Disability and the curriculum in US graduate schools of public health

doi:10.2105/ajph.90.8.1315

Cited by 14 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…6 While the 1999 assessment provided initial information about CEPH-accredited public health schools, it did not include CEPH-accredited public health programs.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

“…The 5 assessment questions were based on those originally asked by Tanenhaus and colleagues 6 with 2 modifications (Table 2). In the first question, “nearly exclusively” was replaced with “comprehensively” to imply coverage of disability within essential public health topics such as surveillance, interventions, health policy, and legislation.…”

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 b P values were calculated using the Fisher exact test. c The phrase “school or program” used in the 1999 questions referred to school programs, not CEPH-accredited public health programs. …”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Disability Within US Public Health School and Program Curricula

Sinclair

Tanenhaus

Courtney-Long

et al. 2015

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To describe the percentage of US public health schools and programs offering graduate-level courses with disability content as a potential baseline measurement for Healthy People 2020 objective DH-3 and compare the percentage of public health schools that offered disability coursework in 1999 with those in 2011. Design In 2011, using SurveyMonkey.com, cross-sectional information was collected from the deans, associate deans, directors, or chairpersons of master of public health–granting public health schools and programs that were accredited and listed with the Council on Education for Public Health. Two rounds of follow-up were conducted at 4-month intervals by e-mails and phone calls to program contacts who had not responded. The responses from schools and programs were calculated and compared. Results There were 78 responses (34 schools and 44 programs) for a response rate of 63%. Fifty percent of public health schools and programs offered some disability content within their graduate-level courses. A greater percentage of schools than programs (71% vs 34%; P = .003) offered some graduate-level disability coursework within their curricula. The percentage of schools that offered disability coursework was similar in 1999 and 2011. Conclusion This assessment provides a potential baseline measurement for Healthy People 2020 objective DH-3. Future assessments should focus on clarifying disability content within courses and identifying capacity to offering disability training within public health schools and programs.

show abstract

“…6 While the 1999 assessment provided initial information about CEPH-accredited public health schools, it did not include CEPH-accredited public health programs.…”

Section: Objectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Designmentioning

confidence: 99%