from the Center for Leadership Education in Maternal and Child Public Health at the University of Minnesota
|
Take a look at this chat between Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs (AMCHP) Executive Director Michael Fraser, AMCHP President Stephanie Birch, and Aimee Eden, PhD candidate and MCH trainee at University of South Florida. They discuss the future of Maternal and Child Health, the diverse skills valuable for work in the MCH field, and why focusing on advocacy in training is so crucial.
Credit to: Go Beyond MCH
Elisabeth Seburg is a second year MPH student at the University of Minnesota School Of Public Health. She is in the Maternal and Child Health program as well as a fellow in the University of Minnesota Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities (LEND) Program. As a trainee in two MCHB funded programs, Elisabeth tells us about her unique experience at AMCHP this year.
As a MCH graduate student and a LEND trainee, attending the 2012 AMCHP Annual Conference in Washington D.C was an incredibly valuable experience. I had the opportunity to connect with MCH leaders and learn about innovative MCH programs and initiatives across the country. My main take away from the conference is the importance of collaboration in public health work. From developing partnerships with community stakeholders to address local public health issues to sharing best practices between state Title V agencies, collaboration emerged as an essential component of MCH work.
While I attended many interesting and thought-provoking sessions at AMCHP, a power workshop on disability and women’s health stands out in my mind. The workshop, “Identifying Public Health Practices to Reduce Health Disparities in Women with Disabilities,” featured 3 speakers who shared work to address health disparities among women with disabilities. In addition to providing a good overview of disability-related health disparities, the session offered examples of initiatives to decrease these disparities. One example is the Initiative for Women with Disabilities (IWD) at the Elly & Steve Hammerman Health & Wellness Center, a health center for women with physical disabilities. IWD provides accessible health services to women with disabilities. Keeping with its holistic view of health, IWD also offers accessible activities to women with physical disabilities, such as adaptive rowing and belly dancing. I was excited to see a session on disability and health because my master’s project pertains to this topic, but, more broadly, the programs described in this workshop can serve as models for the field of MCH as we work to eliminate health disparities in women with disabilities.
For more information about IWD:
http://iwd.med.nyu.edu/
For more information about disability health disparities:
http://content.healthaffairs.org.ezp2.lib.umn.edu/content/30/10/1947.full
I have been told many times by people working outside the field of public health that my MPH degree in maternal and child health will only be useful as a supplemental degree for my future career. Explaining that I wish to be a public health practitioner is too abstract for people to grasp:
“Public health, so you want to be a doctor or a nurse?”
“No, I do not want to be involved in delivery direct medical services.”
“Oh, so you will be a social worker like your mom, then?”
“Not exactly, I want to work specifically with organizations that create and promote evidence-based health interventions, implemented at a population level to ultimately improve the health of underserved communities.”
And that is about where I lose them. So what exactly sets a public health practitioner apart from other social services and medical professionals? I know there is a lot of interdisciplinary overlap, as well as uniquely different theoretical approaches across disciplines. However, rarely have I heard someone specifically introduced as a MCH public health practitioner. So where do MCH students end up after receiving their MPH degree?
The AMCHP 2011 conference answered this seemingly trivial question. A diverse group of professionals that have dedicated their careers to augmenting the health of women and their families truly exists. Many conference attendees did hold other degrees and were actively practicing in the healthcare and social work fields, but many identified themselves as working specifically within the field of MCH. From policy to research, to community-based non-profits and government health agencies, I was inundated with a vast array of exciting careers within the MCH field.
Health communication with the integration of the Life Course Theory was a primary theme of AMCHP this year. Through a common MCH language, such as Life Course Theory, as well as knowledge of key theoretical public health concepts, this diverse group of professionals was able to effectively communicate key public health concerns for MCH populations. Through simply being exposed to the wealth of MCH expertise, I became more confident in communicating and understanding my future career as an MCH practitioner. While being trained for a professional career establishes an understanding of key infrastructures and theories that inform the public health field, exposure to professionals working in the field translates MCH theory into practice.
Andy Goodman, a Communications Consultant at The Goodman Center, was a presenter that discussed the importance of infusing storytelling to effectively communicate public health programs. While it is important for public health organizations to communicate the mission, goals and objectives of their programs, all too often complex programmatic language does not effectively market programs to stakeholders and target populations. Thus, the power of using narrative to support the mission and goals of an organization will have a lasting impact on stakeholders and decision makers that invest and participate in the program.
Andy Goodman suggested that every public health organization should collect a series of stories that:
1. Examine the nature of the public health challenge that the organization addresses
2. Explains the creation of the organization
3. Highlight emblematic success stories of the organization working with the community
4. Highlight the unique skills and performance qualities of the staff
5. Address organizational pitfalls (for internal use with the staff)
6. Identify the future goals and aspirations of the organization
These collected stories (except for #5) should be made available to the public and key stakeholders as examples that legitimize the need for the organizations within the community, as well as highlight the successes and community support for the program.
This presentation reinforced the importance of translating public health policies, research and best-practice models into a common language that evokes a powerful sense of human empathy. In truth, it is stories from communities that are basis of identifying health concerns that become the focus of public health research and program design. When asked “What is a MCH public health professionals?”, I will remember the diverse group of professionals I met and listened to at AMCHP 2011. And well I may not remember every minute detail of their research or their organization’s programmatic work plan, I will remember their stories. They were stories of MCH professionals’ career paths, of obstacles their organization’s faced in light of funding shortages and health-negating policies, and most importantly, they were stories of the women and families that their programs served everyday.
Annie Fedorowitz is an MPH graduate student in Maternal and Child Health at the University of Minnesota. She expects to complete her degree in May 2012.
First year MCH student Nicole Steffens tells us about her experience at AMCHP this year:
Adolescent health and public health frameworks, such as the life course model, framed the majority of my experience at AMCHP this year. On Saturday, the Preconception Health Symposium covered various states’ strategies of introducing a preconception framework into state health plans. I was humbled and excited to see that Ohio included teen disability issues into their preconception care discussion. This range allowed a more culturally competent discussion to occur when we broke off into mini-groups. My table discussed issues related to the name and definition of “Preconception Health.” What are the differences between adolescent, sexual, reproductive, and preconception health? By targeting just preconception health, are we disregarding anyone who does not want to have children, or people who cannot have children? Are LGBTQ communities included within these frameworks? The mix of gender, ability, sexual orientation, race, and SES issues all influence how this concept should and can be defined. Although this is an important area of health that should be further explored, after critically analyzing the topic, my group acknowledged that language surrounding the framework should be changed in order to best reach the adolescent and young adult population. Teens will not respond to programs that target their future wellbeing of their children, especially if language focuses on the word “conception.”
Dr. Frisby from the Missouri School of Journalism gave a lecture on how we can target preconception health to adolescents through media campaigns. The idea of language was reiterated as well as the importance of framing the concept in a way teens can relate to. I greatly appreciated her talk because I had never explored the role advertisements have in improving health outcomes. For example, South Carolina’s created a preconception framework using terminology that resonates with the young adult audience. Television, Facebook or internet ads can be extremely successful, if campaigns can connect to their audience. Dr. Frisby mentioned the idea of using focus groups, surveys, or observation to accomplish this as well, an evidence-based needs assessment method.
On Monday, Dr. Blum from Johns Hopkins described research around interventions of connectedness for adolescents. Effective programs work to strengthen adult-teen relationships, offer belonging, provide structure and safety, and link adolescents to communities. Dr. Blum made a statement that resonated with me and how I would like to intervene with teens in the future: “Programs are important, but it is not the program that changes people’s lives. It is the mentor the boy or girl had a connection to that influenced their wellbeing.” Each of these interconnected issues guided my experience with AMCHP and how to best work with this age cohort.
Outside of the educational sessions at AMCHP, I learned about how states were applying their Title V funds as well as the life course model to programs. I had the opportunity to discuss with MCH professionals about their work around the country; networking helped me understand the differing experiences states have with funding and social acceptance that I would normally not have exposure to. The conference was more beneficial for my professional development than any opportunities I have had yet in my MPH career. Through individual direct contact with AMCHP staff and professionals around the country, I hope to continue this journey and learn from more about MCH programs and opportunities around the United States.
A column by Ezra Klein in last week’s Washington Post should provide some comfort to recent (and soon-to-be!) graduates of public health programs around the country.
The bad news first: along with the staggering federal budget deficit, Americans face an investment deficit that will have repercussions for decades. Americans need to invest more money into our infrastructure: education, job training, and new technologies — in short, we need to invest in the systems that support human capital.
The good news: now is a good time to invest in those same systems. As Klein asserts, “government borrowing costs are lower” than they’ve been in decades.
Okay, more bad news: we don’t have the data to evaluate existing programs and substantiate funding. Klein interviews Michael Greenstone, former chief economist for President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, who sums it up bluntly: “In the first year of the Obama administration [...] I appointed myself to run around and argue that the stimulus was the greatest opportunity for evaluation of federal programs that’s ever happened. But the federal government is not equipped to do that. No one is against it, really, but it’s not a priority. It’s not part of the culture. And so it doesn’t have the sense of urgency that running a fit government would require.”
And finally, some more good news. This idea of government “fitness” — of regular, rigorous evaluation, of applying data to support (or shelf) programs — is getting some play beyond the beltway.
So now, some questions for you, dear reader: is data being used to support your programs? Would you like more support for evaluation efforts in the field? Share your thoughts in the comments.
