Training Individuals in Public Health Law

2008 ◽  
Vol 36 (S3) ◽  
pp. 50-60
Author(s):  
Jason A. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Unmet Need ◽  
Professional Culture ◽  
Degree Programs ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Public Health Law ◽  
Responsive Materials ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Joint Degree Programs ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

This report provides an overview of training individuals in public health law. This report is designed to broadly outline the issues in order to facilitate discussion at the November 2007 PHLA meeting in Washington, D.C. I found that attorneys and public health practitioners have different approaches to training and practice. Materials and programs that seek to train individuals must be designed to fit within the professional culture of the targeted group. The differences between the two professional cultures can be a barrier to training if not acknowledged in the design of training programs and materials.In a selected overview of materials and programs available, I found that there is an unmet need for responsive materials and programs. I also found that networking and conference opportunities can play an important role in training that should be explored. I also discuss joint degree programs. The report concludes with a series of future recommendations to facilitate discussion.

scholarly journals Exploring the Development of Three Law-Based Competency Models for Public Health Practitioners

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Montrece McNeill Ransom ◽  
Brianne Yassine
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Competency Model ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Public Health Law ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Health Professionals ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Competency Models ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

As public health promotion and protection become increasingly complex and integrated into various fields, public health law is emerging as an important tool for public health professionals. To ensure that public health professionals are adequately trained public health law, public health law-related competencies should to be integrated into educational and other programming. This article provides three competency models developed by the Public Health Law Program at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: (a) the public health emergency law competency model, (b) the public health law competency model, and (c) the legal epidemiology competency model. These competency models provide a foundation upon which public health law curricula can be developed for governmental, nongovernmental, and academic public health practitioners. Such standardization of public health law curricula will ameliorate not only the training, but also selection and evaluation of public health practitioners, as well as better align public health training with national public health efforts.

Thanking Those Who Made it Happen

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. 7-8
Author(s):  
Daniel D. Stier
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Robert Wood Johnson Foundation ◽  
List Type ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Public Health Law ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Questions And Answers ◽  
National Public Health ◽  
American Society ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

This symposium issue of the Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics is devoted to the convening of the national public health law conference, Practical Approaches to Critical Challenges, on October 10-12, 2012, in Atlanta, Georgia. The conference was co-sponsored by the Network for Public Health Law and the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics (ASLME) with generous support provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, de Beaumont Foundation, California Endowment, and Healthcare Georgia Foundation.With the support of those organizations and the dedicated efforts of the individuals mentioned below, the conference focused on building effective interactions between attorneys and public health practitioners in order to:•examine practical legal approaches to address priority public health issues;•learn about helpful public health law resources and evidence-based research;•discuss public health legal questions and answers; and•build partnerships to accomplish public health objectives and foster innovation.

Guidelines for Reviewing National Public Health Law

Medicne pravo ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 2017 (2) ◽  
pp. 11-22
Author(s):  
Andre den Exter ◽  
◽  
Alexey Goryainov ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Public Health Law ◽  
National Public Health

scholarly journals What makes a ‘successful’ collaborative research project between public health practitioners and academics? A mixed-methods review of funding applications submitted to a local intervention evaluation scheme

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter van der Graaf ◽  
Lindsay Blank ◽  
Eleanor Holding ◽  
Elizabeth Goyder
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Research ◽  
Collaborative Research ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Evaluation Scheme ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Background The national Public Health Practice Evaluation Scheme (PHPES) is a response-mode funded evaluation programme operated by the National Institute for Health Research School for Public Health Research (NIHR SPHR). The scheme enables public health professionals to work in partnership with SPHR researchers to conduct rigorous evaluations of their interventions. Our evaluation reviewed the learning from the first five years of PHPES (2013–2017) and how this was used to implement a revised scheme within the School. Methods We conducted a rapid review of applications and reports from 81 PHPES projects and sampled eight projects (including unfunded) to interview one researcher and one practitioner involved in each sampled project (n = 16) in order to identify factors that influence success of applications and effective delivery and dissemination of evaluations. Findings from the review and interviews were tested in an online survey with practitioners (applicants), researchers (principal investigators [PIs]) and PHPES panel members (n = 19) to explore the relative importance of these factors. Findings from the survey were synthesised and discussed for implications at a national workshop with wider stakeholders, including public members (n = 20). Results Strengths: PHPES provides much needed resources for evaluation which often are not available locally, and produces useful evidence to understand where a programme is not delivering, which can be used to formatively develop interventions. Weaknesses: Objectives of PHPES were too narrowly focused on (cost-)effectiveness of interventions, while practitioners also valued implementation studies and process evaluations. Opportunities: PHPES provided opportunities for novel/promising but less developed ideas. More funded time to develop a protocol and ensure feasibility of the intervention prior to application could increase intervention delivery success rates. Threats: There can be tensions between researchers and practitioners, for example, on the need to show the 'success’ of the intervention, on the use of existing research evidence, and the importance of generalisability of findings and of generating peer-reviewed publications. Conclusions The success of collaborative research projects between public health practitioners (PHP) and researchers can be improved by funders being mindful of tensions related to (1) the scope of collaborations, (2) local versus national impact, and (3) increasing inequalities in access to funding. Our study and comparisons with related funding schemes demonstrate how these tensions can be successfully resolved.

scholarly journals After Action Review of the 2019 measles outbreak in Clark County, Washington, U.S.A

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Stoto ◽  
R Piltch-Loeb ◽  
R Wolfe ◽  
R Albrandt ◽  
A Melnick
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Religious Community ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Mutual Aid ◽  
Social Distancing ◽  
Clark County ◽  
After Action Review ◽  
Measles Outbreak ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
Public Health Practitioners

Abstract Issue Clark County experienced a measles outbreak that challenged public health authorities. Description of the practice: We conducted a formal After Action Review with state and local health officials, school officials, and others to identify lessons for public health practitioners facing future outbreaks. Results Following the early identification of measles in a child who had recently arrived from Ukraine, active surveillance identified 71 confirmed cases, most in unvaccinated persons under 18 years of age. 4,138 contacts were traced and public health personnel made daily monitoring calls to 816. 53 potential exposure sites in healthcare facilities, schools and other public places were identified and communicated to the public. As a social distancing measure, unvaccinated students, teachers, and staff were excluded from schools in which exposure had occurred. Ascertaining susceptibility status was challenging. The national anti-vaccination sentiment and a parallel outbreak in a New York religious community created challenges in representing community risk while avoiding stigmatization of a community in which the first reported case was identified. Rather than respond to every false claim on social media, the health department developed talking points about emerging issues and engaged the community in dialogue. Lessons Responding to the measles outbreak required innovative approaches to surveillance and contact tracing, social distancing (school exclusions), and emergency risk communication. The response required extensive coordinated efforts of the county and state health departments, school systems, and many other organizations. Mutual aid enabled an influx of resources but managing the surge of responders proved challenging. Key messages Public health emergencies require effective emergency management practices. Carefully conducted After Action Reviews of health emergencies can help public health practitioners identify challenges and innovative practices.

Synergising International Public Health Law and International Disaster Law

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Pratik DIXIT
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
International Health ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Global Public Health ◽  
Public Health Law ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
Response Strategies ◽  
Public Health Crisis ◽  
International Public Health ◽  
Health Regulations

There is no time more opportune to review the workings of the International Health Regulations (IHR) than the present COVID-19 crisis. This article analyses the theoretical and practical aspects of international public health law (IPHL), particularly the IHR, to argue that it is woefully unprepared to protect human rights in times of a global public health crisis. To rectify this, the article argues that the IHR should design effective risk reduction and response strategies by incorporating concepts from international disaster law (IDL). Along similar lines, this article suggests that IDL also has a lot to learn from IPHL in terms of greater internationalisation and institutionalisation. Institutionalisation of IDL on par with IPHL will provide it with greater legitimacy, transparency and accountability. This article argues that greater cross-pollination of ideas between IDL and IPHL is necessary in order to make these disciplines more relevant for the future.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document