#786
Date: Sat, 27 Jul 2002 09:56:14 -0400
From: Laura Linnan <linnan@EMAIL.UNC.EDU>
Subject: Re: HEDIR-L Digest - 25 Jul 2002 to 26 Jul 2002 (#2002-169)
**
** Improve the Profession-Join AAHE
** http://www.aahperd.org/aahe/template.cfm
**
** Submit to the HEDIR Tech Seminar
** http://www.hedir.org/technology
**
** Hey!!! Send the HEDIR Your Picture...
** http://www.hedir.org/people
**
In response to Carol Parks-Bani's question about teaching planning to
undergraduates... I'd just like to let
fellow HEDIR's know that in March, 2001 several colleagues (see co-authors list
below) and I did a survey of AAHE-listed Health Education programs nationwide
that had the following specific aims: (1) Determine the extent to which training
programs for health educators offer training in planning; and, (2) Describe
which
program planning models are typically being taught, who is doing the teaching,
and how the training fits within the overall training of health educators in
these program. Implications of these study results will be discussed in light of
teaching, research, and the practice of health education.
Previously, Karen Goldman and colleagues had done an interesting survey of NY
area health educators (not teachers of health educators) that raised some
important issues about what health educators are/are not learning about theory
and planning in their professional training. She had presented these results at
several
national meetings, and, because I teach program planning to graduate health
educators, I was motivated to learn more about the implications of her findings
and how it relates to the professional preparation of health educators.
Some of you may have responded to the national survey we developed- we thank
you! (overall response rate was 144/253 = 56%). The manuscript will be submitted
to an un-named heath education journal in September, so when the peer review
process is completed, we are hoping the results will be available broadly.
Meanwhile... one aspect of Carol's question was addressed in the survey, and we
thought it might be ok to share this "preliminary" result... We were interested
to know if different planning are taught to undergraduates and graduates. When
respondents were given a list of the 10 most-common planning models in the
health
education literature, we learned that for teaching undergraduates, respondents
ranked the PRECEDE (only) planning model (85.8%) and the PRECEDE-PROCEED model
(84.5%) as most appropriate, followed by PATCH (72.8%), the Model for Health
Education Planning (62.0%), the Comprehensive Health Education Model (59.6%),
and MATCH
(51.4%). For teaching graduate students, respondents reported PRECEDE-PROCEED
(93.9%), followed by PRECEDE only (88.3%), PATCH (74.1%), Model for Health
Education Planning (61.6%), Intervention Mapping (60.0%), the Comprehensive
Health Education Model (58.9%), and MATCH (54.1%). No other model was endorsed
by more than
50% of respondents on appropriateness for teaching either graduates or
undergraduates.
We also included a qualitative analysis of 56 course syllabi in this study. We
learned that 79% (44/56) of course syllabi reviewed required one of two planning
textbooks: the McKenzie and Smeltzer (1997) planning textbook, or the third
edition of the Green and Kreuter (1999) planning textbook. (please realize this
is not
an endorsement of either book, I am simply sharing our preliminary results in
response to Carol's question about textbooks)
We are still completing the discussion portion of the manuscript, trying to make
sense of these (and many other) survey results. We hope the manuscript will add
to the understanding of how professional health educators are currently being
prepared with regard to planning skills - which we believe are essential skills
for
all health educators.
Laura Linnan, ScD, CHES
Assistant Professor
UNC Chapel Hill School of Public Health
CB #7440
Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27599-7440
phone: (919) 843-8044
co-authors: Katie Regan-Sterba, MPH, Ann Marie Lee, MPH, CHES, Jean
Breny-Bontempi, PhD, MPH and Carolyn Crump, PhD