospective public health practitioners is vital in improving health outcomes among communities creating sustainable change. Though many approaches are available to help students and professionals acquire advocacy skills, an engaging real-life event such as the advocacy summit described within this commentary can be highly beneficial for both novice and seasoned advocates. The feedback obtained from summit participants showed that participants are interested in similar opportunities and believe that such events help further hone their advocacy skills. The essential steps to plan a successful advocacy summit are provided in the article, as well as a sample planning timeline, making it easier for public health advocates in other states to successfully plan similar events.

No abstract

No abstract

WORK-IN-PROGRESS & LESSONS LEARNEDsociopolitical rhetoric in the United States harms mental health and exacerbates disparities. 12 Turning more specifically mental health promotion efforts within the public health sector, the World Health Organization defined mental health promotion in 2002 as "any action taken to maximize mental health and well-being among populations and individuals." 2 This definition offered public health professionals language more familiar than the clinical language frequently used regarding treatment for mental illness. More recently, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended increasing integration of mental health promotion with chronic disease prevention, 3 and Kabau et al. 4 argued for the increased use of public health practices by psychology practitioners. When narrowing to mental health