Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
December 1, 2020
Dear Creighton MPH Program Stakeholders,
We appreciate your interest in reviewing and commenting on our self-study for initial accreditation by the Council of Education for Public Health (CEPH).
Your comments may take the form of e-mail, printed mail or any other written form and sent directly to the CEPH Accreditation Coordinator listed below:
Zeinab Bazzi, MPH
Accreditation Coordinator
Council on Education for Public Health
1010 Wayne Ave
Suite 220
Silver Spring, MD 20910
Email: [email protected]
Comments must be in writing and must be specific. Comments received by phone or in person will not be accepted or considered. CEPH will accept stakeholder comments about the program’s practices and procedures until February 8th, 2021.
0
Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Master of Public Health Program Preliminary Self-Study Report
Submitted to the Council on Education for Public Health October 1, 2020
Contact Person: Dhitinut (DT) Ratnapradipa, PhD
Director, Master of Public Health Program Creighton University Graduate School 2500 California Plaza Omaha, NE 68178-0690 Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 1 [email protected] 402-280-4778 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 2 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table of Contents List of Commonly Used Acronyms ...... 7 Introduction ...... 9 Table Intro-1b. Creighton University Degree Offerings ...... 9 Figure Intro-2a. Internal Organization of MPH Program ...... 13 Figure Intro-2b. Organization of Academic Unit ...... 14 Figure Intro-2c. Creighton University Organizational Chart ...... 15 Table Intro-4.1. Enrollment by Degree and Concentration ...... 16 A1. Organization and Administrative Processes ...... 17 Table A1.1. MPH Program Standing and Ad Hoc Committees ...... 17 Table A1.2b. Curriculum Approval Processes ...... 19 Table A1.4. MPH Primary Instructional Faculty Involvement on Committees ...... 22 A2. Multi-Partner Schools and Programs ...... 25 A3. Student Engagement ...... 26 A4. Multi-Partner Schools and Programs ...... 28 A5. Degree Offerings in Schools of Public Health ...... 28 B1. Guiding Statements ...... 29 Vision: ...... 29 Mission: ...... 29 Program Core Values: ...... 29 Program Goal Statements: ...... 30 Goal Statement 1: Teaching ...... 30 Goal Statement 2: Scholarship ...... 30 Goal Statement 3: Service ...... 30 B2. Graduation Rates...... 32 Table B2.1 MPH Student Persistence and Graduation Rates...... 32 B3. Post-Graduation Outcomes ...... 35 Table B3-1. Post-Graduate Outcomes ...... 35 B4. Alumni Perceptions of Curricular Effectiveness ...... 37 Table B4.1. Alumni Perceptions of Curricular Effectiveness ...... 37 B5. Defining Evaluation Practices ...... 40 Table B5-1. Evaluation of Goal Statements ...... 40 B6. Use of Evaluation Data ...... 46
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 3 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C1. Fiscal Resources ...... 48 Table C1-1. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, 2016 to 2020 ...... 50 C2. Faculty Resources ...... 53 Table C2-1. Faculty Resources by Concentration ...... 53 Table C2.2. Faculty/Advisee Ratios in Advising, Mentoring, and the Integrative Experience ...... 55 Table C2.5a. Course Evaluation Data on Student Perception of Class Size ...... 55 C3. Staff and Other Personnel Resources ...... 58 Table C3-1. Staff Support ...... 58 C4. Physical Resources ...... 61 C5. Information and Technology Resources ...... 63 D1. Foundational Public Health Knowledge ...... 66 Table D1.1 - Foundational Public Health Knowledge for the MPH ...... 66 D2. MPH Foundational Competencies ...... 68 Table D2.1 MPH Degree Requirements ...... 68 Table D2.2 Mapping of MPH Foundational Competencies ...... 70 D3. DrPH Foundational Competencies ...... 75 D4. MPH Concentration Competencies ...... 76 Table D4.1a. Assessment of Competencies for MPH in Health Care Ethics Concentration ...... 77 Table D4.1b. Assessment of Competencies for MPH in Healthcare Management Concentration ...... 78 D5. MPH Applied Practice Experiences ...... 80 Table D5-1. Practice-based products that demonstrate MPH competency achievement ....82 D6. DrPH Applied Practice Experience ...... 87 D7. MPH Integrative Learning Experience ...... 88 Table D7-1. MPH Integrative Learning Experience (MPH 612 Capstone) ...... 88 D8. DrPH Integrative Learning Experience ...... 91 D9. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree General Curriculum ...... 91 D10. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Domains ...... 91 D11. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Competencies ...... 91 D12. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Cumulative and Experiential Activities ...... 91 D13. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Cross-Cutting Concepts and Experiences ...... 91 D14. MPH Program Length ...... 92 D15. DrPH Program Length ...... 93
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 4 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D16. Bachelor’s Degree Program Length ...... 93 D17. Academic Public Health Master’s Degrees ...... 93 D18. Public Health Academic Doctoral Degrees ...... 93 D19. All Remaining Degrees ...... 93 D20. Distance Education ...... 94 E1. Faculty Alignment with Degrees Offered ...... 101 Table E1-1. Primary Instructional Faculty Alignment with Degree Offered...... 101 Table E1-2. Non-Primary Faculty Regularly Involved in Instruction ...... 103 E2. Integration of Faculty with Practice Experience ...... 106 E3. Faculty Instructional Effectiveness ...... 109 E4. Faculty Scholarship ...... 114 Table E4-1. Outcome Measures for Faculty (PIF/Non-PIF) Research and Scholarly Activities ...... 118 E5. Faculty Extramural Service ...... 120 Table E5.1. Primary and Non-Primary Faculty Community Engagement Activities ...... 123 Table E5. Service Indicators for Primary and Non-Primary Faculty, FY 2018-2021 ...... 126 F1. Community Involvement in Program Evaluation & Assessment ...... 128 Table F1.3d. (Part 1) Employer assessment of program graduates’ ability to perform competencies in an employment setting – Quantitative Responses ...... 131 Table F1.3d. (Part 2) Employer assessment of program graduates’ ability to perform competencies in an employment setting – Qualitative Responses ...... 131 F2. Student Involvement in Community and Professional Service ...... 133 F3. Assessment of Community’s Professional Development Needs ...... 136 F4. Delivery of Professional Development Opportunities for Workforce ...... 139 G. Diversity and Cultural Competence ...... 142 Table G1. Enrollment Trends Data – Student Diversity Profile ...... 144 Table G1.6a Student Perceptions of Program Climate of Diversity and Cultural Competence ...... 152 Table G1.6b Faculty/Staff Perceptions of Program Climate of Diversity and Cultural Competence ...... 153 Table G1.6c Student Perceptions of Diversity and Cultural Competence within the Curriculum ...... 153 H1. Academic Advising ...... 156 Table H1.1. Academic Advising Services Roles ...... 156 H2. Career Advising ...... 162 Table H2.4b. Student Satisfaction with Career Advising ...... 165
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 5 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H3. Student Complaint Procedures ...... 167 H4. Student Recruitment and Admissions ...... 169 Table H4.1 Outcome Measures for Recruitment and Admissions ...... 170 H5. Publication of Educational Offerings ...... 172 Table H5.1. Publications of Educational Offerings ...... 172 ERF – Document Inventory ...... 173
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 6 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
List of Commonly Used Acronyms APRC Academic Planning Review Committee, Creighton University
C-RAC Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions CBPR Community Based Participatory Research CHI Catholic Health Initiatives CHNA Community Health Needs Assessment CHPE Center for Health Policy and Ethics CIPER Center for Interprofessional Practice, Education and Research, Creighton University CRM Customer Relationship Management CU Creighton University
DPAC Distance Program Administrator Committee, Creighton University
EAB External Advisory Board EdD Doctor of Education in Interdisciplinary Leadership
FC Foundational Competency
GPC Graduate Program Committee GSG Graduate Student Government
HCE Health Care Ethics Concentration HCM Health Care Management Concentration HLC Higher Learning Commission
IDS Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, Creighton Graduate School ILAC Institute for Latin American Concern, Creighton University IPE Interprofessional Education IWC Master of Science in Integrative Health and Wellness Program
MSOL Master of Science in Organizational Leadership
NetID User Identification Number NCR Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program
PBC Purpose Built Community
RAML Reinert Alumni Library, Creighton University
SRC Student Resource Center (Online)
TLC Teaching and Learning Center, Creighton University
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 7 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 8 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Introduction
Intro1. Describe the institutional environment, which includes the following:
a. year institution was established and its type (e.g., private, public, land-grant, etc.) Creighton University (CU) is a Catholic and Jesuit private, not-for-profit institution. Creighton College officially opened on September 2, 1878. Creighton College was founded in 1878 by two prominent Omaha families, Edward and Mary Lucretia Creighton and Edward’s older brother John, and his wife Sarah Emily. In 1879, the bishop transferred the institution to the Jesuits and the College was incorporated under Nebraska law. It is not clear as to when the name was changed to The Creighton University, but documents provided to the team indicate that in 1968 the name was amended to change the name to simply Creighton University. CU is a comprehensive university committed to excellence in its academic health programs, undergraduate/graduate programs and in preparing students to serve, promote justice and meet the complex needs of their future employers. The master's in public health program (MPH) provides an excellent example of the outgrowth of this mission.
b. number of schools and colleges at the institution and the number of degrees offered by the institution at each level (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral and professional preparation degrees) The university has nine major academic divisions, including the Graduate School, College of Arts and Sciences, Heider College of Business, College of Professional Studies, the College of Nursing, and Schools of Dentistry, Medicine, Law, and Pharmacy and Health Professions.
Table Intro-1b. Creighton University Degree Offerings College of Arts and • Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Majors: American Studies, Art History, Classical Languages, Classical and Sciences Near Eastern Civilizations, Communication Studies, Cultural Anthropology, Economics, English, French and Francophone Studies, German Studies, Graphic Design & Media, Healthy Lifestyle Management, History, International Relations, Journalism, Justice and Society, Medical Anthropology, Music, Philosophy, Political Science, Psychology, Spanish and Hispanic Studies, Studio Art, Sustainability, Sustainable Energy*, Theatre, Theology • Bachelor of Fine Arts (B.F.A.) Majors: Studio Art, Musical Theatre, Theatre • Bachelor of Science (B.S.) Majors: Applied Physical Analysis, Biology, Biomedical Physics, Chemistry, Computer Science and Informatics, Elementary Education, Exercise Science and Pre- Health Professions, Health Administration and Policy, Mathematics, Neuroscience, Physics, Sociology, Sustainable Energy Science • Bachelor of Science in Chemistry (B.S.Chm.) • Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science (B.S.Evs.) • Bachelor of Science in Mathematics (B.S.Mth.) • Bachelor of Science in Physics (B.S.Phy.) • Bachelor of Social Work (B.S.W.) College of Nursing • Bachelor of Science in Nursing (B.S.N.) • Doctor of Nursing Practice (D.N.P.) Majors: Clinical Systems Administrator, Nurse Practitioner College of • Associate in Arts (A.A.) Majors: Organizational Communication, Theology Professional Studies • Associate in Science (A.S.) Majors: Computer Science, Mathematics • Associate in Science in Emergency Medical Services (A.S.E.M.S.) • Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) Majors: Communication Studies, English, Healthy Lifestyle Management • Bachelor of Science (B.S.) Majors: Elementary Education, Leadership, Health Administration and Policy
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 9 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Graduate School • Master of Accounting (M.A.C) • Master of Arts (M.A.) Majors: Christian Spirituality, English, Ministry, Theology • Master of Business Administration (M.B.A.) • Master of Education (M.Ed.) Majors: Elementary School Teaching, Secondary School Teaching • Master of Finance (M.FIN) • Master of Healthcare Management (M.H.C.M) • Master of Investment Management and Financial Analysis (M.I.M.F.A) • Master of Public Health (M.P.H) • Master Physician Assistance Studies • Master of Science (M.S.) Majors: Analytics, Bioethics, Biomedical Sciences, Business Intelligence and Analytics, Educational Leadership, Emergency Medical Services, Government Organization & Leadership, Integrative Health and Wellness, Medical Anthropology, Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Medical Physics, Medical Science, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution, Organizational Leadership, Neuroscience, Oral Biology, Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmacology and Neuroscience, Physics, School Counseling and Preventive Mental Health • Master of Science in Nursing (M.S.N.) Concentrations: Clinical Nurse Leader, Clinical Systems Administrator, Nursing Education, post graduate certificates in Nurse Practitioner and Clinical Nurse Leader, Master of Science in Occupational Therapy (M.S.O.T.) • Master of Science in Rehabilitation (M.S.R.) • Doctor of Business Administration (D.B.A) • Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) Major: Interdisciplinary Leadership • Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) Majors: Biomedical Sciences, Clinical and Translational Science, Medical Microbiology and Immunology, Pharmacology Heider College of • Bachelor of Science in Business Administration (B.S.B.A.) Majors: Accounting, Business Intelligence Business and Analytics, Economics, Finance, Management, Marketing, International Business, Prelaw Business School of Dentistry • Bachelor of Science in Dental Hygiene (B.S.D.H) • Doctor of Dental Surgery (D.D.S.) School of Law • Juris Doctor (J.D.) School of Medicine • Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) School of Pharmacy • Bachelor of Science in Emergency Medical Services (B.S.E.M.S.) and Health • Doctor of Occupational Therapy (O.T.D.) Professions • Doctor of Pharmacy (Pharm.D.) • Doctor of Physical Therapy (D.P.T.)
c. number of university faculty, staff and students The 2018-19 Creighton University Fact Book lists the total student enrollment at 8,910, which includes all students enrolled among all the university schools and colleges. (see ERF Intro1-c.Enrollment and Persistence) There were 912 faculty members, which includes both full-time and part-time positions. A total of 307 faculty members also hold primary or secondary appointments as graduate faculty. (see ERF Intro1-c. Faculty and Class Size) As of June 2018, CU employed a total of 1,268 full-time and part-time staff members. In AY 2019-20 total enrollment was 8,200, including 4,100 undergraduate and 4,100 graduate students, 56% of whom were female and 44% male.
d. brief statement of distinguishing university facts and characteristics Creighton is the most comprehensive of the 27 American Jesuit colleges and universities in that it is composed of nine colleges and schools which offer credit-bearing certificates, associate, baccalaureate, master’s, and doctoral degrees in over 130 programs. In order to reach a broad spectrum of audiences, consistent with advancing the Jesuit presence both globally and to diverse populations, programs are offered in face-to-face, hybrid, online, and accelerated formats. Despite this diversity of curricular programming and delivery method, Creighton University collectively exists for “students and learning,” as noted in the Mission Statement. (ERF Intro1-d) Located in Omaha, Nebraska, a metropolitan area with a population of approximately 925,000. The 130- acre campus is situated within walking distance of downtown Omaha. CU offers a mission-driven education in the Jesuit tradition for individuals who want to make a meaningful contribution to the world. Our more than 8,000 undergraduate, graduate, and professional students enroll at Creighton each year to find their place in the world through lives of leadership and service. Our low student-to-faculty ratio (11:1) provides personalized attention.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 10 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Creighton is a top-ranked university and was ranked as the #1 Regional University in the Midwest (2019) for the 16th year in a row by U.S. News & World Report. In September 2019 the University was elevated to the newly created Carnegie Classification of Doctoral/Professional Universities category, resulting in U.S. News moving Creighton to the National Universities category in recognition of having a full range of undergraduate majors, plus master’s and doctoral programs, as well as for producing groundbreaking research. Creighton made its inaugural appearance in the prestigious National Universities category of U.S. News & World Report’s 2020 list of “Best Colleges.” Over the past 8 years, Creighton has experienced an overall increase in the number of students of color enrolled both in undergraduate and graduate programs. In 2009, 17.6% of the undergraduate and graduate enrollment were students of color and in 2019 it increased to 18%. A review of the Undergraduate and Graduate Enrollment Profiles over the past 10 years substantiates that the University has a history of attracting a diverse student population who want to be challenged to make positive changes in a global community while being guided by principles of ethical learning, service to others, the search for truth, and a faith that does justice.
e. names of all accrediting bodies (other than CEPH) to which the institution responds. The list must include the regional accreditor for the university as well as all specialized accreditors to which any school, college or other organizational unit at the university responds (list may be placed in the electronic resource file) Creighton University is accredited to award degrees at the associate, bachelor’s, master’s, and doctoral levels by The Higher Learning Commission (HLC). The university’s last comprehensive visit was held in April 2017. In August 2017, the Institutional Actions Council of the Higher Learning Commission reaffirmed accreditation with the next Reaffirmation of Accreditation in 2026-27. A list of other accrediting bodies can be found on the university’s Academic Specialized Accreditation webpage or as ERF Intro1-e.
f. brief history and evolution of the school of public health (SPH) or public health program (PHP) and related organizational elements, if applicable (e.g., date founded, educational focus, other degrees offered, rationale for offering public health education in unit, etc.) 2007-2008: A task force on graduate education recommended the University develop and grow interdisciplinary programs and graduate distance education programming. The master’s in public health program was identified as a program to be developed because of its alignment with Creighton’s academic health programs and professional schools. With Creighton’s growth in distance programming, a decision was made to utilize the services of Deltak/Wiley Education Services (Deltak/Wiley) to provide student recruitment, assist with student application processes, provide enrollment and retention services, onboarding and orientation for new students, proactive student support, and 24/7 technical helpdesk services. 2010: Academic Vice President, Patrick Borchers JD, and Health Sciences Vice President, Donald Frey, M.D., established a Public Health Task Force to explore the establishment of an educational program in public health. Initial activities of the Task Force focused on developing a program of study, including core courses and potential areas of specialization. Public Health Task Force members were assigned to these areas of specialization and tasked with identifying potential courses, developing course descriptions, and identifying student competencies. 2011: The Public Health Task Force recommended the MPH program be located within the Center for Health Policy and Ethics (CHPE) due to the Center’s experience with the online Master of Science in Health Care Ethics. The program and planning process transferred to CHPE Director, Amy Haddad, PhD, RN. A steering committee was convened for planning meetings with hired external consultants. Dr. Haddad led the effort to develop a new program proposal to be presented to the Graduate Board. In December the CU Graduate Board approved the proposed MPH program and a committee was formed to conduct a search and hire a program Director. Deltak/Wiley was contracted to provide services for the MPH program. See ERF Intro-1f MPH Steering Committee for a list of committee members, meeting agendas, minutes, and reports. 2012: Sherry Fontaine, PhD, was named the first program director, and the recruitment process began for three MPH faculty. Shortly after the launch of the program, the university determined the program
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 11 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program should be re-located both philosophically and physically in the Department of Preventive Medicine rather than the Center for Health Policy and Ethics. 2013: The MPH program admitted its first student cohort in the spring of 2013. 2015-2016: The university adopted a Provost model, which led to the retirement of the Health Sciences Vice President, Don Frey, MD and the hiring of Thomas Murray, PhD as Provost. In 2016, the Program Director resigned, and a search team was formed, resulting in the hiring of Tanya Benedict. 2016 – 2017: The MPH program and faculty were structurally moved to the Graduate School within the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, led by Department Chair, Cindy Costanzo and Dean Gail Jensen. Under the Graduate School and Department of Interdisciplinary Studies the MPH joined several interdisciplinary online graduate programs, including the Master of Science in Integrative Health and Wellness Program (IHW), Master of Science in Health Care Ethics (HCE), Master of Science in Negotiation and Conflict Resolution (NCR), Master of Science in Organizational Leadership (MSOL), and Doctor of Education in Interdisciplinary Leadership (EdD). The program has benefited from interdisciplinary collaborative partnerships and knowledge-sharing related to curriculum, faculty development, service, and the scholarship of teaching and learning. In 2017 the CEPH self-study application was submitted. 2018: CU developed an internal infrastructure for graduate student recruitment, enrollment management and retention services, onboarding and orientation and proactive student support. The contract was ended with Deltak/Wiley Education Services (Deltak/Wiley). 2019: Tanya Benedict resigned as program director and returned to a faculty role. Cindy Costanzo was named the Interim Program Director and a search for a new program director was begun. An initial draft of the self-study document was submitted to CEPH in May. Following consultations with CEPH, the program submitted a formal request for an extension to receive additional time to work on the self-study; this request was granted by CEPH in September, with a new deadline of October 2020 established. Extensive work on the self-study continued through the end of the year. In November, following a national search, Dhitinut Ratnapradipa was named Program Director. 2020: Dr. Dhitinut Ratnapradipa assumed the role of Program Director on June 1.
Intro2. Organizational charts that clearly depict the following related to the school or program:
a. the school or program’s internal organization, including the reporting lines to the dean/director As part of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies, faculty report to the Program Director who in turn reports directly to the Department Chair. Additional administrative and staff support to the program is provided by Department personnel who report to the Department Chair. (see Figure Intro-2a).
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 12 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Figure Intro-2a. Internal Organization of MPH Program
Internal Organizational Structure – MPH Program
Dr. Gail Jensen
Dean
Staff Dr. Cindy Costanzo Monica Chapeau, Administrative Assistant Chair, Department of Kate Johansen, Instructional Designer Interdisciplinary Studies Amy Kitt, Sr. Financial Analyst Terri Mahaffey, Program Coordinator Sarah Meisinger, Academic Coach
Dr. Dhitinut Ratnapradipa MPH Program Director
MPH Faculty Practicum/Field Experience Coordinator Tanya Benedict Kate Nolt Helen Chapple LaShaune Johnson Sarah Lux Kate Nolt Mark Robinson Special (Adjunct) Faculty
13
Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
b. the relationship between the school or program and other academic units within the institution. For programs, ensure that the chart depicts all other academic offerings housed in the same organizational unit as the program. Organizational charts may include committee structure organization and reporting lines The MPH program resides in the Graduate School as part of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies (see Figure Intro-2.b).
Figure Intro-2b. Organization of Academic Unit
Vice Provost, Learning and Assessment Dean, Graduate School and College of Professional Studies (GAPS)
Executive Assistant Chaplain
Senior Associate Dean, GAPS Teaching & Learning Assistant Dean, GAPS Offices and Chair, Interdisciplinary Studies Center Graduate School Departments
Department Committees: Instructional Academic -- Assessment Commitee EMS Education -- Currciulum Committee Department Staff Designers Coaches -- Rank & Tenure Committee
EdD in Master of Interdisciplinary Organizational Leadership Leadership (Program Director) (Program Director)
Master of Integrative Master of Bioethics Health & Wellness (Program Director) (Program Director)
Master of Public Master of Negotiation Health & Conflict Resolution (Program Director) (Program Director)
14
Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
c. the lines of authority from the school or program’s leader to the institution’s chief executive officer (president, chancellor, etc.), including intermediate levels (e.g., reporting to the president through the provost) The university is governed by a 32-member Board of Trustees. The deans for each of the nine schools and colleges listed earlier in this section (see Intro-1b) report directly to the provost, and the provost reports directly to the president.
Figure Intro-2c. Creighton University Organizational Chart
d. for multi-partner schools and programs (as defined in Criterion A2), organizational charts must depict all participating institutions Not applicable.
Intro3. An instructional matrix presenting all the school or program’s degree programs and concentrations including bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees, as appropriate. CU offers a Master of Public Health (MPH) degree consisting of 44 credits hours. All students complete 29 hours of core courses and complete 15 hours in one of two areas of concentration (see Table Intro- 3.1). The program is offered in a completely online, asynchronous format with no required residency.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 15 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Courses are delivered in 8-week modules or terms with students typically taking one course per term. Information about the program is publicly available through the university’s online Graduate Catalog.
Table Intro-3.1. Instructional Matrix – Degrees and Concentrations
Instructional Matrix - Degrees and Concentrations Categorized Campus Executive Distance as public based based health Bachelor's Degrees Master's Degrees Academic Professional Master of Public Health – Health Care MPH X Ethics Concentration MPH Master of Public Health – Healthcare Management Concentration MPH X MPH Doctoral Degrees Academic Professional
Joint Degrees (Dual, Combined, Concurrent, Accelerated Degrees) Academic Professional Public Health 2nd Degree Area Concentration
Intro4. Enrollment data for all the school or program’s degree programs, including bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees. Program enrollment was 55 for the 2019-2020 academic year. Table Intro-4.1 includes the enrollment numbers by concentration. All students who are admitted into the MPH program must choose between the two concentrations.
Table Intro-4.1. Enrollment by Degree and Concentration Degrees Offered Current Enrollment (2019-20) Master’s Degree 55 Healthcare Management 34 Health Care Ethics 21
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 16 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
A1. Organization and Administrative Processes The program demonstrates effective administrative processes that are sufficient to affirm its ability to fulfill its mission and goals and to conform to the conditions for accreditation.
The program establishes appropriate decision-making structures for all significant functions and designates appropriate committees or individuals for decision making and implementation.
The program ensures that faculty (including full-time and part-time faculty) regularly interact with their colleagues and are engaged in ways that benefit the instructional program (e.g., participating in instructional workshops, engaging in program specific curriculum development and oversight).
A1.1. List the school or program’s standing and significant ad hoc committees. For each, indicate the formula for membership (e.g., two appointed faculty members from each concentration) and list the current members. (self-study document)
Programs should generally focus the response on the specific committees that govern the unit of accreditation, not on departmental or school committees that oversee larger organizational units. (self-study document) The program maintains the following standing and significant ad hoc faculty committees. A brief description of each committee as well as the membership is provided in Table A1.1. Please note, program staff (not identified below as formal standing members of the committees) support each committee as warranted.
Table A1.1. MPH Program Standing and Ad Hoc Committees Committee Membership Formula Current Members 1. Accreditation Committee • Program Director - MPH (Chair) Dhitinut Ratnapradipa Oversees institutional and CEPH • 1-2 Health Care Ethics Sarah Lux accreditation activities, including a) Concentration Faculty Members Helen Chapple preparation of CEPH self-study • 1-2 Health Care Management Kate Nolt document, b) collection of data and Concentration Faculty Members Cindy Costanzo documents, c) collaboration with • Department Chair LuAnn Schwery other MPH faculty and department • Assistant Dean, Graduate School Terri Mahaffey staff in accreditation efforts, and d) • Program Coordinator (non-voting generation of annual reports. member)
2. Admissions Committee • Program Director (Chair) Dhitinut Ratnapradipa Reviews admissions applications for • One faculty member from each Tanya Benedict the MPH program three times concentration Mark Robinson annually and makes recommendations for acceptance into the program to the Academic Progression Committee.
3. Academic Progression • Program Director (Chair) Dhitinut Ratnapradipa Committee • All Full-time Faculty Tanya Benedict Meets monthly to discuss enrollment • Academic Coach Kate Nolt status of newly admitted students, • Graduate Enrollment Specialist LaShaune Johnson plan interaction with prospective • All adjunct faculty teaching in the Helen Chapple students, conduct a teaching and MPH program in the current term Mark Robinson learning check in with adjunct faculty, Sarah Lux and discuss overarching student Sarah Meisinger progression issues. Submits Denise Work recommended changes to Nick Baldetti admissions and student progression Leah Casanave policies to the Graduate Program Tim Guetterman Committee for approval.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 17 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Committee Membership Formula Current Members 4. External Advisory Board • Public health professionals Nick Baldetti, DBA, McPherson, KS The MPH External Advisory Board reflecting the geographic Michael Baysinger, MPH, West Chester, PH provides ongoing advice, council, diversity of the program Jaime Bland, DNP, Omaha, NE and assistance to the leadership of • Program Director (Chair) Melissa Bottrell, PhD, MPH, Berkeley, CA the MPH program on all matters • 1 MPH Program Alum Amy Krueger, MPH, Ph.D.(c), Atlanta, GA related to operations and curriculum. Jeff Kuhr, PhD, Grand Junction, CO Angela Lopez, MPH, Indianapolis, IN Carolina Padilla, Omaha, NE Anthony Robins, PhD, Moon Township, PA Sarah Schram, MS, RD, Papillion, NE John Stone, PhD, MD, Los Angeles, CA Dhitinut Ratnapradipa, PhD Dina Becirovic, MPH, Omaha, NE (Alumna)
5. MPH Graduate Program • MPH Program Director (Chair) Dhitinut Ratnapradipa Committee • All other full-time faculty teaching Tanya Benedict As the primary governing committee in the MPH program Kate Nolt at the program level, this group LaShaune Johnson oversees the continuous Sarah Lux development, maintenance, and Helen Chapple evaluation of the MPH program. Mark Robinson
6. MPH Curriculum and Evaluation • MPH Program Director (Chair) Dhitinut Ratnapradipa Committee • 1 faculty member representing LaShaune Johnson This committee reviews, makes each concentration Sarah Lux recommendations, and approves • Program Coordinator (non-voting Terri Mahaffey matters related to curriculum and member) Jacqueline N. Font-Guzmán assessment, program improvement, • Ad hoc faculty member and related policies.
7. Public Health Events Committee • Director’s Designee (Chair) Monica Chapeau Committee plans and coordinates • Program Coordinator Terri Mahaffey events and programming related to • 1 Student Representative Yolanda Reynolds, MPH Student public health and/or the MPH • 1 Full time faculty member LaShaune Johnson program. • 1 Part time faculty member PT faculty member TBD
8. Student Advisory Board • Staff Advisor Terri Mahaffey The Student Advisory Board, a group • 3-5 current students MPH Students: of current students who meet • Norma Jean Aubain regularly to share their needs and • Melyna Avalos expectations as well as emerging • Camille Cuonzo trends, provides input and assistance • Lindsay de Borba to the leadership of the MPH • Tricia Griffin program on matters related to • Yolanda Reynolds curriculum, policies and procedures. 9. Scholarship and Service • MPH Program Director (Chair) Dhitinut Ratnapradipa Committee • All full time and part time regular Kate Nolt Committee fosters collaboration and faculty Tanya Benedict interaction among all program faculty • All adjunct faculty LaShaune Johnson engaged in scholarship, research • 1 Student representative Sarah Lux and community engagement. Helen Chapple Mark Robinson Jos Welie Nick Baldetti Roger Mustalish Leah Casanave Tim Guetterman Melyna Avalos, MPH Student
A1.2. Briefly describe which committee(s) or other responsible parties make decisions on each of the following areas and how the decisions are made:
The program employs a collaborative leadership model that empowers faculty at all levels to be decision makers. Policy issues are brough forward to program standing committees, ad hoc committees, or the
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 18 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program program director. Issues are considered by the appropriate committee and when needed, voted on. Faculty have considerable decision-making authority within their courses, recommend and vote on curriculum changes, participate on search committees and make recommendations in hiring decisions on program open positions for staff, faculty, program directors as well as university wide open positions. Coordinators for each concentration provide direction for the concentrations; the Practicum Coordinator approves student field and capstone experiences; and the Program Director has ultimate authority over the program. Below is a description of how this is achieved for the specific areas identified. a. degree requirements Currently the MPH Graduate Program Committee, as noted above, is the primary governing committee at the program level. Chaired by the Program Director and consisting of a coordinator from each concentration, Practicum Coordinator, and all MPH faculty, this committee is the decision-making body for all degree requirements. Items for consideration may originate from the University’s upper administration, as a result of our commitment to on-going program review, from our External Advisory Board (EAB), Student Advisory Board, site supervisors or directly from the faculty. If revisions for degree requirements are proposed, the Program Director works with this committee to review and agree on a course of action. At that point, recommendations are shared with the EAB and the Student Advisory Board to secure feedback and additional suggestions. The Committee may refer a curricular item to the MPH Curriculum and Evaluation Committee for review, if warranted. Once the proposal has been thoroughly vetted, the Graduate Program Committee will take a formal vote. If modifications to degree requirements are approved, the changes are then forwarded to the Graduate Dean for final review and approval. If approved, the decision is communicated to all stakeholders. b. curriculum design The MPH Program Director provides leadership regarding curriculum development, design, and assessment. Curriculum design is a collaborative effort with the MPH faculty in consultation with the Department Chair and the Department Associate Director. Since this is a distance education program, as warranted, the program will engage the services of instructional technology specialists to assure that what we are designing can be delivered in an effective manner. The need for additions or changes to the curriculum may be identified by a single faculty member or arise from program-level discussion during a meeting. Faculty bring proposals to the MPH Curriculum and Evaluation Committee as a starting point for curricular design and revision. Upon approval by the committee, the proposal is forwarded to the Program Director and if required, onto the department curriculum committee for approval. Finally, the Dean of the Graduate School reviews and approves, or sends back to the committee for revision. The approval process for new courses, curriculum revisions, and new program proposals is as follows:
Table A1.2b. Curriculum Approval Processes Process Process Steps New Course Approval 1. Faculty member proposes new course, creates a syllabus and submits to the MPH Process Curriculum and Evaluation Committee. 2. Review/approval by program director and department curriculum committee. 3. Review/approval of the dean. 4. Documentation submitted to the Registrar for creation of the course Curriculum Revision 1. A proposal is introduced by the director or faculty followed by program-level discussion Approval Process regarding curriculum revision. 2. Review/approval of curricular revision by MPH Curriculum and Evaluation Committee. 3. Review/approval by the program director and department curriculum committee. 4. Review/Approval by the dean. 5. Documentation submitted to the Registrar for Catalog/course updating as needed New Program Approval 1. Program champion completes a New Program Proposal document with Dean’ approval. Process 2. Review by the Academic Planning Committee. 3. Review/approval by the Graduate Board. 4. Review/approval by the Deans Council. 5. Review/approval by the Provost. 6. Program announcement from the Provost to campus constituents 7. Registrar updates Catalog and creates courses as required
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 19 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program c. student assessment policies and processes Policies and procedures related to student assessment exist at the program, department, and university levels. Program Level Assessment: Recommendations and findings from committees are reported to the core faculty and Program Director. Faculty recommendation or formal vote informs all matters of importance. The final decision-making responsibility rests with the Program Director. The MPH Curriculum and Evaluation Committee is responsible for the development, maintenance, and reporting of formative and summative measures embedded within the curriculum to assess student learning. Like all other academic programs at CU, the MPH program completes an annual assessment report that documents assessment measure findings as well as other key indicators. The Committee also gathers accreditation specific data that is forwarded to the Accreditation Committee so that vigorous self- assessment of student success with respect to CEPH learning objectives and competencies is assured. This is the lead committee with responsibility to assure that CEPH’s 12 Learning Objectives representing Foundational Knowledge are documented, mapped and assessed within the curriculum. It is also the Committee responsible for documenting, mapping and assessing all 22 of CEPH’s Foundational Competencies as well as the 5 required Concentration Competencies. This mapping process involves Committee members meeting directly with all program faculty and carefully reviewing how competencies and objectives are reflected in course objectives, assignments, grading rubrics and student outcome measures. The use of grading rubrics affords the program consistency from course to course in articulating assessment criteria, conveying to students what is required for mastery of a given objective/competency, and affords the program a systematic tool to summarize student success with each competency. In the event there is evidence that student assessment processes are inefficient or non-compliant with CEPH requirements, the Committee works with the faculty member to rectify the deficiencies before the course is offered again. (It might be noted that no such deficiencies were uncovered during this review period.) The program also maps the curriculum to assure compliance with Graduate School and University learning objectives and student assessment policies. Department Level Assessment: The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Assessment Committee provides feedback and support related to the assessment activities of academic programs within the department. The committee also oversees initiatives to gather and analyze data on student learning. University Level Assessment: Each academic program is expected to submit an annual assessment report which includes the following components: (1) a custom requirement report that focuses on the discussion of intended learning outcomes and actual results among the faculty, staff, and students involved in a program; (2) the learning outcomes or objectives for the program; (3) a plan for assessing program learning outcomes; (4) assessment findings; (5) a continuous improvement plan related to current findings; and (6) a status report on the prior year’s continuous improvement plans. d. admissions policies and/or decisions Admissions policies and recommendations for admission to the program are made by the MPH Admissions Committee. Committee members review the applicant dossiers and submit their decisions to the Program Director through the university’s admissions review platform, Slate. Formal offers of admission are made by the CU Enrollment Management Office. The MPH Graduate Program Committee reviews and establishes admissions criteria for the program in accordance with requirements and expectations of the Graduate School. e. faculty recruitment and promotion CU is an Affirmative Action, Equal Employment Opportunity employer and all candidates for faculty positions, whether tenure-track, non-tenure track, or adjunct, are assessed on similar criteria and hired for mission. To ensure a fair and equitable process, the program follows Creighton’s hiring procedures (specification of qualifications, review of academic credentials, and background check for each position). This process includes multiple phases. The Program Director prepares hiring documents, receives approval by the Dean and submits necessary documents to HR.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 20 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
The Dean of the Graduate School names a Chair for the search committee who then leads the formation of a faculty search committee. MPH program faculty may serve on this committee. An HR representative is assigned to the process to provide guidance and ensure hiring policies and procedures are followed. Decisions on the advertisement, scope of the search (internal and external), screening of candidates against established criteria, interview questions, interviews and the selection of the top candidates are completed by the search committee. As warranted, faculty recruitment for the program strives to cast a wide net for qualified individuals. The EAB, individual faculty recommendations, and strategic placement of job positions within the wider public health community allows the program to communicate our hiring needs within a broad public health network on the regional and national level. The program is guided in identifying its recruitment needs by our commitment to diversity, and with a keen eye on addressing program determined underrepresented populations in our faculty ranks. Our recent hire of a new Program Director, effective June 1, 2020, is evidence of this commitment. Final approval for hiring is conducted in tandem by the Dean and Provost based on the recommendations by the Department Chair, Program Director and faculty search committee. Faculty can receive promotion in rank and salary based on achievement of specified attributes in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service (and clinical work as appropriate). Faculty in the program follow the Graduate School guidelines for performance for the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor, which are consistent with the Faculty Handbook, Section III.G. (see ERF A1.3c) Probationary faculty applying for tenure and/or promotion are required to be evaluated annually by the dean, chair, or other designated senior faculty member. Evaluations are provided in the context of current University and Graduate School Rank and Tenure Guidelines. This process is intended to assist faculty members in professional and career development. After review by the above-named entities, recommendations and dossiers for applicants for tenure and/or promotion are sent to the President, whose decision is final. f. research and service activities (self-study document) The teaching, research and service activities of each faculty member are determined in consultation with the MPH Program Director and the Department Chair. Generally, tenure-track faculty responsibilities are allocated as follows: 60% teaching, 20% research, and 20% service. Specific activities may be assigned based on the program’s mission and vision, or in response to needs within the program’s communities of interest (e.g. the at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable populations of the local Highlander Community). The Graduate School has tenure and promotion documents that provide guidance on the allocation of effort among teaching, scholarship, service and clinical work (where applicable).
A1.3. A copy of the bylaws or other policy documents that determine the rights and obligations of administrators, faculty and students in governance of the school or program. (electronic resource file) The following can be found in the electronic resource file: • ERF A1.3a – Graduate School Bylaws • ERF A1.3b – Program Director Handbook • ERF A1.3c – Faculty Handbook • ERF A1.3d – Student Handbook
A1.4. Briefly describe how faculty contribute to decision-making activities in the broader institutional setting, including a sample of faculty memberships and/or leadership positions on committees external to the unit of accreditation. (self-study document) The MPH faculty are active participants in the decision-making processes at the University, Graduate School, and Department levels. Table A1.4 lists the primary instructional faculty who serve on or lead committees external to the program.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 21 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table A1.4. MPH Primary Instructional Faculty Involvement on Committees Faculty Committee and Role Benedict, • Center for Interprofessional Practice & Research (CIPER) Curriculum Committee, Member (2018- Tanya present) • Graduate School Program Directors Committee, Member (2015-2019) • Graduate School Distance Education Administrators Committee, Member (2015-2019) • Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Assessment Committee, Member (2016-2018) • Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Curriculum Committee, Member (2016-2018) • Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Rank & Tenure Committee, Member (2016-2018) • Interdisciplinary Studies, EdD in Interdisciplinary Leadership Faculty Search Committee, Member (2016-2017) Chapple, Helen • MS in Bioethics Admissions Committee, Member (2018-present) • Pain Conference Planning Committee, Member (2016-present) • Plagiarism Committee for the College of Nursing, Member (2017-present) • Planning Group for IPE 515 Interprofessional Palliative Care Course, Member (2017-present) • Research and Scholarship Committee for the College of Nursing, Member (2016-18) • Traditional Curriculum Planning Committee for the College of Nursing, Member (2019-present) Johnson, • Committee on Computing and Academic Technology, Member (2014-present) LaShaune • Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Implementation Team for the Inclusive Excellence Dissertation Fellowships/Post Doc Program, Member • Health Disparities Implementation Group, Nebraska Cancer Coalition (NC2), Co-Chair • Highlander Purpose Built Community Internal Advisory Group, Member • Mario Digital Strategy Planning Team / IT-Project Prioritization Review Team, Member (2015- Present) • Public Health and Global/Community Health Planning Group Committee, Member (2015-present) • School of Medicine Distinguished Lecture Series Planning Committee, Member (2014-2016) Lux, Sarah • University Assessment Committee (UAC) – Member (2018 – present) • UAC Professional Development Sub-Committee – Co-Chair (2018 – present) • University Policy Committee – Member (2018 – present) • Assessment Committee, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies – Chair (2018 – present) • Curriculum Committee, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies – Member (2017 – present) • Admissions Committee, EdD in Interdisciplinary Leadership – Reviewer (2017 – present) • Health Care Ethics (Bioethics) Graduate Program Committee – Chair (2017 – present) • Teaching and Learning: Evaluation and Improvement Writing Team – Member (2015 – 2016) Nolt, Kate • Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Assessment Committee, Member (2018 - present) • Graduate School and College of Professional Studies Wellness Committee, Member (2017 - present) • Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Curriculum Committee, Member (2018 - present) • Center for Promoting Health and Health Equity, Member (2018 - present)
Ratnapradipa, • Curriculum Committee, Department of Interdisciplinary Studies – Member (2020 – present) Dhitinut • University Research Council, Member (2020-present) • Public Health Collaboration Committee, Creighton School of Medicine - Ad-Hoc Member (2020 – present) • Endowed Chair Executive Director of NEHII/CIPER Search Committee - Member (2020-present) Robinson, Mark • EdD in Interdisciplinary Leadership Admissions Committee, Reviewer (2017-present) • Health Care Ethics Admissions Committee, Member (2017-present) • Health Care Ethics (Bioethics) Graduate Program Committee, Member (2017 – present)
A1.5. Describe how full-time and part-time faculty regularly interact with their colleagues (self- study document) and provide documentation of recent interactions, which may include minutes, attendee lists, etc. (electronic resource file) Program Level: The MPH Graduate Program Committee (GPC) meets twice monthly and the Curriculum and Evaluation Committee meets as needed. The Academic Progression Committee meets once a month and includes all full-time faculty and special faculty (adjunct) currently teaching in the program. This meeting allows faculty to discuss timely instructional topics via the Teaching & Learning Check-In. The format and agenda of these meetings facilitates knowledge sharing and provides an opportunity for faculty to discuss their service and scholarship activities. All meetings include time for faculty to learn of new developments at the program, department, school, or university level. A sample of meeting minutes can be found as ERF A1.5a Program Level Communication.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 22 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
100% of the faculty-full/part time; regular/adjunct-have been active participants in the self-study process. Emphasis has been placed on assuring direct interaction between regular and adjunct faculty during this process to strengthen interactions among our community of teacher-scholars. A specific example has been the regular conversations among regular and part time faculty regarding mapping of CEPH learning objectives and foundational competencies in all courses. This has led to pedagogical discussion, enhancements to course assignments, and identification of common interests in scholarship and service that will foster future interactions. Full-time, part time, and special faculty are encouraged to collaborate on research projects, pedagogical approaches, mentoring, and scholarship. A specific outcome of past interactions has been the expressed desire of adjunct faculty to participate at the committee level in the program on a Scholarship and Service Committee along with regular faculty, to promote enhanced opportunities for collaboration. (see ERF A1.5a) This Committee has been formed and began activities in the spring 2020 term. Given the logistical realities of adjuncts having other employment obligations during the day, this committee functions as a “virtual committee” via Zoom, email, and, when feasible, in-person meetings. A few examples of collaborations among faculty include Drs. Kate Nolt’s and Tanya Benedict’s work on improving the content and assessment of the practicum course. Drs. Benedict and Nolt also collaborate in research and service related to facilitating a children’s kitchen in a marginalized community of Haitian migrants living in the Dominican Republic. Recently they collaborated on a poster presentation at the 2020 Global Health Conference Midwest to present the findings from a community health needs assessment conducted to determine the impact of the feeding program on the children of the community served. (see ERF A1.5b) Drs. LaShaune Johnson and Kate Nolt have collaborated on planning public health activities related to National Public Health Week (NPHW) observance in 2019 and 2020. In 2019, the NPHW celebration included a series of virtual live, pre-recorded, and in-person (recorded) events. In addition to the Creighton-created posts and speakers, MPH faculty also used their blog and listserv to encourage student involvement in the national activities, such as the Student Twitter takeover and opening day speaker. The ethnically diverse group of speakers for NPHW 2019 were from a range of universities and organizations across the globe. In 2020, the MPH Student Advisory Board joined the planning activities for National Public Health Week coordinated by Drs. LaShaune Johnson, Kate Nolt and Roger Mustalish. Due to the COVID-19 crisis, the planned in-person activities needed to be cancelled. In response, the Creighton NPHW planning team, including the MPH Student Advisory Board, created a website featuring a series of pre-recorded activities that were advertised on various social media sites, listservs, and Creighton news outlets. As in previous years, the team encouraged students to participate in the national observations in addition to taking part in the Creighton initiated events. The Student Advisory Board participated in NPHW planning meetings with faculty and are collaborating on MPH social media posts to be featured later in the year. The multicultural group of speakers for NPHW 2020 included health educator and Creighton MPH alum, April Dixon; Creighton Medical School professor, Caron Gray; local health department supervisor and MPH adjunct instructor, Leah Casanave; health disparities researcher, Tess Thompson, from a regional university; part-time environmental health faculty Roger Mustalish; and Cydney Franklin, COO of Seventy-Five North Corp. at Highlander Accelerator, an Omaha Purpose Built Community, where faculty member LaShaune Johnson conducts community engagement work. (see ERF A1.5 MPH Event Committee Minutes) Drs. Kate Nolt and Lisa Boyd collaborated on data analysis of a community health needs assessment conducted in two rural vulnerable communities in the Dominican Republic in 2019. Department Level: All full-time faculty are expected to attend quarterly Interdisciplinary Studies Department meetings, quarterly faculty meetings, and weekly MPH program meetings. In addition, Health Care Ethics Concentration faculty have academic responsibilities outside the MPH and regularly interact with faculty in the MS in Bioethics program. A sample of meeting minutes can be found as ERF A1.5b Department and College Level Communication.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 23 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Each year the Department hosts an off-campus day-long retreat attended by regular and adjunct faculty from the MPH program, as well as faculty from other programs in the Department. The theme for the most recent, on October 4, 2019, was “Care for the Common Home”. Graduate School and University Level: As a group, all graduate program directors meet two times each fall and spring semester with the Dean and Senior Associate Dean of the Graduate School to receive university updates, discuss issues related to policies or procedures, and receive reports from marketing and graduate enrollment. MPH faculty, whether they are primary, secondary, or special faculty, are invited to participate in University and Graduate School events, such as commencement, hooding, workshops, seminars, public health forums, presidential town halls, and symposiums on relevant topics.
A1.6. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The distributive leadership model employed by the program assures that all faculty are empowered to actively participate in the program. • Primary instructional faculty and non-primary instructional faculty are engaged in program development and governance. Decisions about curriculum, coursework, assessment, and policies are made collaboratively. • There is an active and effective array of strategic committees. • The program is well-represented on campus and university committees with at least one primary instructional faculty and/or staff member participating on all major committees. MPH representatives relay the committee’s activities and decisions to the MPH Graduate Program Committee when appropriate. • The EAB has a diverse membership, including alumni, who provide essential feedback and guidance to the MPH program faculty. • There is a formal process to assure student participation in the program to inform faculty decisions (See A3.) Weaknesses • As a distance learning program with a national, even international, student body, and employing both regular and adjunct faculty, the program is always challenged to assure that our structure, and operations embrace and empower the diverse stakeholders in our program. We recognize a need to be mindful of ongoing ways to enhance engagement. Plans for Improvement • The newly formed virtual Scholarship and Service Committee will begin activities during 2020 to foster enhanced collaboration among all MPH faculty.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 24 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
A2. Multi-Partner Schools and Programs
Not applicable.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 25 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
A3. Student Engagement Students have formal methods to participate in policy making and decision making within the school or program, and the school or program engages students as members on decision-making bodies whenever appropriate.
A3.1. Describe student participation in policy making and decision making at the school or program level, including identification of all student members of school or program committees over the last three years, and student organizations involved in school or program governance, if relevant to this criterion. Schools should focus this discussion on students in public health degree programs. (self-study document) Given that the program is fully online with student representation from throughout the United States engaging students in various aspects of the program has required a variety of strategies. We strive to take the “distance” out of Distance Education. Toward that end we have taken a tiered approach to assuring student engagement in the program. First tier: Student Advisory Board. This Board officially represents the larger student body and is called upon to solicit advice, concerns, and solutions to issues within the program and its student body. The current representatives are: Melyna Avalos, Yolanda Reynolds, Tricia Griffin, Norma Jean Aubain, Camille Cuonzo, and Lindsay de Borba. This Board has reviewed the program’s Guiding Statements, has participated in planning for National Public Health Week, and is an integral part of the Self-Study process with CEPH. Second tier. Individual students serve on committees as outlined in Table A1.1. Student representatives participate fully on these committees, holding a seat on the Public Health Events Committee and Scholarship and Service Committee. Beyond the program, students participate in Graduate School policy and decision making primarily through the Graduate Student Government (GSG), which is the governing body for students from all graduate programs, including MPH. MPH students Lachell Wardell and Yolanda Reynolds served during AY2017-18 and 2019-20, respectively. The Graduate School conducts an Academic Program Review after three years for new programs. As part of this academic review process, the Graduate School invites current students to participate in a small group discussion with the reviewers. The MPH program completed its most recent Academic Program Review in March 2018. Student participants included Andrew Deeb, Brooke Fitzpatrick, David Foss, Carlos Olson, Luisa Enriquez-Palma, Christina Rodrigues, and Mitrianna Streckfuss. See ERF A3.1 MPH Academic Program Review Agenda.
A3.2. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The Student Advisory Board is a formal structure through which we engage students. Its geographical diversity assures that students from around the country have a voice in the program. • There is student representation in strategic committees for the program. • Ad hoc participation by individual students in select committees, provides the program with additional opportunities to tap talented students for engagement with the faculty and program. • The design of our instructional technology for courses permits student evaluation of instructional quality and permits the program to secure additional documentation on student engagement on a variety of topics of importance to the program, such as levels of student engagement in community service. • Although the program is online, faculty and staff utilize a virtual meeting environment to maximize opportunities for student inclusion in individual and group meetings. Phone,
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 26 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
or video conference by Zoom, Skype, FaceTime, and WebEx, have served as meeting platforms to engage students. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 27 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
A4. Multi-Partner Schools and Programs
Not applicable.
A5. Degree Offerings in Schools of Public Health
Not applicable.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 28 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B1. Guiding Statements The school or program defines a vision that describes how the community/world will be different if the school or program achieves its aims. The school or program defines a mission statement that identifies what the school or program will accomplish operationally in its instructional, community engagement and scholarly activities. The mission may also define the school or program’s setting or community and priority population(s). The school or program defines goals that describe strategies to accomplish the defined mission. The school or program defines a statement of values that informs stakeholders about its core principles, beliefs and priorities.
Together, the school or program’s guiding statements must address instruction, scholarship and service and • must define the ways in which the school or program plans to 1) advance the field of public health and 2) promote student success. • may derive from the purposes of the parent institution but also reflect the school or program’s own aspirations and respond to the needs of the school or program’s intended service area(s). • are sufficiently specific to allow the school or program to rationally allocate resources and to guide evaluation of outcomes.
B1.1. A one- to three-page document that, at a minimum, presents the school or program’s vision, mission, goals and values. This document may take the form of the executive summary of a strategic plan, or it may take other forms that are appropriate to support the school or program’s ongoing efforts to advance public health and student success. (self- study document) The Guiding Statements for the MPH program were developed and adopted through a series of strategic planning sessions among all MPH faculty, the program’s EAB, and the Student Advisory Board. They are designed to reflect the broader institutional vision and mission of Creighton University while speaking specifically to our public health vision, mission, values, and goals. Priority Populations: As a distance education program with a national and international student body, we recognize that we are not training the next generation of public health professionals to work in any given geographical setting. Rather, we understand that graduates of the program will be engaging with a variety of communities across great geographic diversity. We wanted a common thread to guide our curriculum and program activities. Therefore, we identify our Priority Populations in this manner: The MPH program prioritizes national and global populations experiencing health inequity, including those who are vulnerable, at-risk, or marginalized. Vision: The MPH program aspires to ignite innovative engagement that promotes optimal physical, mental, and social well-being to eliminate health inequity in national and global communities. Mission: The MPH program promotes health equity through innovative approaches in teaching, culturally responsive community engagement, and robust scholarship embracing the Jesuit values of social justice, service to others, and critical self-reflection, emphasizing populations at-risk, vulnerable or marginalized. Program Core Values: Jesuit Values – critical self-reflection; service to others; taking responsible action Health Equity – promote the highest standard of accountability, transparency, and respectful practice which fosters an environment of trust and integrity Commitment to Diversity at All Levels Excellence in Teaching, Service, and Scholarship – continuous quality improvement; teamwork; collaboration and cooperation; practical application of knowledges, skills, attitudes; professional integrity; opportunity for inclusivity, applications of diverse learning technologies, creative online programming
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 29 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Cultural Humility Social Justice Health as a Public Good and Fundamental Right Program Goal Statements: Consistent with our Jesuit values, vision, mission, and reflecting our commitment to priority populations, the goals of the program are: Goal Statement 1: Teaching Prepare public health professionals committed to health equity grounded in competencies (knowledge, skills, beliefs, attitudes) in the foundations of public health to serve at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable communities through practice in health care ethics or health care management. Goal Statement 2: Scholarship Foster public health scholarship to promote health equity within priority communities that are at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable, while advancing public health knowledge and practice. The MPH program prioritizes national and global populations experiencing health inequity, including those who are vulnerable, at-risk, or marginalized. Goal Statement 3: Service Promote culturally responsive community engagement through outreach, education, and partnerships.
B1.2. If applicable, a school- or program-specific strategic plan or another comparable document. In 2017, the strategic plan for CU identified three major themes: a) achieving academic excellence; b) thriving in our mission; and c) engaging the world. A summary overview of the plan can be found at the following links: https://www.creighton.edu/strategic-plan/summary https://www.creighton.edu/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-documents (also available as ERF B1.2) In collaboration with the Graduate School, the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies completed a strategic planning process in January 2018 and continues to review and update the plan annually. Both the Department and the Graduate School align their strategic efforts with the university’s Strategic Plan while also identifying and updating key strategies and goals specifically for the department. Key strategies and goals embraced by the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies focused on academic excellence with a focus on building affinity for CU with our current students and alumni. Key tactics involved collaborating with Graduate School alumni and holding “Ignite the Leadership” events throughout major cities in the U.S where our alumni and students reside. Current students and alumni who live in the area are invited to these events. Key strategies and goals embraced by the MPH program have focused on academic excellence with a focus on faculty, curriculum, and student outcomes; thriving in our mission with a focus on faculty formation and development; and engaging the world with outreach to the local, national, and Dominican Republic communities.
B1.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The Vision, Mission, Values, and Goal Statements reflect the program as it exists today and what is envisioned for the future.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 30 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• We are guided by our Jesuit values and a firm commitment to health equity for the marginalized, vulnerable, and at-risk members of our communities. • Our Guiding Statements reflect the careful deliberations of all MPH faculty, staff, students, university administration, and external community advisors. This collective buy-in, in turn, informs decisions on curriculum, scholarship, and community engagement for our priority populations. • The clarity and integration of our Vision, Mission, Values, and Goals permit the program to successfully advocate for resources necessary to attain that to which the program aspires. • Stakeholders clearly understand the nature of our program. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 31 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B2. Graduation Rates The school or program collects and analyzes graduation rate data for each public health degree offered (e.g., BS, MPH, MS, PhD, DrPH). The school or program achieves graduation rates of 70% or greater for bachelor’s and master’s degrees and 60% or greater for doctoral degrees.
B2.1. Graduation rate data for each public health degree. See Template B2-1. (self-study document) As stated in the Graduate Catalog, all work toward the MPH degree must be completed within six calendar years from the date of credit for the first graduate course in the program.
Table B2.1 MPH Student Persistence and Graduation Rates Students in MPH Degree, by Cohorts Entering between 2012-2013 and 2020-21
Cohort of 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Students # Students 38 Entered #Students Withdrew, 3 2012- dropped 2013 #Students 0 Graduated Cumulative 0% Graduation Rate # Students 35 66 Entered #Students Withdrew, 4 11 2013- dropped 2014 #Students 0 0 Graduated Cumulative 0% 0% Graduation Rate # Students 31 55 56 Entered #Students Withdrew, 0 4 7 2014- dropped 2015 #Students 22 1 0 Graduated Cumulative 58% 2% 0% Graduation Rate # Students 9 50 49 42 Entered #Students Withdrew, 0 1 6 5 2015- dropped 2016 #Students 6 27 0 0 Graduated Cumulative 74% 42% 0% 0% Graduation Rate # Students 3 22 43 37 44 Entered 2016- 2017 #Students Withdrew, 0 0 1 2 4 dropped
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 32 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Students in MPH Degree, by Cohorts Entering between 2012-2013 and 2020-21
Cohort of 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 Students #Students 3 20 28 2 0 Graduated Cumulative 82% 73% 50% 5% 0% Graduation Rate # Students 0 2 14 33 40 26 Entered #Students Withdrew, 0 0 1 4 5 6 2017- dropped 2018 #Students 0 2 9 14 2 0 Graduated Cumulative 82% 76% 66% 38% 5% 0% Graduation Rate # Students 0 0 4 15 33 20 16 Entered #Students Withdrew, 0 0 1 3 2 2 3 2018- dropped 2019 #Students 0 0 1 11 16 0 0 Graduated Cumulative 82% 76% 68% 64% 41% 0% 0% Graduation Rate # Students 0 0 2 1 15 18 13 12 Entered # Students 0 Withdrew, 0 0 1 1 1 0 0
2019- dropped 2020 # Students 0 0 1 0 12 4 0 0 Graduated Cumulative 82% 76% 70% 64% 68% 15% 0 0 Graduation Rate # Students 0 0 0 0 2 14 13 12 7* Entered # Students Withdrew, 0 0 0 0 0 1* 0* 0* 0* 2020- dropped 2021 # Students 0 0 0 0 Graduated Cumulative 82% 76% 70% 64% Graduation Rate *Data presented as of Fall semester, 2020 only.
B2.2. Data on public health doctoral student progression in the format of Template B2-2. (self- study document) Not applicable.
B2.3. Explain the data presented above, including identification of factors contributing to any rates that do not meet this criterion’s expectations and plans to address these factors. (self-study document) We exceeded the 70% CEPH expected graduation rate for the cohorts who began in 2012-13 (82%) and 2013-14 (76%). Although the final data are pending progression of current cohorts through the program to graduation, we have been monitoring the admission rates as well as withdraw and drop rates of students. We realized our 2014-2015 cohort was just on the line of meeting the 70% requirement and that the
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 33 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
2015-2016 cohort will not meet it. An analysis of retention data pointed to the external partnership with Deltak/Wiley, which the program used for recruitment and retention as one source of the problem. Their services in these arenas no longer met Creighton’s standards. This concern was addressed at the university level when, in May 2018, the university terminated the contract with Deltak/Wiley. Following the contract termination, we thoroughly revamped our academic advising and retention model (discussed in detail in Section H). In doing so, we engaged faculty advisors and an academic coach to proactively intervene with students at academic risk; developed a recruitment and enrollment plan to replace that which Deltak/Wiley had conducted, and continued to support our faculty and staff to enhance student progression, retention, engagement, and graduation rates. Data presented in Section H suggest that we have been successful in turning around our student academic advising and retention. These data lead us to conclude that current and future cohorts will be successful in meeting the 70% target. One final caveat is needed, however. We are seeing the full economic and personal toll the Covid-19 pandemic is having on recruitment and retention. Since many of our students are working public health professionals, a high number are on the front line in their communities during this pandemic. This may impact their rate of progression through the program. Potential incoming students have indicated to us that a deferral of a semester or two may be necessary as they address added work pressures and/or the economic reality of the pandemic.
B2.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has a strong academic advising model.
Weaknesses • 2015/2016 fell below the 70% threshold for graduation rate. • No established benchmark on the percentage or rate for withdrawals or dropped students. Plans for Improvement • Establish a benchmark on the percentage or rate for withdrawals or dropped students to assure a graduation rate of 70%. • Implement and monitor new marketing, recruitment, enrollment, and retention plans.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 34 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B3. Post-Graduation Outcomes The school or program collects and analyzes data on graduates’ employment or enrollment in further education post-graduation, for each public health degree offered (e.g., BS, MPH, MS, PhD, DrPH).
The school or program chooses methods that are explicitly designed to minimize the number of students with unknown outcomes. This expectation includes collecting data that accurately presents outcomes for graduates within approximately one year of graduation, since collecting data shortly before or at the exact time of graduation will result in underreporting of employment outcomes for individuals who begin their career search at graduation. In many cases, these methods will require multiple data collection points. The school or program need not rely solely on self-report or survey data and should use all possible methods for collecting outcome data.
The school or program achieves rates of 80% or greater employment or enrollment in further education within the defined time period for each degree.
B3.1. Data on post-graduation outcomes (employment or enrollment in further education) for each public health degree. See Template B3-1. (self-study document) The outcomes reported in Table B3-1 include data that were captured by the Creighton Career Center http://www.creighton.edu/careercenter/, which surveys students a month before graduation, at graduation, three-months post-graduation, and then again approximately six months post-graduation. The program augmented these data with surveys all graduating students completed at time of graduation and up to one-year post-graduation. The majority of our graduates are working professionals; therefore, we feel the data captured within one-year post graduation gives us a reliable indicator of employment status and/or enrollment in further education.
Table B3-1. Post-Graduate Outcomes 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Post-Graduation Outcomes Number (%) Number (%) Number (%) Employed 22 (79%) 25 (89%) 5 (100%) Continuing education/training (not employed) 1 (4%) -- -- Not seeking employment or not seeking additional education by choice ------Actively seeking employment or enrollment in further education ------Unknown 5 (18%) 3 (11%) -- Total graduates 28 28 5 (known + unknown)
B3.2. Explain the data presented above, including identification of factors contributing to any rates that do not meet this criterion’s expectations and plans to address these factors. (self-study document) The program has exceeded CEPH’s requirement for 80% employment or further education each year. It should be noted that most of our MPH students are working adults. We now ask all employed graduates if they anticipate an employment change, such as a new employer or promotion, within the following 12 months. If they answer yes, we can track these changes. Likewise, if we have graduates seeking first employment upon graduation, the exit survey permits us to track this. Additionally, the program now tracks student employment and employment changes for 12 months post-graduation via websites such as LinkedIn, other social media platforms, and with an alumni survey. We recognize that there were a high number of “unknowns” in years 1 and 2 prior to implementing our additional data capture techniques. We believe, however, that our additional approach of using social media has been effective in tracking employment for graduates as evidenced by no “unknowns” for the most recent year. We expect this trend to continue going forward.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 35 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B3.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strength • The program works closely with the Career Center to assess post-graduate outcomes. • We collect post-graduate data beyond six months via an exit survey. • We use social media to maintain a relationship with program graduates. Weakness • Ensuring every graduate is well prepared to make career related decisions as they enter the public health work force or pursue additional educational opportunities. • Improvement is needed to reduce unknown data. Plans for Improvement • Faculty Advisors will conduct a one-on-one exit interview with students as they graduate from the program to answer career related questions and offer information about further educational opportunities. • Enhanced use of LinkedIn will be developed to improve our data collection abilities.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 36 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B4. Alumni Perceptions of Curricular Effectiveness For each degree offered, the school or program collects information on alumni perceptions of their own success in achieving defined competencies and of their ability to apply these competencies in their post-graduation placements.
The school or program defines qualitative and/or quantitative methods designed to maximize response rates and provide useful information. Data from recent graduates within the last five years are typically most useful, as distal graduates may not have completed the curriculum that is currently offered.
The school or program documents and regularly examines its methodology as well as its substantive outcomes to ensure useful data.
B4.1. Summarize the findings of alumni self-assessment of success in achieving competencies and ability to apply competencies after graduation. (self-study document) In Spring 2019, the program surveyed a total of 134 MPH alumni, asking them to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree=1 to strongly agree=5) to rate how they perceived curricular effectiveness. With 32 responses, we reached a 30% response rate. Table B4.1 summarizes the results. The seven components of the survey are based on the CEPH categories used to delineate the 22 Foundational Competencies for the MPH. In Summer 2020, the program repeated this survey, but this time, the survey asked how alumni were able to apply the competencies now that they had been on the job. A total of 165 alumni were surveyed. Although improved from the previous year, the 2020 response rate was still low. As a result, the program is considering what additional strategies can be employed to improve response rates for the 2021 survey. It is important to note that most of our students and alumni are working public health professionals, so both data from both years provides insight into achieving competencies and applying them on the job. As indicated in Table B4.1, 2019 data show a range of means from 3.97-4.28, suggesting alumni perceptions of being prepared in the competencies was good, though interprofessional practice and systems thinking was seen as weakest. For 2020, the range of means was 3.70-4.32, suggesting the program was also doing a good job of preparing students to apply the competencies while on the job. This year, improvement was noted in interprofessional practice and systems thinking, while on-the-job application of competencies associated with public health and health care systems showed a decline. Two items need to be noted. First, some of the alumni, especially in the 2019 survey, were in the program prior to adoption of the current CEPH standards, thus their perceptions of abilities may be a confounding variable in the total results. Second, given the low response rates, application of the conclusions of efficacy to the total number of alumni may not be as accurate as the program desires. Thus, our intention is to continue to improve data collection in this area.
Table B4.1. Alumni Perceptions of Curricular Effectiveness 2019 Survey Item – To what extent did the MPH program at Creighton University prepare you in the following areas: 2020 Survey Item – To what extent are you able to apply the following now that you are on the job: 2019 (134 Surveyed) 2020 (165 Surveyed) Responses Responses Mean Score Mean Score (Rate) (Rate) Evidence-based Approaches to Public Health: Select appropriate methodologies (quantitative or qualitative) for collecting and analyzing data for a given public health context. 4.22 32 (16%) 4.21 34 (21%) Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy or practice. Public Health & Health Care Systems: Understand the organizational, structural, and functional facets of public health and regulatory systems. Recognize how structural bias, social 4.28 32 (16%) 3.70 33 (20%) inequities, and racism undermine health and prevent health equity at organizational, community, and societal levels.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 37 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
2019 Survey Item – To what extent did the MPH program at Creighton University prepare you in the following areas: 2020 Survey Item – To what extent are you able to apply the following now that you are on the job: 2019 (134 Surveyed) 2020 (165 Surveyed) Responses Responses Mean Score Mean Score (Rate) (Rate) Health Promotion: Assess population needs and then design or implement culturally competent public health policies or programs. Use basic principles and tools of budget and resource 4.28 32 (16%) 4.03 34 (21%) management as well as appropriate methods to evaluative policies and programs. Policy in Public Health: Understand ethical complexity of the policy-making process and evaluate policies for their impact on public health and health equity. Build coalitions and 4.28 32 (16%) 4.07 34 (21%) partnerships, as well as advocate for policies and programs, that will improve health in diverse populations. Leadership: Apply principles of leadership, governance, and management in collaborative and team environments. Apply 4.06 32 (16%) 4.32 35 (21%) negotiation and mediation skills to address organizational or community challenges. Communication: Use audience-appropriate strategies and consider cultural competence when communicating public health 4.28 32 (16%) 4.05 35 (21%) content, both in writing and through oral presentation. Interprofessional Practice and Systems Thinking: Perform effectively on interprofessional teams and apply systems 3.97 32 (16%) 4.07 35 (21%) thinking tools to public health issues.
B4.2. Provide full documentation of the methodology and findings from alumni data collection. (electronic resource file) To supplement current data collection efforts at the university level, the program developed a brief alumni survey that specifically asked graduates about the competency areas and distributed it to all MPH alumni in Spring 2019 and again in 2020. Survey results are available as ERF B4.2 MPH Alumni Survey Results
B4.3 If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strength • The program implemented useful surveys in 2019 and 2020 to assess graduate perceptions of curricular effectiveness and their ability to apply the competencies on the job. • Responses to the seven categories assessed yielded consistent scores across six of the seven competency categories suggesting alumni perceptions as good; responses for only one category each year suggested perceptions of average abilities. Weakness • While the majority of scores suggest good perceptions of curricular effectiveness and the ability to apply these competencies on the job, the program aspires to excellence and needs to review the results, especially of those suggesting only average ability, to assess how we can better deliver competencies in our foundational courses. • The 2019 survey results include alumni who graduated from the program prior to implementation of the current CEPH competencies. This may be a confounding variable. • While improved in 2020, response rates were still low. Plans for Improvement • Results from the initial survey and current survey will be assessed by the MPH faculty to identify which categories of competencies are being well delivered and which ones need improvement. • As an ongoing commitment to excellence alumni data collection will now be continuous.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 38 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Subsequent surveys will only be distributed to alumni who were in the program since the adoption of the current CEPH competencies. • Based on results of the alumni survey, the Curriculum and Evaluation Committee will track progress in strengthening delivery of foundational competencies. They will recommend changes in the curriculum and the mapping of competencies to the Program Director for further consideration. • Program staff will follow up via email and phone calls with alumni who do not respond in order to improve response rates.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 39 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B5. Defining Evaluation Practices The school or program defines appropriate evaluation methods and measures that allow the school or program to determine its effectiveness in advancing its mission and goals. The evaluation plan is ongoing, systematic and well-documented. The chosen evaluation methods and measures must track the school or program’s progress in 1) advancing the field of public health (addressing instruction, scholarship and service) and 2) promoting student success.
B5.1. Present an evaluation plan that, at a minimum, lists the school or program’s evaluation measures, methods and parties responsible for review. See Template B5-1. (self-study document) Below are the program’s evaluation methods and measures that we use to assess our effectiveness with our Mission and our Goals. Mission: The MPH program promotes health equity through innovative approaches in teaching, culturally responsive community engagement, and robust scholarship embracing the Jesuit values of social justice, service to others, and critical self-reflection, emphasizing populations at-risk, vulnerable or marginalized.
Table B5-1. Evaluation of Goal Statements Evaluation Measures Data Collection Method for Measure Review Process Goal Statement: Teaching Prepare public health professionals committed to health equity grounded in competencies (knowledge, skills, beliefs, attitudes) in the foundations of public health to serve at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable communities through practice in health care ethics or health care management. Measure: • Core course syllabi reviewed annually to assess The MPH Curriculum and Evaluation Didactic instruction, learning course objectives as they relate to health equity Committee is the lead committee for resources and assignments and priority populations. these reviews. While there are no in core courses reflect the • Content, reading assignments, other learning quotas, per se, for the number of course program’s focus on health materials and assignments (discussion boards, objectives and course equity in at-risk, written assignments, quizzes) reviewed annually activities/resources, the review looks for marginalized and vulnerable to also assure relevance to the program’s consistent evidence of our focus on populations. commitment to health equity in our priority issues of health equity in our priority populations. (see ERF B5.3h Course Review communities, above and beyond merely Example) mapping the courses to CEPH learning objectives and foundational competencies. Any recommendations for change are reported to the Graduate Program Committee. Final decisions are made by the Program Director Measure: • Online survey that all students take midpoint The MPH Curriculum & Evaluation Students’ perceived mastery through the curriculum and then during their final Committee is the lead committee for of core and concentration course before graduating. (ERF B5.3b MPH review of survey results. Measures to competencies. Midpoint Survey; ERF B5.3c MPH Exit Survey). improve the curriculum are forwarded to • Survey results compiled and submitted to the the Graduate Program Committee. MPH Graduate Program Committee for review and action, if warranted.
Measure: • IPE Modules and Passport Activities (ERF B5.3g IPE Modules and Passport Activities: Student performance in real CIPER Report) The annual outcomes report is reviewed world setting during their • Practicum Supervisor Site Evaluation (ERF B5.3a by the Curriculum and Evaluation Integrative Learning Practicum Supervisor Site Evaluation) Committee. Experience (ILE) and • Capstone Project Final Paper Practicum Supervisor Site Evaluation: A Applied Practice Experience report of the summary data is prepared (APE). by the Practicum Coordinator and presented annually to the MPH Curriculum and Evaluation Committee. This report includes documentation of student mastery of at least 3 foundational competencies and 2 concentration competencies per CEPH criteria.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 40 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Evaluation Measures Data Collection Method for Measure Review Process Measure: • Alumni Survey (ERF B5.3e. MPH Alumni Survey) The MPH Curriculum & Evaluation Alumni perceptions of at one-year post-graduation. Committee is the lead committee for knowledge and skill • Alumni activity and updates available through review of survey results. Measures to preparation for application in LinkedIn. improve the curriculum are forwarded to the workplace. • Results of these surveys are compiled and the Graduate Program Committee. reported to the Graduate Program Committee. Goal Statement: Scholarship Foster public health scholarship to promote health equity within national and global communities that are at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable, while advancing public health knowledge and practice. Measure: • Annual report using data from the university’s The Program Director assures Number of peer reviewed Faculty Database on research and scholarship compliance with annual reporting. The articles with a focus on activity amongst program faculty. (ERF B5.3d Scholarship and Service Committee is vulnerable populations to MPH Program Review Documentation) the lead committee for assessing the advance health equity. • Faculty CV data. extent of faculty scholarship by part time • Annual survey of part-time and adjunct faculty and adjunct faculty. regarding scholarship. Measure: • Annual report using data from the university’s The Program Director assures Percent of faculty Faculty Database on research and scholarship compliance with annual reporting. The participating in activity amongst program faculty. (ERF B5.3d Scholarship and Service Committee is research/scholarship with a MPH Program Review Documentation) the lead committee for assessing the focus on vulnerable • Faculty CV data. extent of faculty scholarship by part time populations to advance • Annual survey of part time and adjunct faculty and adjunct faculty. health equity. regarding scholarship. Measure: • Annual report using data from the university’s The Program Director assures Presentations at Faculty Database on research and scholarship compliance with annual reporting. The professional meetings with a activity amongst program faculty. (ERF B5.3d Scholarship and Service Committee is focus on vulnerable MPH Program Review Documentation) the lead committee for assessing the populations to advance • Faculty CV data. extent of faculty scholarship by part time health equity. • Annual survey of part time and adjunct faculty and adjunct faculty. regarding scholarship. Measure: • Annual report using data from the university’s The Program Director assures Increase by 50%/year over Faculty Database on research and scholarship compliance with annual reporting. The 2020 baseline the number of activity amongst program faculty. (ERF B5.3d Scholarship and Service Committee is faculty-student MPH Program Review Documentation) the lead committee for assessing the collaborations in research • Faculty CV data. extent of faculty scholarship by part time and scholarship. • Annual survey of part time and adjunct faculty and adjunct faculty. regarding scholarship. Goal Statement: Service Promote culturally responsive community engagement through outreach, education, and partnerships. Measure: • Annual report using data from the university’s The Program Director assures Percent of primary and non- Faculty Database on primary instructional faculty compliance with annual reporting. The primary instructional faculty extramural service. (ERF B5.3d MPH Program Scholarship and Service Committee is participating in culturally Review Documentation) the lead committee for assessing the responsive extramural • Faculty Annual Evaluation extent of faculty scholarship by part time service activities with • Annual survey of part time and adjunct faculty and adjunct faculty. vulnerable populations. regarding service activities Measure: • Data collected from faculty (ERF A1.5a MPH The Program Director, MPH Practicum Number of faculty-student Graduate Program Committee Meeting Minutes) Coordinator and Faculty report and service collaborations with • Annual survey of the EAB to identify new review the results of the annual data vulnerable populations. opportunities for community engagement. collection. The EAB participates by reporting new community engagement opportunities. Measure: • A survey is conducted every semester for all All faculty participate in this survey of Percent of students involved actively enrolled students to assess their current the students enrolled in their courses. in culturally responsive engagement in community service. Summary results are reported to and community engagement. • Results are assembled by program staff and acted on by the Program Director. reported to the Program Director Efforts to foster student community • The EAB is surveyed annually to identify new engagement occurs through faculty- opportunities for student engagement. student interactions through individual • The Student Advisory Board reviews survey data courses and through outreach efforts by collected from the first bulleted method above. program faculty, the Student Advisory Board, and the EAB.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 41 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Evaluation Measures Data Collection Method for Measure Review Process Measure: • Quarterly Community Advisory Board Meetings The Program Director is the lead for Number of priority include ongoing efforts within this Board to create evaluation efforts regarding this community-based service new and document existing partnerships between measure. The MPH Practicum projects the program and our geographically diverse Coordinator, faculty, the EAB, and communities. Minutes summarize these results students participate in the data and are reported to the Program Director. gathering process to identify the nature • A Practicum Site Database, maintained by the and extent of program-community Practicum Coordinator updates and reflects the partnerships. The Program Director scope of community engagement between the assesses the results and works with program and its community, based on student each of the stakeholders to continue a placement sites. Results are reported to the process of community outreach and Program Director. engagement. • Faculty are surveyed annually to document their specific community engagement activities. Results are reported to the Program Director. • The EAB is surveyed each year to identify professional development needs in our priority communities and to identify to opportunities for community engagement. (ERF B5.3f External Advisory Board minutes) The evaluation plan outlined in Table B5.1 is just one component of the overall assessment and evaluation activities for the program. In addition to the evaluation activities included in Table B5.1, the program participates in required evaluative processes such as the Academic Program Reviews and annual assessment reports. CU’s Academic Program Review policy requires new academic programs to be reviewed within three years and every seven years thereafter. Program review includes completion of a self-study document which provides evidence and narrative components related to admission and enrollment trends, student outcomes, faculty outcomes, instructional productivity, and program strengths, and weaknesses or opportunities. A virtual program review is conducted by two external reviewer and one internal. The reviewers report is submitted to the program, which then prepares an action plan, which is reviewed by the graduate dean and approved by the Provost. Documents from the 2017-18 MPH program review can be found as ERF B5.3d. To submit annual learning assessment data, all academic programs, including the MPH program, use Watermark/Task Stream, an online platform for collecting and reporting assessment data. Creighton’s Teaching and Learning Center collects annual reports from all academic programs and coordinates a systematic peer review of the results. See annual assessment reports, as well as reviewer comments, from the last three years in ERF D20.2b-e Assessment Reports. CU uses the Provost Data Management System, an internally developed online database, for faculty to manage, report, and track teaching, scholarship, service, and professional activities. The Data Management System includes a reporting feature for academic programs and administrators to review for continuous improvement and reporting to accreditation bodies. The MPH Accreditation Committee is the direct internal review body monitoring the program’s success in meeting CEPH criteria, learning objectives, and competencies. This is an ongoing process during each academic year and includes responsibility for assuring that required data gathering methods are operational and the data are being assessed and acted on by the appropriate MPH committees.
B5.2. Briefly describe how the chosen evaluation methods and measures track the school or program’s progress in advancing the field of public health (including instruction, scholarship and service) and promoting student success. (self-study document) The Teaching, Scholarship, and Service goals listed in this section reflect the vision, mission, and values of the program as outlined above in B.1. The chosen evaluation measures, methods, and review processes allow us to track progress in advancing public health and promoting student success in the following ways. GOAL 1 Teaching: Prepare public health professionals committed to health equity grounded in competencies (knowledge, skills, beliefs, attitudes) in the foundations of public health to serve at-risk,
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 42 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program marginalized and vulnerable communities through practice in health care ethics or health care management. This goal advances the program’s role in the field of public health by ensuring that as students gain relevant knowledge and skills from mastery of CEPH learning objectives and competencies, they do so with a focus on health equity within our priority populations. The program measures this in the following ways: • Measure 1 course review indicates whether or not core course objectives, learning materials and assessments reflect the program’s commitment to health equity in priority communities. This measure provides actionable data in support of ongoing program enhancement and improvement. • Measure 2 promotes student success through the collection of quantitative and qualitative data multiple times throughout the program on student perceptions of their own learning. It indicates that students graduate having mastered competencies that are foundational to the field of public health as well as those specific to their concentration area. This measure also permits program faculty to monitor student success and adjust the learning experiences of the students, if necessary, to improve their success. • Measure 3 consists of the collection of experiential learning artifacts (i.e., ILE, APE, and interprofessional activities) as evidence of student mastery in real world settings. This not only advances the public health field by preparing qualified new members of the workforce, but it permits the program to promote student success through ongoing evaluation of capstone experiences with an intention to continue to improve student experiences in real world settings. • Measure 4 promotes student success through the collection of quantitative and qualitative data on alumni perceptions of their ability to apply competencies on the job. Since the majority of our students are already employed in the field, this measure permits the program to assess the specific enhancement to their professional development, thus providing the program with reliable data regarding the extent to which the program is contributing to advancing the field of public health. Similarly, it provides actionable data upon which to continue to improve the program. GOAL 2 Scholarship: Foster public health scholarship to promote health equity within national and global priority communities that are at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable, while advancing public health knowledge and practice. This goal supports the program’s role in advancing the field of public health by prioritizing scholarship to promote health equity in our priority communities, and with intent to inform teaching and practice as well. The program measures this in the following ways: • Measure 1 tracks benchmarks regarding scholarly work on health disparities in priority populations submitted for publication. This advances the field of public health by contributing new knowledge and skills to be disseminated to the broader public health community through peer reviewed publications. It also promotes student success through our commitment to teacher- scholarship and the diffusion of new knowledge into the program’s curriculum by faculty. • Measure 2 tracks benchmarks related to faculty scholarly productivity that addresses health disparities in priority populations. This contributes to the public health field by generating new research activities leading to additional peer reviewed publications and/or presentations. It also offers opportunities to foster interprofessional collaborations. The measure promotes student success through our commitment to teacher-scholarship and the diffusion of new knowledge into the program’s curriculum by faculty. • Measure 3 tracks benchmarks related to presentations and speaking engagements on health disparities in priority populations. Dissemination of knowledge and skills derived from faculty presentations advances the field and promotes student success. • Measure 4 creates a structure to assess whether students are active participants in faculty scholarship through direct collaboration. The scholarship on health disparities in priority
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 43 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
populations will contribute to the field while students will gain valuable experience in scholarly collaboration contributing to improved student success. GOAL 3 Service: Promote culturally responsive community engagement through outreach, education, and partnerships. This goal advances the field of public health by engaging the program’s students and faculty with our priority communities, focusing on promoting health equity, and reflecting the needs of the public health workforce. Student success is promoted through individual and student-faculty engagement with our priority communities. The program measures this in the following ways: • Measure 1 tracks benchmarks related to faculty involvement in extramural activities within our priority communities. The methods and review processes assure that we can assess the cultural responsiveness of all faculty community engagement. This will inform annual faculty evaluation, foster the integration of the community engagement in the curriculum, and permit the program to determine how to foster even greater engagement. • Measures 2 and 3 tracks benchmarks to evaluate the extent of collaborative service work between faculty and students, and individual community engagement activities by students within priority communities. The measures and review processes permit the program to evaluate the extent of such collaborations, identify areas for improvement, and in the process, both advance the field and promote student success. • Measure 4 promotes the development and evaluation of new and existing culturally responsive community partnerships between the program and our priority communities. The collaborative nature of the review process assures that opportunities for engagement by students and faculty are identified, that the program is addressing the professional needs of public health practitioners in communities, and that the Service goal both advances the field and enhances student success.
B5.3. Provide evidence of implementation of the plan described in Template B5-1. Evidence may include reports or data summaries prepared for review, minutes of meetings at which results were discussed, etc. Evidence must document examination of progress and impact on both public health as a field and student success. (electronic resource file) Documentation is provided in ERF B5.3i on implementation of the evaluation plan. A good example of how we “close the loop” using evaluation data is how the program addressed cultural diversity, inclusion, and cultural competence in the program in general and the curriculum in particular. In the ERF are the following relating to this one example: • Minutes from a faculty retreat that led to adoption of revised guiding statements relating to advancing health equity within marginalized, at-risk and vulnerable populations • Results of faculty and student surveys to determine the extent of cultural competence within the curriculum • Results of faculty and student surveys on the climate of the program regarding diversity and inclusion • The Curriculum and Evaluation Committed reviewed syllabi for alignment with CEPH learning objectives/competencies and the program’s guiding statements (see ERF A1.5a Program Level Communication-Curriculum and Evaluation Committee) • Minutes of meetings with the Program Director during which decisions were made to hold regular faculty meetings to advance cultural diversity, inclusion and improve the climate within the program See ERF B5.3 for the following documents that relate to additional examples of implementation of the evaluation plan: • ERF B5.3a Practicum Supervisor Site Evaluation • ERF B5.3b Midpoint Survey • ERF B5.3c Exit Survey
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 44 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• ERF B5.3d Program Review Documentation • ERF B5.3e Alumni Survey • ERF B5.3f External Advisory Board minutes • ERF B5.3g CIPER IPE 400/500 Report • ERF B5.3h Course Review Example • ERF B5.3i Evaluation Plan Implementation
B5.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has clear goal statements in alignment with our guiding statements. • Each goal has clearly articulated evaluation measures, specific data gathering systems, and a clear review process for decision making. • Committee responsibilities are clearly articulated regarding each goal and corresponding measures. • Each goal reflects collaboration for the benefit of the program by engaging all faculty, external advisors, and students. • The data collected and the review processes employed permit the program to effectively assess how the program advances the field of public health and how we promote student success. Weakness • Prior to the 2019-2020 academic year, faculty-student collaborations in scholarship and service occurred but were limited in number. Plan for Improvement • The program will review the current level of faculty-student collaborations in scholarship and service, assess current strengths and weaknesses, and explore new opportunities.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 45 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B6. Use of Evaluation Data The school or program engages in regular, substantive review of all evaluation findings, as well as strategic discussions about the implications of evaluation findings.
The school or program implements an explicit process for translating evaluation findings into programmatic plans and changes and provides evidence of changes implemented based on evaluation findings.
B6.1. Provide two to four specific examples of programmatic changes undertaken in the last three years based on evaluation results. For each example, describe the specific evaluation finding and the groups or individuals responsible for determining the planned change, as well as identifying the change itself. (self-study document) The Program Director and all faculty, through a strategic array of committees, implements our Evaluation Plan and translates our evaluation of actionable data into concrete programmatic changes to advance the field and to assure student success. Below are some specific examples.
Responsible Party Evaluation Finding for Change Outcome Through our Evaluation Plan, we collect Program Director in Reduced Faculty Workload: Faculty workload for full time data on 4 measures associated with conjunction with the MPH faculty was reduced from six courses to five per Scholarship and 4 associated with Service. MPH Graduate academic year based on a recommendation from the Following a review during 2018-2019 it Program Committee Program Director following our program review. (see ERF was determined that faculty had insufficient B5.3d). The result of this has been an increased ability of time to meet the benchmarks set for faculty to meet the established benchmarks in both productivity in these two critical areas. scholarship and service. In the course of gathering data during Program Director Required Writing Course: The program thereby established 2018-2019 relating to Measures 1 and 2 and the MPH a requirement effective immediately that all incoming under Teaching in our Evaluation Plan, the Graduate Program students take GRD 601 Writing for Graduate Students. (see Accreditation Committee, the Curriculum Committee ERF B6.1). Committee and the MPH Program The course description reads: This course prepares students committee concluded that some student for graduate writing by building on and improving existing success was being negatively impacted by writing skills. Students learn how to enter a scholarly the poor quality of written scholarly outputs conversation first by exploring the written works of others from some MPH students. The Program is and then by responding to those works by conducting library heavily based on intensive writing research and developing their own arguments. assignments. Students now begin the program better prepared for academic writing. Measure 3 under Teaching in our Program Director, IRB Review Requirement for Practicum Projects: These Evaluation Plan affords the Practicum Practicum projects are reviewed based on designated criteria with most Coordinator and Program Director regular Coordinator and meeting the criteria for exempt status. This process aligns opportunities to evaluate the quality of MPH Graduate with the university’s commitment to rigorous standards that student performance in real world settings Program Committee protect research participants while ensuring that society prior to graduation. This ongoing review continues to reap the benefits of research. This process also process led the Practicum Coordinator gives the students an opportunity to know and practice the during 2018-2019 to conclude that student ethical expectations of research. success could be enhanced by having all student projects undergo review by the University’s IRB Committee, something that had not been required previously. Measure 2 under Teaching in our Program Director Embedded Midpoint and Exit Surveys: To evaluate and Evaluation Program calls for regular and the MPH improve student outcomes, a self-report survey was collection of data regarding student Graduate Program developed to assess student perceptions of achievement (as perceptions of their own learning, Committee measured on a Likert scale of agreement) of the foundational especially regarding competencies. A and concentration competencies. The Midpoint survey is review of existing data during 2018-2019 embedded in MPH 607 Biostatistics, which is approximately by the MPH Program Committee halfway through the program (see ERF B5.3b). The Exit determined that more systematic data Survey is embedded in MPH 612 Capstone. (see ERF collection was needed, and one that B5.3c). This is now replicated each year and provides a addressed the broad categories of consistent data base upon which to evaluate student foundational competencies specifically. success through student’s own perception of their learning.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 46 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
B6.2. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The MPH program has a comprehensive Evaluation Plan, with clear data gathering measures, systems for data collections and articulated benchmarks. • There are clear decision-making processes in place, taking advantage of the program’s committee structure. • There is clear evidence of collaboration in evaluation and implementation of changes, including not only faculty, but external advisors and students. • Demonstrable changes have taken place because of the implementation of the Evaluation Plan that has advanced the field of public health and enhanced student success. • Evaluation measures have been successful in documenting the program’s efforts to advance the field and foster student success. Weakness • While our evaluation process described in B6.1 has yielded positive program changes, it also revealed that more data was needed. For example, crafting student survey questions relating not only to mastery of learning objectives and competencies, but how comprehensively they reflect the program’s commitment to health equity in priority populations. Plans for Improvement
• The Accreditation Committee, the Curriculum and Evaluation Committee and, then, the MPH Graduate Program Committee will review current measures for advancing the field and assuring student success. If it is determined that additional measures are needed or current ones need modifications, these changes will be implemented in the evaluation plan.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 47 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C1. Fiscal Resources The program has financial resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals. Financial support is adequate to sustain all core functions, including offering coursework and other elements necessary to support the full array of degrees and ongoing operations.
C1.1. Describe the program’s budget processes, including all sources of funding. This description addresses the following, as applicable: a. Briefly describe how the program pays for faculty salaries. If this varies by individual or appointment type, indicate this and provide examples. If faculty salaries are paid by an entity other than the program (such as a department or college), explain. The MPH program is primarily funded by tuition revenue. All MPH faculty salaries are funded completely by tuition revenue from the program. Regular faculty member's salaries are fully guaranteed and are contracted on an annual basis. Adjunct faculty members are contracted on a term by term basis and are paid based on the number of students enrolled in the course they are teaching. b. Briefly describe how the program requests and/or obtains additional faculty or staff (additional = not replacements for individuals who left). If multiple models are possible, indicate this and provide examples. Requests for additional faculty or staff are made through the annual budget process. Early in the annual budget process, the Program Director assesses the needs of the program and develops a proposal and justification for additional faculty or staff. The proposal then proceeds to the Department Chair and Dean for further evaluation and approval. If the Department Chair and Dean support the position, it will be included as a request in the upcoming fiscal year’s proposed budget that is put forth to the Budget Advisory Committee. The Budget Advisory Committee reviews the University’s overall needs, stipulates priorities for the budget year, and addresses requests from the respective areas. The Creighton Board of Trustees has final approval of the budget. Once the final budget and a new faculty or staff position has been approved, the Program Director can begin working with Human Resources to advertise and recruit for the new faculty or staff member. A search committee is formed, and a Human Resources representative assists the committee through the interview, selection, and on-boarding processes.
c. Describe how the program funds the following:
c-a). operational costs (programs define “operational” in their own contexts; definition must be included in response) The program defines operational costs as all expenses associated with the program; including personnel expenses (salaries and benefits), non-capital expenses (supplies, services, travel, etc.) and capital expenses (equipment exceeding $5000). Most of the program’s operational costs are funded by tuition revenue. Staff salaries and benefits as well as some faculty development and travel are funded by the Graduate School rather than by tuition revenue. If a faculty member receives external funding, those funds may be used to supplement the tuition revenue funds spent on operational costs. There are several university initiatives (not funded by the program) that greatly benefit the MPH Program – most notably, the Highlander Accelerator facility and programming. Highlander provides the program with office space and overhead that supports public health program outreach in this underserved community of Omaha.
c-b). student support, including scholarships, support for student conference travel, support for student activities, etc. The MPH program offers all students the opportunity to apply for funding of up to $1500 annually to support special program initiatives, professional development, and student success. These
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 48 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
funds are awarded at the approval of the MPH Program Director. The MPH program also provides funding of up $500 annually to support the efforts of the MPH Student Advisory Board. The MPH program is in the Graduate School, which provides on ground and online support to the MPH graduate students. Information for scholarships and financial assistance for graduate students is available on the CU website. The Graduate School awards a limited number of scholarships in the fall and spring. The scholarships are competitive, and a student may receive this scholarship a maximum of two times during their graduate program. To date, 12 scholarship totaling $25,000 have been awarded to MPH students. (see ERF C1.1b for Scholarship Communication Example) Funds are available through the Graduate Student Government (GSG) for graduate students who have a poster or presentation accepted at an academic conference. Full-time students can apply for up to $750 in support, while part-time students may apply for funding up to $250. GSG also sponsors other social and service events that enhance the graduate student experience, and all students are welcome to participate in these events. Additionally, funds may be distributed upon approval to cover costs for other events that graduate students or graduate student organizations wish to participate in or host. A special program offered in 2018-2019 was the Graduate Alumni Advisory Leadership Fellows program that provided graduate students an opportunity to receive executive coaching and mentoring for an academic year to develop their leadership skills. Brook Fitzpatrick, an MPH graduate student, was selected to participate in the 2018-2019 cohort. An application for the Leadership Fellows program can be found as ERF C1.1c Leadership Fellows Program Nomination Letter.
c-c). faculty development expenses, including travel support. If this varies by individual or appointment type, indicate this and provide examples Each year, the Graduate School provides full-time faculty members with a professional development allotment. These funds can be used at the faculty member’s discretion, with program director approval, for professional memberships, conference registration fees, travel to conferences, or other professional development opportunities. Primary faculty members may make a special request to the Program Director and/or Department Chair if additional professional development funds are needed. Program funds that may be used at the Program Director’s discretion for the development needs of full-time faculty member or for special faculty members who are engaged in strategic initiatives of the program. In addition, the Graduate School has small funds (up to $500) available to support faculty projects related to research or scholarship. d. In general terms, describe how the program requests and/or obtains additional funds for operational costs, student support and faculty development expenses. If the MPH program were to need additional funds, a request would be made to the Dean of the Graduate School. If the need for additional funds was a specific, one-time expense, the Program Director would communicate the need and justification to the Graduate Dean to determine if funds were available at the school level to cover the cost. If the MPH program’s need was an on-going, annual expense, then this request would be made as a part of the annual budget process. As part of this process, the Program Director would develop a proposal, with justification, to present to the Department Chair and Dean. If the proposal is supported at the school level, it will be included as a request in the upcoming fiscal year’s proposed budget that is put forth to the Budget Advisory Committee for approval. e. Explain how tuition and fees paid by students are returned to the program. If the program receives a share rather than the full amount, explain, in general terms, how the share returned is determined. If the program’s funding is allocated in a way that does not bear a relationship to tuition and fees generated, indicate this and explain. When MPH tuition is received, one hundred percent is returned to the program to fund faculty salaries and other operational expenses. In situations where an MPH student takes an elective or concentration course outside of the MPH program, a portion of the tuition for that course is transferred to the program
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 49 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program offering the course to cover the instructional costs. The same arrangement would apply for a student outside the MPH program who elects to take an MPH course. After the program covers all faculty salaries and other operational expenses, any funds remaining are treated as a net contribution to the university and are used to fund non-revenue generating areas. Students are charged a University Fee and a Technology Fee each semester. These fees are used to cover the costs of other university services (e.g. libraries, technology infrastructure, transcript and Registrar services) that are available to the students and are not returned to the MPH program. A portion of the University fee is also allocated to support the Graduate Student Government and its activities. f. Explain how indirect costs associated with grants and contracts are returned to the program and/or individual faculty members. If the program and its faculty do not receive funding through this mechanism, explain. Grant funding has not been a major source of income for the MPH program. Regular MPH faculty members have received small, internal grants, though few external grants. However, faculty members are continuing efforts to improve in this area. CU's Sponsored Programs Administration provides members of the Creighton community with the services and resources they need to successfully obtain and manage funding for their research, scholarly, and service endeavors. The department assists faculty with searches for funding opportunities, grant editing, budget preparation, routing proposal for University official approvals and electronic proposal submission. If a faculty member were awarded a grant that provided indirects,100% of the indirect funds would be returned to the Graduate School Dean’s Office. Decisions on the distribution of the indirect funds would be made by the Dean. A detailed report of all grant activity of the primary instructional faculty members for the past five years can be found as ERF C1.1f Grant Activity of Primary Instructional Faculty.
C1.2. A Clearly formulated program budget statement in the format of Template C1-1, showing sources of all available funds and expenditures by major categories, for the last five years.
Table C1-1. Sources of Funds and Expenditures by Major Category, 2016 to 2020 Year 1 FY16 Year 2 FY 17 Year 3 FY18 Year 4 FY19 Year 5 FY20
(2015-16) (2016-17) (2017-18) (2018-19) (2019-20)
Sources of Funds Tuition & Fees $ 1,679,099 $ 1,659,265 $ 1,057,472 $914,468 $670,005 Grants/Contracts $ 5,515 $1,913 $1,260 Other: Allocated Tuition ($24,222) ($24,417) ($8,551) ($3,001) ($7,097) Discount Support from Other Areas $84,379 $206,126 $408,720 $475,674 $501,703
Total $1,739,256 $1,846,489 $1,459,554 $1,388,401 $1,164,611 Expenditures Faculty Salaries & Benefits $698,150 $736,039 $849,541 $748,435 $866,464 Staff Salaries & Benefits $47,423 $99,908 $87,227 $133,348 $138,233 Operations $701,643 $ 706,579 $ 338,524 $26,194 $14,398 Other: Transfers $6,000 $ 3,623 ($13,669) $42,449 $(5,571)
Total $1,453,216 $1,533,149 $1,261,623 $940,433 $1,013,524
Funds identified under “Support from Other Areas” represent prorated salaries and benefits for staff serving the MPH program and health care ethics faculty who teach for the MPH program. The significant drop in the operations expenditure’s category in years 3 through 5 is related to the contractual agreement that was in place with Deltak/Wiley, Inc. (see Intro-1f). The fee for their services
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 50 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program was charged as percentage of tuition revenue. In January of 2018, the fee percentage was reduced by five percent. This decrease, coupled with the lower tuition revenue, were the biggest contributors to the sharp decline in operations expenditures in Year 3. At the start of Year 4, a University-wide decision was made to discontinue the Deltak/Wiley, Inc. contract and use in-house resources to provide the services that had been provided by Deltak/Wiley, Inc. These costs are currently not being passed on to the programs. This explains the drastic drop in operations expenditures in Years 4 and 5.
If the program is a multi-partner unit sponsored by two or more universities (as defined in Criterion A2), the budget statement must make clear the financial contributions of each sponsoring university to the overall program budget. Not applicable.
C1.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • The program has enjoyed strong fiscal stability since inception. • Operational expenses have been significantly reduced by switching to internal student recruitment rather than employing an external contractor, thus further strengthening the financial profile for the program. • In 2018-19, the university, recognizing the key role tuition revenue plays in the program’s fiscal profile, reorganized its internal enrollment management resources dedicated to graduate student recruitment, including contracted work with EAB to redesign the Graduate School website. • At the program level, the MPH program has a dedicated recruiter (“admissions navigator”) assigned to the program that focuses on our recruiting efforts. • Dedicated organizational infrastructure for enrollment management was created in May 2018 as we transitioned from an external outsourced contractor (Deltak/Wiley) to internal CU enrollment management structure. • Improvements include an enhanced website, and inclusion of the Academic Coach in the admissions process. The MPH Academic Coach is involved in assisting prospective students to make informed decisions about the plan of study and helps with integrating them into the Creighton community.
Weaknesses • Enrollment in the MPH program at CU declined since 2017-2018 in large part due to the transition from Deltak/Wiley to internal CU enrollment management. As a result, tuition revenue declined. In 2020, tuition revenue has been impacted by COVID-19. Plans for Improvement • Since program operations are driven by tuition revenue, any time enrollment drops we are concerned. It must be noted up front, though, that while enrollment has declined, it has not negatively impacted the financial viability of the program. As noted under Strengths, the program realized substantial operational savings with the decision to move to internal student recruitment. These savings help offset a drop in tuition revenue. Further, we recognize that with the strategic decision on the part of the University to move to an internal enrollment system there would be a lag period in enrollment as we phased out our third-party contractor and phased in our internal team. That said, though, we wish to strengthen the financial resources of the program by engaging in a diverse array of student recruitment strategies. • Work with the departmental Marketing Committee to provide program specific marketing.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 51 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Develop recruitment efforts on campus to identify students in undergraduate programs with interest in an MPH. • Preliminary conversations are underway within the program to explore a focused outreach program nationally, especially within the community of Jesuit universities across the country that do not have MPH programs, and with those universities within a 100-mile radius of the Creighton campus. We believe the online format of our program could have particular appeal to students wishing to pursue an MPH without having to relocate from their current residence or employer.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 52 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C2. Faculty Resources The program has adequate faculty, including primary instructional faculty and non-primary instructional faculty, to fulfill its stated mission and goals. This support is adequate to sustain all core functions, including offering coursework and advising students. The stability of resources is a factor in evaluating resource adequacy.
Students’ access to a range of intellectual perspectives and to breadth of thought in their chosen fields of study is an important component of quality, as is faculty access to colleagues with shared interests and expertise.
All identified faculty must have regular instructional responsibility in the area. Individuals who perform research in each area but do not have some regular expectations for instruction cannot serve as one of the three to five listed members.
C2.1. A table demonstrating the adequacy of the program’s instructional faculty resources in the format of Template C2-1.
Table C2-1. Faculty Resources by Concentration Concentration / Degree PIF 1* PIF 2* Faculty 3^ Additional Faculty+ Healthcare Management Tanya Benedict LaShaune Johnson Kate Nolt PIF: 1 / MPH 1.0 1.0 1.0 DT Ratnapradipa
Non-PIF: 3 Ellen Houston Stephen Peters Nicholas Baldetti Health Care Ethics / Mark Robinson Helen Chapple Sarah Lux Non-PIF: 5 MPH 0.64 .53 .50 Beth Furlong Sarah Lux Hellen Ransom .50 John Stone Robert Sandstrom Jos Welie Totals: Named PIF – 7 Named Non-PIF – 8 Total Named PIF & Non-PIF – 15
C2.2. Explain the method for calculating FTE for faculty in the templates and evidence of the calculation method’s implementation. Programs must present calculation methods for primary instructional and non-primary instructional faculty. FTEs for regular faculty are calculated based on the percentage of assigned workload that is devoted to the MPH program. Workload consists of teaching, scholarship, and service. These three areas represent 60%, 20% and 20%, respectively, of 1 FTE. Regardless of concentration, full-time regular faculty are assigned to teach five courses each fiscal year (July 1 – June 30). If the faculty member has teaching assignments, scholarship, or service that falls outside of the MPH curriculum or concentration, then the FTE is prorated accordingly. Non-PIF Faculty typically teach one course per 8-week term and spend an average of 15 hours per week teaching, which is approximately 38% FTE per week. Based on this, each 8-week course taught is equivalent to roughly 6% annual FTE.
* Primary Instructional Faculty (PIF) may be counted as a PIF a maximum of two times if the FTE contribution is 1.0. FTE indicated below each faculty name denotes the contribution to the MPH program, as a whole, rather than to individual concentrations. ^ Faculty 3 can be either primary instructional faculty or non-primary instructional faculty. These individuals may appear multiple times if their responsibilities and training/experience are appropriate to count in multiple concentrations. + Additional Faculty must be individually identified in Tables E1.1 and E1.2, as applicable. PIF and non-PIF faculty identified in other concentrations in the table may be included in this headcount if their responsibilities and training/experience are appropriate to count in multiple concentrations.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 53 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Primary Instructional Faculty (PIF): PIFs listed in Table C2.1 are full-time faculty who contribute at least 50% of their total annual time to the MPH program or its concentration areas through teaching assignments, research activities, and professional service. The following individuals are counted as PIFs according to the parameters included above: • Tanya Benedict, PhD, CPH • Helen Chapple, PhD, RN • LaShaune Johnson, PhD • Sarah Lux, PhD • Kate Nolt, MPH, PhD • DT Ratnapradipa, PhD • Mark Robinson, PhD
Non-Primary Instructional Faculty (Non-PIF): Non-PIFs are those individuals who contribute less than 50% of their total time to the MPH program or its concentration areas through their teaching assignments. A few non-primary faculty are full-time, tenure-track faculty who also teach in other academic programs at CU. Most non-primary faculty, however, are scholar-practitioners who have professional obligations outside of the MPH program and CU. The Non-Primary Instructional Faculty are listed in Table E1-2. Regardless of position or academic rank, FTE or the percentage of time allocated to the MPH program is calculated the same for Table E1-2. Faculty typically teach one course per 8-week term and spend an average of 15 hours per week teaching, which is approximately 38% FTE per week. Based on this, each 8-week course taught is equivalent to roughly 6% annual FTE. The AY 2019-20 course schedule is available as ERF C2.2b 2019-2020 Course Schedule, which was used to calculate FTE in Table E1-2.
C2.3. If applicable, provide a narrative explanation that supplements reviewers’ understanding of data in the templates. For both MPH concentrations, all primary instructional faculty contribute between 0.50 – 1.0 FTE to the program through regular teaching of concentration courses in the MPH program and research and/or service that is directly related to the MPH program (see faculty CVs for details of research and service). Non-primary instructional faculty contribute up to 0.49 FTE through regular teaching in the concentration courses. Not reflected in the data template above, though, are the additional PIF and Non-PIF that represent additional FTEs to the program through teaching foundational courses and/or providing professional service to the program, i.e. Program Director. These additional faculty resources are presented in Section E of this self-study. Beyond the FTEs, and as will be reported in subsequent sections of the self-study, all program faculty, whether regular full time or part-time, or teacher-practitioners, are teacher-scholars in their chosen field and present to the students a geographic and cultural diversity that assures that students will benefit from a wide array of perspectives. Similarly, the faculty represent a community of teacher-scholars that creates a synergy within the program that goes beyond the hard faculty headcounts.
C2.4. Data on the following for the most recent year in the format of Template C2-2. See Template C2-2 for additional definitions and parameters. The student advising model used by the MPH program includes a three-tiered approach. Program faculty are primary, typically the PIF identified in C2.1, who provide academic advising and career mentoring; the second tier is an Academic Coach who works in conjunction with faculty to monitor and promote student success; and the final tier are all program faculty who assist in informal advising and career counseling through individual courses (See Section H for details).
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 54 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table C2.2. Faculty/Advisee Ratios in Advising, Mentoring, and the Integrative Experience Master’s Degree Average Minimum Maximum General advising and career counseling 12 1 16 Advising in the MPH integrative learning experience encompasses 12 2 16 Capstone project
As of Spring 2020, the average faculty to advisee ratio is 12 with a minimum of 1 and a maximum of 16. The integrative learning experience (ILE) consists of MPH 610 Pre-Practice Preparation, a 1-credit course dedicated to assisting students in planning their ILE, and MPH 611 Practice Experience, a 3-credit course in which students complete their practice experience under the supervision of a qualified preceptor. During the ILE and Capstone experiences, the student's primary faculty advisor continues to provide advising, career counseling and mentorship; and faculty to advisee ratio remains at an average of 12 with a range of 2-16. However, each student also benefits from the special advice and counseling of the practicum coordinator, Dr. Kate Nolt, as students begin their field-based experiential learning. The data presented in Table C2.2 is current as of the Spring 2020 semester. Advising loads may at times differ from current enrollment numbers because some students are not active in the program at a point in time.
C2.5. Quantitative data on student perceptions of the following for the most recent year. a. Class size and its relation to quality of learning (e.g., The class size was conducive to my learning) Evidenced-based best practices from Quality Matters indicate smaller online classes with 25 or fewer students are optimal for student learning and engagement. Therefore, the maximum class size for the MPH program and all other online master’s programs at CU is 20-25 students. Beginning in October 2018, the MPH program revised its course evaluation to include a survey item that explicitly asks students about their perceptions of class size. CU administers course evaluations through Campus Labs, a web-based data collection tool, at the end of each term. The course evaluation surveys are available as ERF E3.5 Course Evaluation Data. Course Evaluation Survey Results Beginning in Fall 2018, students were asked to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) to rate whether they felt the class size was conducive to their learning. Results for the current year are as follows for the MPH program:
Table C2.5a. Course Evaluation Data on Student Perception of Class Size Survey Question: The class size was conducive to my learning.
AY2018-19 AY2019-20
Responses Mean Enrolled Responses Mean Curriculum Component Enrolled
Integrated Core 74 63 4.49 112 91 4.38
HCE Concentration 46 36 4.22 109 70 4.49
HCM Concentration 50 27 4.37 70 43 4.59
Applied Practice Experience 21 14 4.36 38 24 4.54
Integrated Learning Experience 13 10 4.70 8 6 4.50
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 55 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
A review of the data indicates strong student perceptions that class size was conducive to their learning throughout the program. b. Availability of faculty (i.e., Likert scale of 1-5, with 5 as very satisfied) As in C2.5a., the revisions to the course evaluation survey in October 2018 also included two questions that asked students about their perceptions of faculty availability and level of interaction within the course. The course evaluation surveys are available as ERF E3.5. Course Evaluation Survey Results Course evaluations include a question that asks students to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) in response to the following statements. Results for the current year are as follows for the MPH program:
Table C2.5.b. Quantitative Data (Mean Scores) on Student Perceptions of Faculty Availability
Survey Question Q1: I had sufficient interaction with my instructor(s) in this course.
AY2017-18 AY2018-19 AY2019-20
Mean Mean Mean
Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled
Responses Responses Curriculum Component Responses Integrated Core 152 123 4.36 74 63 4.25 112 91 4.36 HCE Concentration 78 42 4.43 46 36 4.31 109 70 4.40 HCM Concentration 63 27 4.07 50 27 4.37 70 43 4.21 Applied Practice Experience 33 7 4.00 21 14 4.07 32 21 3.90 Integrated Learning Experience 6 6 5.00 13 10 4.70 14 9 4.11 Survey Question Q2: The instructor(s) in this course made adequate provisions for consultation and assistance.
AY2017-18 AY2018-19 AY2019-20
Mean Mean Mean
Enrolled Enrolled Enrolled
Responses Responses Curriculum Component Responses Integrated Core 152 124 4.44 74 63 4.54 112 91 4.46 HCE Concentration 78 42 4.52 46 36 4.53 109 70 4.70 HCM Concentration 63 28 4.25 50 27 4.33 70 43 4.53 Applied Practice Experience 33 8 4.13 21 14 4.29 32 21 4.24 Integrated Learning Experience 6 6 5.00 13 10 4.60 14 9 4.11
A review of the data indicates that there were consistent student perceptions of good faculty availability throughout the program, both within courses themselves, and for external consultation and assistance.
C2.6. Qualitative data on student perceptions of class size and availability of faculty. Schools should only present data on public health degrees and concentrations. (summary in self- study and full results/backup documentation in electronic resource file) As of Spring 2019, the MPH program surveyed students to solicit qualitative feedback regarding class size and faculty availability at two different points during their program. Students complete the first survey, the MPH Midpoint Survey, when they begin the MPH 607 Biostatistics course, which is halfway through the program. Students complete the second survey, the MPH Exit Survey, in the final course, MPH 612
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 56 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Capstone. The Associate Director for the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies reviews the qualitative data from course evaluations for the MPH core and concentration courses for emerging themes and trends. Qualitative data is available as ERF C2.6. A review of the data indicates that students were satisfied with the delivery of the online program. Further qualitative data yielded student comments such as: “professors are very good about giving feedback.”
C2.7. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • The program has qualified PIFs and other faculty to instruct in the core curriculum and concentration areas, the Applied Practice Experience and the Integrated Learning Experience, and to provide quality academic and career advising. • The program faculty represent a strong balance between regular, full and part-time teacher- scholars and adjunct teacher-practitioners that reflect geographic, cultural and intellectual diversity, and fosters collaboration and interaction. • Program faculty teach within their area of expertise and offer students diverse intellectual perspectives. • The MPH advising model employing regular faculty members as primary advisors, an academic coach to assist in monitoring student success, and all course faculty offering informal advice allows us to devote time to students related to professional issues, career counseling, and mentoring. • Student surveys indicated strong agreement that faculty are available to them and that classroom size was supportive of their learning experience. • In Spring 2019, we embedded open-ended questions in the Mid-Point and Exit Surveys, as discussed in Section C2.6. Having these surveys embedded in required classes will facilitate a higher response rate and provide a consistent way to collect and analyze qualitative data to be used in conjunction with quantitative data already reflected in the survey instrument. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 57 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C3. Staff and Other Personnel Resources The program has staff and other personnel adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals. The stability of resources is a factor in evaluating resource adequacy.
C3.1. A table defining the number of the program’s staff support for the year in which the site visit will take place by role or function in the format of Template C3-1. Designate any staff resources that are shared with other units outside the unit of accreditation.
Table C3-1. Staff Support Role/Function: Shared Support Staff FTE MPH Program MPH Practicum Coordinator 0.25 Department of Interdisciplinary Studies MPH Program Coordinator 0.75 MPH Academic Coach 0.40 Administrative Assistant 0.25 Associate Director 0.25 Teaching & Learning Center Instructional Designer 0.30 Graduate School/College of Professional Studies Senior Financial Analyst 0.20
The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies has adopted a shared staffing model across its graduate programs to maximize productivity and increase efficiencies. Those dedicated to the MPH program are described below. MPH Program • MPH Practicum Coordinator – Guides students through the process of identifying, arranging and completing a practicum experience that fulfills the program’s degree requirements and aligns with CEPH accreditation standards. Monitors and evaluates student progress in the development and completion of their practicum through progress reports and communication with students and site supervisors. Acts as a liaison between students, faculty, and current and potential preceptors; and provides overall support to students, site supervisors, and faculty advisors. Department of Interdisciplinary Studies • MPH Program Coordinator – Assists the MPH program Director in daily operations and strategic and programmatic planning for the MPH program. Assists in developing master course schedules, enrollment projections, and projecting future budget needs. Assists faculty in providing public health programming and other events. Maintains data and documentation repository, updates the Student Resource Center, maintains student and alumni listservs, and serves as primary technical contact for adjunct faculty and program operations. • MPH Academic Coach – Is responsible for on-boarding and orienting new MPH graduate students, provides ongoing support for academic success throughout a student's program of study, assists students with registration, and monitors student progression. Positively impacts student retention and completion rates in the program. • Associate Director – Maintains and analyzes assessment data and coordinates assessment and evaluation activities. Supervises department Program Coordinators.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 58 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Administrative Assistant – Coordinates event planning, purchasing, and travel arrangements. Serves as the main contact for office technology, handles building and facility issues, and provides overall communication support for the program. The Teaching & Learning Center • Instructional Designer – Provides pedagogical and instructional design consultation and support services for effectively developing and maintaining courses. Supports faculty use of the learning management system and other academic technologies to support all learning experiences. Graduate School / College of Professional Studies • Senior Financial Analyst – Oversees the budget, maintains personnel files, and prepares faculty teaching contracts and agreements. Serves as a financial liaison between the program and the Dean of the Graduate School and the university’s Finance Division, including purchasing and accounting services. Serves as a liaison between the department and Human Resources.
C3.2. Provide a narrative description, which may be supported by data if applicable, of the contributions of other personnel. In addition, there are staff members available in the following areas to support the MPH program as needed: • The Division of Information Technology and Library Services provides technical support to faculty, staff, and students. • The Graduate School Dean’s Office provides administrative support by managing the appeals process, student leaves of absence, violations of the academic honesty policy, degree clearances, and other administrative issues. • The Teaching and Learning Center provides support to faculty and staff in working with the learning management system and other academic technology. This area also provides professional development and training in online teaching to new and potential online instructors. • The Enrollment Management group recruits new MPH students and manages the admissions process. • University Communications and Marketing provides support through the maintenance of the program’s website and the promotion of program events. • The John P. Fahey Career Center is an integral part of the Creighton EDGE and provides students with opportunities to develop relationships with employers and benefit from career counseling. The Career Center administers a graduate exit survey to all Creighton students, including those in the MPH program, upon receiving their degree. Career Center staff and administrators provide programming and assistance with graduate and professional school options and planning, such as resume’ preparation and review, job and internship searches, and mock interviews. • Creighton Connect is an online retention tool aimed at improving student academic success by allowing faculty or academic coaches to raise an alert early in a course for students who are struggling. The tool also streamlines communication between students, instructors, and advisors, and allows students to get directly connected to support resources on campus. • Sponsored Programs Administration provides members of the Creighton community with the services and resources they need to successfully obtain and manage funding for their research, scholarly, and service endeavors. The office assists faculty with searches for funding opportunities, grant editing, budget preparation, routing of proposals for University official approvals and electronic proposal submission.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 59 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C3.3. Provide narrative and/or data that support the assertion that the program’s staff and other personnel support is sufficient or not sufficient. The program benefits from 2.4 FTE core staff dedicated to the MPH program, with additional resources available as needed. These individuals provide excellent support to students, faculty, and other program stakeholders. The current organizational structure arose from a 2017 Department of Interdisciplinary Studies assessment of staff roles, responsibilities, and efficiencies. As a result, the MPH program was assigned a dedicated Program Coordinator while additional staff were assigned to oversee the finances, provide academic coaching, work with faculty on instructional design and offer the program event planning services. This organizational structure has increased efficiency and employee engagement. Additionally, due to the reorganization process, other staff members in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies (who are not listed) have been cross-trained and would be able to step in and support the MPH program should the need occur.
C3.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • There is adequate shared staff and personnel support for the MPH program. Primary support comes from the Program Coordinator and the Practicum Coordinator who work directly with the Program Director. Additionally, there are five shared support staff to assist with student services, instructional support, fiscal management, and general administrative duties. CU also has a strong infrastructure for supporting academic programs and their students. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 60 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C4. Physical Resources The program has physical resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals and to support instructional programs. Physical resources include faculty and staff office space, classroom space, student shared space and laboratories, as applicable.
C4.1. Briefly describe, with data as applicable, the following. (Note: square footage is not required unless specifically relevant to the program’s narrative.) Faculty Office Space The Master of Public Health program has adequate faculty office space located on CU’s campus within the Center for Health Policy and Ethics (CHPE) building. This building space provides offices for several faculty in other programs in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies as well. This promotes interdisciplinary collaboration and communication for teaching, scholarship and service. Primary instructional faculty, including remote faculty, have their own dedicated offices or shared space in the same building to facilitate collaboration and communication. Faculty offices are equipped with personal computers and/or laptops with docking stations and monitors. There is established work and meeting space for special faculty to utilize if they do not have a designated campus office. It can also be used for student meetings. All computers are connected to the local area network. Staff Office Space The Master of Public Health program’s staff office spaces are located in three different areas on CU’s campus: the Center for Health Policy and Ethics building, Reinert Alumni Library (RAL) and the Graduate School Administration Office Suite in the Eppley building. Each staff member has their own designated office space. Staff offices are equipped with personal computers and/or laptops with docking stations and monitors. All computers are connected to the local area network. Highlander Accelerator Creighton University at Highlander Accelerator is a newer building area that encompasses 4,000 square feet of flexible learning space, including a classroom, a large conference room, small conference room and individual meeting rooms. This area offers additional space for scheduled meetings and planned events for the Master of Public Health faculty and staff to utilize. Classrooms As the Master of Public Health program at CU is 100% online, classroom space is minimally utilized but readily available when needed. Shared Student Space The Master of Public Health program has access to various meeting rooms for faculty meetings as well as meetings with students and/or community members, including the main conference room in the Center for Health Policy and Ethics building, a conference room in the Reinert Alumni Library and a conference room in the Eppley building. Each conference room is equipped with WIFI, a conference room telephone, audio, a projector screen and a video camera. The meeting rooms are equipped for Zoom, which is CU’s online, web-based conferencing service. Zoom allows participants to participate via audio and/or video and allows them to share their own screen or desktop. Faculty and staff can also use Zoom for applicable student communications. The Creighton campus also offers a wide variety of larger meeting rooms that are available to reserve and use for larger on-campus meetings or events. There is established space for special faculty or distance faculty to have instructor/student meetings if they choose to use other space than a designated campus office. Each of CU’s three libraries have numerous student study areas if students were to be on-campus. In addition to the above, all students in every course have access to a virtual meeting space, Student Lounge, that is part of the Blueline learning platform. Students use the Student Lounge to introduce
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 61 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program themselves to others in the program and to “meet” with others outside the primary experience of the course. Laboratories (if applicable to public health degree programs) Not applicable.
C4.2. Provide narrative and/or data that support the assertion that the physical space is sufficient or not sufficient. The physical space for the Master of Public Health program is sufficient. Primary instructional faculty have their own dedicated offices or shared space in the same building to facilitate collaboration and communication. Also, the faculty and staff have access to various meeting rooms in different areas on campus.
C4.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • CU provides proper infrastructure and amenities for faculty and staff. The location of offices for faculty and staff are largely based on roles and responsibilities. Each faculty and staff, including remote faculty, has a dedicated office or shared space in the same building to facilitate collaboration and communication. • There are meeting rooms in the three building locations where staff are located to utilize for reoccurring scheduled meetings, Zoom meetings, phone conference calls, or individual appointments. In the rare event that these meeting areas are in use or a larger space is needed, CU offers numerous meeting space options on campus. • The program also provides virtual meeting spaces and technology for faculty and students to meet and interact in support of the program’s overall goals and core functions. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 62 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C5. Information and Technology Resources The program has information and technology resources adequate to fulfill its stated mission and goals and to support instructional programs. Information and technology resources include library resources, student access to hardware and software (including access to specific software or other technology required for instructional programs), faculty access to hardware and software (including access to specific software required for the instructional programs offered) and technical assistance for students and faculty.
C5.1. Briefly describe, with data if applicable, the following: Library resources and support available for students and faculty Creighton's three libraries (Health Sciences Library, Reinert Alumni Library, Ahmanson Law Library) provide information and training resources to on-campus and online students and faculty. The current physical collections of the libraries include 899,847 physical objects. The campus also has access to nearly 100,000 serials, mostly e-journals. In the past 5 years, there were over 3,000,000 full-text downloads of journal articles and over 500,000 views of e-books. Theses and dissertations have been digitized and are housed in the Creighton Digital Repository. There were also 67,000 full text downloads of Creighton theses and dissertations in the last five years. The libraries are open over 100 hours a week. Assistance and support from the Library experts are available 84 hours a week. Librarians also offer workshops on research tools, methods, and strategies and are available for one-on-one consultations. The libraries also expanded the inter-library loan program and made this service available for free to all students, faculty, and staff. A designated library liaison is assigned to each of the schools and colleges within CU. Student access to hardware and software (including access to specific software or other technology required for instructional programs) All CU online students are required to have a desktop or laptop computer that meets or exceeds the requirements listed on the Student Technology Requirements page (see ERF C5.1a). Academic Coaches advise new students of the required technology hardware and software upon registering them for their first term of courses. The online platform used by the MPH program and all other academic programs at CU is Canvas (rebranded as Blueline). Like most online learning management systems, the Canvas/Blueline platform manages nearly all course-related content and activities, including course syllabi and assignment calendars; course and weekly learning objectives; access to readings, media, and materials; assignment expectations, submission of work, evaluation rubrics, and grades. Blueline also allows multiple options for individual or group interaction, including an integrated messaging system, posting of course announcements, reciprocating assignment feedback tools, student groups sites, and peer review tools. The MPH program also uses Blueline to host an online Student Resource Center (SRC) that MPH students can access at any time to view program-specific information, including faculty biographies and contact information, book lists, course schedules, practicum resources, career resources, and public health resources and organizations. Individual courses, as warranted, offer students access to course-specific learning technology and software. As examples, MPH 604 provides students access to an online short course on developing health behavior logic models. Advanced instruction and opportunities for self-assessment are provided, augmenting the existing instruction and assessment of the course. In MPH 606, students have access to Navigate 2, a technology with enhanced learning opportunities for students, self-assessment quizzes, and an expanded resource list for topics covered in the course’s required textbook. Numerous MPH courses provide students access to discipline-specific simulation software, computer animations, interactive learning technologies and more. Faculty access to hardware and software (including access to specific software or other technology required for instructional programs)
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 63 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
The university’s learning management system for distance courses and programs, Canvas (Blueline), is a powerful platform that offers a variety of instructional and feedback tools for faculty. Discussion boards, online gradebooks, quizzing, options for grading with annotated and media feedback, ability for student created and shared media, and collaborative workspaces are all examples of Blueline features that MPH faculty use in their courses. Canvas/Blueline also offers an integrated plagiarism deterrence tool called Turnitin. Though most course delivery is asynchronous, there are some courses that may require limited synchronous video conferencing. Faculty like to meet “virtually” with students or hold “virtual office hours” using video conferencing technology. Zoom is the university’s online, web-based conferencing service and allows participants to share audio, video, and their own screen or desktop. Zoom meetings can be held on a desktop computer, laptop, iPhone, iPad, and other mobile devices. Faculty may create video clips for use in their distance courses by using Panopto, which is branded as BlueCast. CU continues to make improvements in terms of access and availability of cloud-based software. Since summer 2015 all faculty, staff and students have been provided access to Qualtrics, an online survey software. The expanded access proves to be beneficial to students and faculty for scholarship and research projects. Technical assistance available for students and faculty The Division of Information Technology and Library Services has contracted with vendors that now provide 24/7 support for faculty, staff and students. Support for Blueline and current web-conferencing solution is provided 24/7 for students, faculty, and staff. Students can contact the Information Technology and Library Services support hotline 24/7 for password resets and to submit a ticket for support of other technical issues that might arise. Through the instructional design process, The Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) staff of instructional designers, an instructional technologist, and graduate assistants collaborate with faculty to select the tool(s) that best support each course’s learning objectives and provide training and ongoing support for using the tools. Canvas/Blueline offers easy navigation and increased student-to-student and student-to- faculty interactivity. To assure mastery of use, all faculty complete an online training course offered by the TLC in the use and application of Blueline before teaching online for the program. In addition, the TLC offers online Blueline orientation for all MPH students.
C5.2. Provide narrative and/or data that support the assertion that information and technology resources are sufficient or not sufficient. In a survey conducted of all faculty (n=12) in fall 2019, 100% of faculty indicated that they were able to successfully teach their courses with available instructional technology. 10 of 12 indicated the university resources alone were enough; 10 of 12 also indicated that they augmented their courses with external learning technology. No weaknesses in software access or information technology were noted. Instructors have access to a variety of instructional software, all of which is at a reduced cost or no cost at all. Faculty and staff are supplied desktop computers or laptops and access to printing, copying, and other office equipment. Staff, faculty, and students may receive support from the university’s full-service Division of Information Technology and Library Services and troubleshoot technical issues from the university’s technical support helpdesk. Since the MPH program is 100% online, all students must meet the minimum technology hardware and software requirements upon enrolling in courses. (see ERF C5.1a) The Teaching and Learning Center provides various training opportunities throughout the year to orient new instructors to best practices in online teaching as well as opportunities for seasoned faculty to keep their skills current with evolving technologies and platforms. The University’s Quality in Distance Education Policy requires that all faculty who teach online demonstrate competency in online teaching. Faculty who do not demonstrate competency, or have insufficient experience in teaching online are required to complete the Introduction to Digital Learning and Academic Technologies Certificate Course, which provides instructors an introduction to online teaching at CU. The self-paced course provides a basic overview to the Canvas/Blueline learning management system, best practices in online pedagogy, as well as course design and quality assurance.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 64 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
C5.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • CU, through its libraries, digital repositories, the Teaching and Learning Center, and via Canvas/Blueline, provides the MPH program with a wealth of information and technology resources available to faculty, staff, and students. • The Department of Information Technology and Library Services is highly responsive to the technology and resource needs of students and faculty. • The online MPH program is supported by a dedicated team of instructional designers in the TLC. Technology training is available for faculty, staff, and students. • Most software and access to technology for MPH courses is available for free to students and faculty. • Students also benefit from course-specific software and learning technology provided by faculty in conjunction with Creighton’s support services. • 100% of the faculty report sufficient resources to support their courses, and thus the mission and goals of the program. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 65 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D1. Foundational Public Health Knowledge The program ensures that all MPH and DrPH graduates are grounded in foundational public health knowledge. Grounding in foundational public health knowledge is measured by the student’s achievement of the learning objectives1 listed below, or higher-level versions of the same objectives. The program validates MPH and DrPH students’ foundational public health knowledge through appropriate methods.
D1.1. Provide a matrix, in the format of Template D1-1, that indicates how all MPH and DrPH students are grounded in each of the defined foundational public health learning objectives (1-12). The matrix must identify all options for MPH and DrPH students used by the program. (self-study document)
Table D1.1 - Foundational Public Health Knowledge for the MPH
Table D1.1 presents those courses through which students are grounded in foundational public health knowledge. Each Learning Objective has been carefully mapped in each of the courses identified below. In each course syllabus, the specific Learning Objective is identified in the Course Objectives and identified as “Foundational Knowledge #” with the number of the specific CEPH Learning Objective identified. Within the syllabus, associated with appropriate didactic learning and assignments, the “Foundational Knowledge #” is also identified to provide clear mapping from objective to assignments to assessment of student performance. Because we view this foundational knowledge as broad and integrated across the curriculum, Learning Objectives are reinforced in other courses. What is presented here are the best course examples.
CEPH Competency Course Name/Course Objective (CO) 1. Explain public health history, philosophy, and values MPH 601 Organization and Management of Public Health Services CO #4 2. Identify the core functions of public health and the 10 MPH 601 – Organization and Management of Essential Services Public Health Services CO #5 3. Explain the role of quantitative and qualitative methods and MPH 707 Mixed Methods CO #3 sciences in describing and assessing a population’s health 4. List major causes and trends of morbidity and mortality in the MPH 605 Epidemiology CO #8 US or other community relevant to the school or program 5. Discuss the science of primary, secondary, and tertiary MPH 605 Epidemiology CO #1 prevention in population health, including health promotion, screening etc. 6. Explain the critical importance of evidence in advancing MPH 606 Environmental Health CO #1 public health knowledge 7. Explain the effects of environmental factors on a population’s MPH 606 Environmental Health CO #5 health. 8. Explain biological and genetic factors that affect a MPH 605 Epidemiology CO #4 population’s health 9. Explain behavioral and psychological factors that affect a MPH 604 Social and Behavioral Aspects of population’s health Public Health CO #4 10. Explain the social, political, AND economic determinants of MPH 609 Community Based Participatory health AND how they contribute to population health and health Research (CBPR) CO #5 inequities 11. Explain how globalization affects global burdens of disease MPH 606 Environmental Health CO #8 12. Explain an ecological perspective on the connections MPH 606 Environmental Health CO #9 among human health, animal health and ecosystem health (e.g., One Health)
1 This document uses the term “learning objectives” to denote that these intended knowledge outcomes are defined in a more granular, less advanced level than the competencies typically used to define outcomes of a graduate-level program of study.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 66 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D1.2. Document the methods described above. This documentation must include all referenced syllabi, samples of tests or other assessments and web links or handbook excerpts that describe admissions prerequisites, as applicable. See the ERF D1.2 for syllabi, samples of assignments, and assessment rubrics associated with this criterion.
D1.3. If applicable, assessment of strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has comprehensively integrated the 12 learning objectives that constitute foundational public health knowledge throughout the program’s core courses. Each learning objective is clearly identified in course syllabi, reflected in didactic learning, and linked to clear assignments and assessment measures. Grading rubrics permit the faculty to document the mastery of this foundational knowledge. • To reflect the broad foundational nature of the learning objectives, they are integrated throughout the curriculum and are typically reflected in multiple courses to reinforce this knowledge base and to demonstrate to students the integrative nature of fundamental public health knowledge. • Students who successfully complete a given course are assured that faculty have assessed their mastery of the learning objective(s) associated with that course. Weaknesses
• None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 67 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D2. MPH Foundational Competencies All MPH graduates demonstrate the following competencies. The program documents at least one specific, required assessment activity (e.g., component of existing course, paper, presentation, test) for each competency below, during which faculty or other qualified individuals (e.g., preceptors) validate the student’s ability to perform the competency. Assessment opportunities may occur in foundational courses that are common to all students, in courses that are required for a concentration or in other educational requirements outside of designated coursework, but the program must assess all MPH students, at least once, on each competency. Assessment may occur in simulations, group projects, presentations, written products, etc. This requirement also applies to students completing an MPH in combination with another degree (e.g., joint, dual, concurrent degrees). For combined degree students, assessment may take place in either degree program.
D2.1. List the coursework and other learning experiences required for the program’s MPH degrees, including the required curriculum for each concentration and combined degree option. Information may be provided in the format of Template D2-1 or in hyperlinks to student handbooks or webpages, but the documentation must present a clear depiction of the requirements for each MPH degree. (self-study document) Table D2.1 lists all requirements for the two concentrations within the MPH degree. (see ERF D2 for full Graduate Catalog Entry) In addition, all MPH students are required to complete IPE 500 Introduction to Collaborative Care followed by 3 “passport activities” prior to graduation. The Interprofessional Education Passport consists of student learning activities and each profession’s interprofessional education accreditation requirements. For an activity to be approved as part of the IPE Passport, it must meet designated criteria and be approved by the CIPER Curriculum Committee. (ERF D2.1).
Table D2.1 MPH Degree Requirements
Title Credits
Core Courses: 29
IPE 500 Introduction to Collaborative Care 0
IPE 001 Interprofessional Education Passport 0
GRD 601 Writing for Graduate Students 1
MPH 601 Organization and Management of Public Health Services 3
MPH 604 Social and Behavioral Aspects of Public Health 3
MPH 605 Epidemiology 3
MPH 606 Environmental Health 3
MPH 707 Mixed Methods 3
MPH 609 Introduction to Community-Based Participatory Research 3
MHE 622 Public Health Ethics 3 or MHE 603 Law and Health Care Ethics
Practicum Experience
MPH 610 Pre-Practice Preparation 1
MPH 611 Practice Experience 3
Capstone
MPH 612 Capstone 3
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 68 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Title Credits
Concentration Requirements: 15
Health Care Ethics Concentration
MHE 600 Scholarly Reading and Writing 3
MHE 601 Health Policy 3
MHE 602 Research Ethics 3
MHE 603 Law and Health Care Ethics 3
MHE 604 Social and Cultural Contexts of Health Care 3
Healthcare Management Concentration
MHM 601 Human Resources for Healthcare Managers 3
MPH 608 Health Communication and Informatics 3
MPH 633 Health Economics and Finance 3
MPH 634 Health Planning and Marketing 3
MPH 635 Public Health Leadership 3
Total Credits 44
D2.2 Provide a matrix, in the format of Template D2-2, that indicates the assessment activity for each of the foundational competencies listed above (1-22). If the program addresses all the listed foundational competencies in a single, common core curriculum, the program need only present a single matrix. If combined degree students do not complete the same core curriculum as students in the stand-alone MPH program, the program must present a separate matrix for each combined degree. If the program relies on concentration-specific courses to assess some of the foundational competencies listed above, the program must present a separate matrix for each concentration. (self-study document) The program has core MPH coursework required of all students that addresses the 22 Foundational Competencies. See Table D2.2 showing assessment activities for each foundational competency. Each course identified represents the strongest learning opportunity for students to demonstrate their ability to perform the competency. Didactic learning components are clearly presented and typically, one assessment mechanism is identified for each competency. However, as some competencies include multiple components, i.e. competencies 2 and 3, both of which require demonstration of quantitative and qualitative data skills, didactic instruction and subsequent assessment of the ability to perform the competency is spread across a series of carefully selected assignments and assessments. These are described in Table D2.2 In each syllabus the CEPH Foundational Competency is noted in the Course Objectives and identified as “Foundational Competency #” with the number of the CEPH Foundational Competency clearly identified. Within the syllabus, associated with appropriate didactic learning, assignments, and assessment, the “Foundational Competency #” is also identified to provide clear mapping from objective to assignments to assessment of student performance.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 69 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table D2.2 Mapping of MPH Foundational Competencies
CEPH Competency Course Name/Course Assignment or Assessment Objective 1. Apply epidemiological MPH 605 Weeks 1 – 7 case studies and problem-solving sets: methods to the breadth of Epidemiology Students complete a series of case studies and problem- settings and situations in public CO #5 solving sets applying epidemiological methods and measures health practice to a variety of public health conditions and settings. These include outbreak investigations with calculations of attack, incidence, and prevalence rates; crude and age mortality rates; cohort and case-control study designs; odds ratios, measures of association and relative risk; and cross-sectional studies. 2. Select quantitative and MPH 707 Mixed Week 6 Discussion: Following readings on diagnostics, qualitative data collection Methods variable selection and linear regression, students continue methods appropriate for a CO #5 with the same study they wrote about in week 5. Students given public health context identify at least one potential quantitative data collection method and source and one potential qualitative data collection method and source. Students must consider what methods are appropriate in a public health context. For each data source, students describe the type of data (e.g., surveys, interviews, focus groups, etc.), the focus and what they expect to learn from these data, who they would sample, and how they would analyze these data. Students are to emphasize methods that minimize confounding variables. 3. Analyze quantitative and MPH 707 Mixed Week 7 Written Assignment: Following readings on the qualitative data using Methods fundamentals of quantitative and qualitative research biostatistics, informatics, CO #6 analysis, and using the dataset from the Framingham Study, computer-based programming students analyze a set of linked qualitative and quantitative and software, as appropriate data using biostatistics, informatics, computer-based programming and R Software, as appropriate. Students then conduct a mixed methods analysis by merging results in writing or a joint display. 4. Interpret results of data MPH 707 Mixed Week 7 Written Assignment: Following readings in the analysis for public health Methods Creswell & Plano Clark textbook, and using the data analysis research, policy or practice CO #7 of the Framingham Study dataset, students will summarize and interpret the merged mixed methods results. In less than two pages, students must discuss implications of the results for public health research, policy, or practice. 5. Compare the organization, MPH 601 Organization Week 3 Discussion: Using this link to the OECD Better Life structure and function of health and Management of Index, students select and read the Health topic link for the care, public health, and Public Health Services U.S., France as well as Portugal. Students then compare the regulatory systems across CO #2 organization, structure and function of health care, public national and international health, and regulatory systems across these national and settings international settings. 6. Discuss the means by which MPH 604 Social and Week 1 Discussion. Didactic instruction is provided on social- structural bias, social inequities Behavioral Aspects of behavioral theory, health determinants, and the ecological and racism determine health Public Health concept of health (One Health) plus a video, Consequences, and create challenges to CO #3 Part 1: The Weight of the Nation. The assignment directs achieving health equity at students to integrate the material to assess challenges to organizational, community and health equity due to structural bias, racism and social societal levels. inequities using obesity as the theme. 7. Assess population needs, MPH 604 Social and Week 4 Discussion: Didactic instruction is provided via assets and capacities that Behavioral Aspects of readings on childhood health, behavior and trauma and the affect communities’ health Public Health video Children in Crisis: The Weight of the Nation. The CO #5 assignment asks students to assess the case studies on childhood obesity presented in the video and provide assessment of needs, assets, and capacities.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 70 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
CEPH Competency Course Name/Course Assignment or Assessment Objective 8. Apply awareness of cultural MPH 609 Community Week 5 Discussion; Prompt 2: Through guest lectures, a values and practices to the Based Participatory video on cultural and linguistic needs of chronic disease care design or implementation of Research (CBPR) teams, and readings on CBPR methods, students evaluate an public health policies or CO #10 AI/AN health promotion program design called Talking Circles programs for cultural values and practices. 9. Design a population-based MPH 609 Community Week 8 Written Assignment: After readings and videos policy, program, project or Based Participatory regarding design strategies for health promotion programs in intervention Research (CBPR) diverse cultural settings, students will design a population- CO #8 based, health promotion program or CBPR project. Students write a CBPR project proposal or health promotion plan proposal based on key informant interviews and other research about self-selected health issue. 10. Explain basic principles and MPH 601 Organization Week 4 Written Assignment: Student will develop a budget tools of budget and resource and Management of and budget justification related to the Master Settlement management Public Health Services Agreement with the Big Tobacco companies and the use of CO #3 the funds by student’s state. Using this link to the Public Health Law Center: https://publichealthlawcenter.org/topics/commercial-tobacco- control/tobacco-control-litigation/master-settlement- agreement, read the introduction of the Master Settlement Agreement (MSA), and click the link for the MSA Overview (2018). Review the questions and answers reflecting budgetary principles and tools with a focus on what, if any, restrictions surrounded the use of these funds. Students select their State of Residence from this link: https://www.tobaccofreekids.org/assets/content/what_we_do/ state_local_issues/settlement/FY2020/Appendix-A-12-10- 19.pdf. They will then identify the monies allocated for prevention of tobacco use in the current year. Students develop and submit their budget and budget justification for his/her state’s use of the MSA dollars. A complete budget spreadsheet is required and must be accompanied by a justification of each line item. The narrative details how the budgeted items will be implemented. This assignment covers the competency through teaching the basics of how to budget for a program and how to manage resources effectively and justify that management. 11. Select methods to evaluate MPH 609 Community Week 8 Written Assignment: Following instruction specifically public health programs Based Participatory related to evaluation methods of public health programs, the Research (CBPR) student writes a CBPR project proposal or health promotion CO #9 program proposal including, among other items, a clearly delineated description and justification of selected research and evaluation methods. 12. Discuss multiple MPH 601 Organization Week 5 Discussion: Targeted readings for this week focus on dimensions of the policy- and Management of the need for evidence and ethical considerations in policy making process, including the Public Health Services making (i.e., Chapter 2 – IOM Report). In this assignment, roles of the ethics and CO #7 students will: evidence Identify the three core functions of public health and describe how the recommendations presented in Chapter 2 of the IOM report will improve the three core functions of public health. Explain if the recommendations in the IOM report will or will not have much impact in public health practice. Provide a rationale for your answer. Considering the core function of “policy”, discuss the multiple dimensions of the policy-making process, including the role of ethics and evidence in this process. 13. Propose strategies to MPH 609 Community Week 3 Written Assignment: Following video case studies identify stakeholders and build Based Participatory and readings on building partnerships and identifying coalitions and partnerships for Research (CBPR) stakeholders, students draft a response to a Request for CO #4 Applications (RFA). Students must brainstorm which
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 71 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
CEPH Competency Course Name/Course Assignment or Assessment Objective influencing public health community and institutional partners from a given case outcomes scenario presented should be invited to participate in this partnership and why. Students must list some of the pros and cons associated with these choices. 14. Advocate for political, MPH 606 Week 7 Written Assignment: Considering course readings to social, or economic Environmental Health date on environmental policies and programs for diverse policies and programs that will CO #6 populations, students will complete a community walk-about improve health in diverse during which they photo-document 10 positive and/or populations negative environmental issues of their community (i.e., hazardous wastes sites, alternative energy, substandard housing and green space). Included in the written component of this assignment, students must specifically advocate for policy or programs to address each of the 10 issues identified in the photos. 15. Evaluate policies for their MPH 609 Community Week 7 Discussion: Instruction consists of multi-cultural impact on public health and Based Participatory readings on healthcare inequality specifically focusing on the health equity Research intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. CO #13 Students select a health policy based upon their readings and assess the policy for impact on health equity. Students conduct an impact evaluation to establish causal attribution that measures relevance of the policy to the community, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. 16. Apply principles of MPH 601 Organization Week 6 Discussion: Based upon assigned readings students leadership, governance, and and Management of conduct a Strategic Management Analysis for a given management, which include Public Health Services organization. They analyze the mission, vision, and core creating a vision, empowering CO #9 values, then revise the vision statement utilizing the others, fostering information gleaned from Strategic Management Analysis and collaboration and guiding the video provided in this module. decision making 17. Apply negotiation and MPH 609 Community Week 3 Written Assignment: Following video case studies mediation skills to address Based Participatory and readings on communication, mediation and negotiation organizational or community Research (CBPR) skills needed with previously disengaged populations, challenges CO #4 students draft a response to a Request for Applications (RFA). Responding to an RFA: Students apply what was learned to: identify how to help community members gain trust in a newly formed coalition; discern what kinds of agreements must be negotiated between all the groups in order to make this project run smoothly; identify who should facilitate a group conversation; evaluate the types of skills a facilitator needs to mediate potential conflict; and how to help build a sense of community. 18. Select communication MPH 604 Social & Week 3 Discussion: Didactic instruction focuses on behavior strategies for different Behavioral Aspects of theories and health communication strategies. Using a case audiences and sectors Public Health study of urban (sector) tuberculosis, students then must CO #8 identify the most appropriate health behavior change strategies to employ and select the appropriate communication strategies for the various audiences they wish to reach. 19. Communicate audience- MPH 606 Weeks 2 & 6 Discussions: Specific instruction is given in appropriate public health Environmental Health Week 2 and Week 6 on how to prepare written and oral content, both in writing AND CO #2 testimony, respectively. Readings and videos provide through oral presentation relevant content. Week 2 Discussion requires students to prepare written testimony for Congress advocating for climate change policy. Week 6 Discussion requires the student to prepare and record oral testimony to be presented before a mock City Council consisting of the instructor as the Chair and peers as the Council members. Subject matter addresses childhood PTSD due to community violence.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 72 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
CEPH Competency Course Name/Course Assignment or Assessment Objective 20. Describe the importance of MPH 609 Community Week 6 Writing Assignment: Building upon the readings and cultural competence in Based Participatory videos on cultural competence from the previous week, communicating public health Research (CBPR) readings here involve principles of empowerment. Students content CO #11 will write a synthesis report of key informant interviews, and a brief self-reflection about experiences. A complete paper will: Summarize the original topic of interest and the justification of the selection of informants; describe the informants chosen; discuss any observations the community members make about the current state of the health issue and describe the importance of cultural competence in communicating public health content. 21. Perform effectively on IPE 500 Introduction to Didactic instruction is provided through a required, self-paced interprofessional teams Collaborative Care online course, IPE 500, that provides a basic introduction to CO #1-4 the concepts of interprofessional education and how to work together as a collaborative team. In addition, students must complete 3 “passport activities” wherein demonstration of mastery of the content is demonstrated. Examples of other professionals include Nurses, Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists and EMTs. Students complete these activities as a prerequisite to the practicum portion of the program. 22. Apply systems thinking MPH 601 Organization Week 7 Discussion: Based on system thinking tool guidelines tools to a public health issue and Management of from the required readings (7.2 to 7.3), students draw a Public Health Services causal loop diagram of a current public health problem. CO #12 Examples could include but are not limited to: COVID-19 facemask messaging, natural disaster evacuations, radon testing, vaccine uptake, seat belt use and enforcement, bike helmet laws, and colorectal cancer screening (colonoscopy billing). Students must label the key components and provide at least 3 suggestions, potential solutions, or risk opportunities to break the cycle and move a potential solution forward. Students respond to classmates’ diagrams, providing constructive suggestions, exploring context, and asking questions.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 73 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D2.3. Include the most recent syllabus from each course listed in Template D2-1, or written guidelines, such as a handbook, for any required elements listed in Template D2-1 that do not have a syllabus. (electronic resource file) See syllabi in ERF D2.3 and supporting assessment documentation.
D2.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The MPH program has successfully mapped all 22 CEPH Foundational Competencies to the program’s core curriculum, taken by all students regardless of concentration. Competencies are clearly listed in course objectives, and aligned with appropriate didactic learning, assignments, and assessment of student performance. • Faculty attest, when a student successfully completes a given course, that the student has demonstrated the ability to perform the competency. • The mapping of CEPH Foundational Competencies employed an interactive, collaborative process that engaged regular faculty, special (adjunct) faculty, the Student Advisory Board, and the EAB. • The results of the competency mapping reinforce and reflect not only CEPH accreditation requirements, but also our mission, values and vision for the program. Weaknesses • While mapping the Foundational Competencies we realized areas within the program that could be streamlined, enhanced, and improved. Plans for Improvement: • Several improvements have already been implemented (a new MPH 707 Mixed Methods course and IPE 500 to address interprofessional practice). The ongoing items included in our improvement plans are: o All students are required to take a writing course. o To promote on-going enhancement of cultural competency, the program will regularly identify strategies through which we intertwine cultural values and practices beyond student assignments, to make diversity and inclusion a core values of the program. o To increase faculty cultural sensitivity, twice per year we will dedicate a faculty meeting to diversity and inclusion. Examples of activities for these meetings include guest presentations and focused discussions.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 74 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D3. DrPH Foundational Competencies Not applicable.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 75 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D4. MPH Concentration Competencies The program defines at least five distinct competencies for each concentration or generalist degree at each degree level in addition to those listed in Criterion D2 or D3.
The program documents at least one specific, required assessment activity (e.g., component of existing course, paper, presentation, test) for each defined competency, during which faculty or other qualified individuals (e.g., preceptors) validate the student’s ability to perform the competency.
If the program intends to prepare students for a specific credential (e.g., CHES/MCHES) that has defined competencies, the program documents coverage and assessment of those competencies throughout the curriculum.
D4.1. Provide a matrix, in the format of Template D4-1, that lists at least five competencies in addition to those defined in Criterion D2 or D3 for each MPH or DrPH concentration or generalist degree, including combined degree options, and indicates at least one assessment activity for each of the listed competencies. Typically, the program will present a separate matrix for each concentration. (self-study document) See Tables D4.1a and D4.2b that show all competencies and competency assessments required for each of the two MPH concentrations. Competencies were defined by the faculty of our two concentrations, Health Care Ethics and Healthcare Management. Once defined, they were presented to the Curriculum and Evaluation Committee and the Accreditation Committee for review and discussion. They were then approved by the MPH Graduate Program Committee. Finally, all competencies were shared with the EAB and the Student Advisory Board to solicit comment. Each Concentration Competency is identified under Course Objectives for the given course and identified as “Concentration Competency #” with the specific number of the competency clearly identified. Within the syllabus, the competency is similarly identified with the appropriate didactic learning experience, the assignment, and the subsequent assessment measure(s) to assure clear mapping of the competency. Notes in the following tables explain how the assignments are linked to the competency. In many cases the competency is assessed through a key assignment and assessment measure; for others, there is a cumulative array of didactic learning, assignments, and subsequent assessment.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 76 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table D4.1a. Assessment of Competencies for MPH in Health Care Ethics Concentration Course numbers(s) Competency and name(s) Describe, specific assessment opportunity Analyze health justice MHE 601 Health Policy Week 5 Writing Assignment: Students will prepare a problems found in U.S. CO #4 paper that will deconstruct ethical problems in health care, health care policy and systems, policies and laws. In this assignment, examine make recommendations the ethics of a recently legislated change in U.S. regarding demands of healthcare policy. Explore a state or federal health policy justice. of interest to you. Analyze whether the policy meets the demands of justice. Make recommendations that particularly consider goals, financing, resource allocation, and outcomes related to populations made vulnerable. Apply ethical principles, MHE 603 Law and Week 8 Writing assignment: Advocacy Paper B (final norms, and theories, in Health Care Ethics version): Students in the first advocacy paper (due – after ethically complex situations CO #2, 3 & 4 a round of instructor feedback in week 4 on an earlier to inform multiple draft – at the end of week 5),must argue in favor of a stakeholders in advocacy. particularly contentious policy issue preselected by the instructor (e.g., quarantine laws); they are expected to inform, applying ethical principles, norms and theories, and persuade a broad group of stakeholders (e.g., a state legislature). In the second advocacy paper (due – after a round of peer review in week 7 – at the end of week 8), they must argue against that same policy issue, again seeking to inform, applying ethical principles, norms and theories, and persuade the same audience. They are graded on their ability to accurately and clearly present relevant information, support their views with relevant principles and norms, and use sound arguments. Distinguish general MHE 602 Research Week 3 Writing Assignment: First Paper Topic: In Week 3 concerns of bioethics Ethics reading, Ernest Wallwork writes: “Typically, advocates of surrounding health care of CO #3 community-partnership research implicitly adopt one of populations made three models or paradigms for thinking ethically: vulnerable or marginalized application/specification; extension; and postmodern.” (Wallwork 2008, p. 62). Following the required “Paper Format”: 1. Summarize and explain the three models or paradigms. 2. In light of general bioethics concerns about health care, such as what social justice requires, explain why one model is bioethically most justified in partnering with communities that are vulnerable or marginalized. 3. Raise a key objection or counterargument to your analysis. 4. Explain why the objection or counterargument does not defeat your reasoning. Apply norms and theories MHE 602 Research Week 7 Writing Assignment Paper 2: Drawing from of ethics in assessing Ethics Chapters 2-4 in Gray Matters, Vol. 2, summarize and health research. CO #5 ethically assess, in light of ethical principles, norms, and theories, 2-3 issues regarding one of the following: 1. Cognitive enhancement, including neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s Disease 2. Neuroscience, capacity, and consent 3. Neuroscience and the legal system
Incorporate diverse MHE 604 Social and Week 3: Quiz regarding diverse perspectives from the perspectives from the Cultural Contexts of humanities and liberal arts as encountered in Project humanities and liberal arts Health Care Implicit. How are these diverse perspectives reflected in into ethical reflection about CO #1 health care structure? health care structures
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 77 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table D4.1b. Assessment of Competencies for MPH in Healthcare Management Concentration
Competency Course Describe, specific assessment opportunity numbers(s) and name(s) Apply problem solving MPH 634 Week 5 Discussion: Didactic instruction includes readings and strategies to design and Health Planning multimedia associated with marketing campaigns, change present a marketing plan & Marketing theory, marketing planning and examination of problem in a healthcare setting. CO #7 solution modeling. Students will respond to the following: What makes social change marketing a challenge? How can these challenges be met? Unlike most traditional “products”, those that public health must market tend to have negative demand, no demand or an unwholesome demand. Apply problem solving strategies to design and present a marketing plan in a public health/healthcare setting.
MPH 608 Week 8 Assignment: Didactic instruction throughout the Conceptualize and Health course including surveillance, informatics and evaluation design health Communications strategies prepares the students for their final two communication materials & Informatics assignments. For this assignment, students continue to work for a health disparity and CO #2 on a previously identified health disparity and conceptualize, provide an associated design, and evaluate two pieces of health communication evaluation plan. materials for a health promotion campaign. Students create a SMART goal for their materials and after creating and describing the materials, they will create a logic model outlining how they will evaluate the progress towards their SMART goal(s). Components include: material design (i.e., media posts, radio/television/only ads, pamphlets); material description (i.e., why the material(s) meet stakeholder needs); evaluation (i.e., development of a logic model using the CDC Program Evaluation framework, measuring what can be reasonably accomplished from established SMART goals). Analyze a healthcare MPH 634 Week 3 Discussion: Didactic instruction includes two chapters organizations strategic Health Planning in the textbook and multimedia presentations involving marketing plan utilized to & Marketing strategic marketing planning and implementation. Students achieve organizational CO #2 are assigned a case study that identifies an organization’s goals goals and its strategic marketing plan. Students will analyze the marketing plan, applying principles and practices from readings (i.e., business objectives, marketing priorities, marketing goals, message strategy/framing, marketing strategy, key actions, and dependencies and risks), to explain whether the plan aligns with the stated organizational goals. Formulate a human MHM 601 Week 7 Assignment: Didactic instruction involves resources solution to an Human management for success, organizational development, and organizational problem. Resources for human resources with a mission-oriented focus. Students will HC Managers provide an in-depth strategic human resources solution to an CO #7 organizational problem. The solution should use one or more of the key human resource functions covered in this class. Evaluate economic and MPH 633 Week 6 Writing Assignment: Didactic instruction is associated financial models for the Health with health care reform, comparisons of the U.S. healthcare organization to achieve Economics and system to other developed countries with a focus on its strategic goals and Finance economic and financial models consistent with the goals and objectives. CO #10 objectives of the organization. Students are assigned a health care organization and are tasked with evaluating its economic model (i.e., Markov model) and financial model (i.e., self-pay, universal pay). Using the dimensions of access, costs, and quality, students evaluate fidelity to the goals and objectives of the organization in a written report. *Adapted from the criteria set forth by the Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management Education (CAHME).
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 78 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D4.2. For degrees that allow students to tailor competencies at an individual level in consultation with an advisor, the program must present evidence, including policies and sample documents, that demonstrate that each student and advisor create a matrix in the format of Template D4-1 for the plan of study. Include a description of policies in the self- study document and at least five sample matrices in the electronic resource file. Not applicable
D4.3. Include the most recent syllabus for each course listed in Template D4-1, or written guidelines for any required elements listed in Template D4-1 that do not have a syllabus. See syllabi and supporting assessment activity documentation for section D4 in ERF D4.3. for both concentrations
D4.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • Concentration faculty have successfully delineated five higher level competencies that represent the skills and applied knowledge expected of public health professionals in the respective concentrations. • All competencies align with the program’s mission, goals, vision, and values. • Course syllabi clearly identify the competencies in the Course Objectives and are mapped to didactic learning, assignments, and assessment measures. • Students who successfully complete the courses associated with the Concentration Competencies have demonstrated competency performance as determined by course faculty. • The program has in place a procedure to monitor student performance by specifically evaluating grading rubrics and associated student performance associated with each competency to assure the ability of all students to demonstrate performance of each competency.
Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 79 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D5. MPH Applied Practice Experiences MPH students demonstrate competency attainment through applied practice experiences.
The applied practice experiences allow each student to demonstrate attainment of at least five competencies, of which at least three must be foundational competencies (as defined in Criterion D2). The competencies need not be identical from student to student, but the applied experiences must be structured to ensure that all students complete experiences addressing at least five competencies, as specified above. The applied experiences may also address additional foundational or concentration-specific competencies, if appropriate.
The program assesses each student’s competency attainment in practical and applied settings through a portfolio approach, which demonstrates and allows assessment of competency attainment. It must include at least two products. Examples include written assignments, projects, videos, multi-media presentations, spreadsheets, websites, posters, photos or other digital artifacts of learning. Materials may be produced and maintained (either by the program or by individual students) in any physical or electronic form chosen by the program.
D5.1. Briefly describe how the program identifies competencies attained in applied practice experiences for each MPH student, including a description of any relevant policies. (self- study document) The MPH program faculty, directed by the Practicum Coordinator, guided by our mission, vision, and values statements, and aware of the priority communities for whom we are training workforce, determined through a series of strategic planning meetings that began prior to 2017 that we wanted each student graduating with the MPH from Creighton University to demonstrate the following three CEPH competencies through their Applied Practice Experience: 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy, or practice (CEPH Foundational Competency #4) 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health content, both in writing and through oral presentation (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) Then, with the guidance of the faculty of each concentration in conjunction with the Practicum Coordinator, the MPH program faculty adopted the following two competencies for each concentration that each student in the respective concentration needs to demonstrate through their Applied Practice Experience: Health Care Ethics Concentration: 1. Distinguish general concerns of bioethics surrounding health care of populations made vulnerable or marginalized. (HCE #3) 2. Apply norms and theories of ethics in assessing health research. (HCE #4)
Healthcare Management Concentration:
1. Analyze a healthcare organizations strategic marketing plan utilized to achieve organizational goals. (HCM #3) 2. Formulate a human resources solution to an organizational problem. (HCM #4) The respective competencies were shared with the EAB and the Student Advisory Board for comment. The following policies and procedures exist for implementation of this criterion. Each MPH student entering the Applied Learning Experience (practicum experience) phase of the program is tasked with
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 80 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program locating a site that is local to the community in which they live that meets the requirements of a public health related mission involving community engagement. Sites are external to the university and located within the local community of the student. Occasionally, sites will be located outside of the country to provide a global experience. All sites are approved by the MPH Practicum Coordinator and/or course instructor. The first of three courses related to the practicum experience is a preparation course (MPH 610 – Pre- Practicum Preparation) wherein each student will draft a learning contract (available as ERF D5.2c). The Learning Contract requires each student to state Learning Goals expected to be achieved while at their practicum site. The Learning Goals directly reflect the Foundational and Concentration Competencies stated by the program for the practicum experience and are developed in tandem with the site supervisor to assure they align with site-specific needs. MPH 611 Practicum Experience is the course through which the field practice experience is realized. In the final course of the practicum experience (MPH 612 Capstone), students will reflect upon, analyze and synthesize the practicum experience in discussion forums wherein they demonstrate how they achieved their learning goals and describe in detail the methods used to apply the competencies throughout the experience. Students will also provide tangible evidence of the deliverables created during the practicum experience as supporting documentation of the competencies mastered. This is achieved through a high-level written paper and a recorded oral poster presentation.
D5.2. Provide documentation, including syllabi and handbooks, of the official requirements through which students complete the applied practice experience. The following are available as ERF D5.2 Applied Practice Experience: • D5.2a Practicum Manual – All Courses in Practicum • D5.2b Practicum Syllabus – MPH 611 • D5.2c Practicum Learning Contract • D5.2d Practicum Site Proposal • D5.2e Practicum Bi-Weekly Checklist • D5.2f Pre-Practicum Syllabus - MPH 610 • Syllabus and guides for MPH 612 - Capstone available as ERF D7.3a
D5.3. Provide samples of practice-related materials for individual students from each concentration or generalist degree. The samples must also include materials from students completing combined degree programs, if applicable. The program must provide samples of complete sets of materials (i.e., Template D5-1 and the work products/documents that demonstrate at least five competencies) from at least five students in the last three years for each concentration or generalist degree. If the program has not produced five students for which complete samples are available, note this and provide all available samples.
Sample practice-related materials for individual students can be found in Table D5-1. Select student work is available as ERF D5.3.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 81 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table D5-1. Practice-based products that demonstrate MPH competency achievement Specific products in portfolio that demonstrate application/practice Competency as defined in Criteria D2 and D4 Health Care Ethics Concentration Vision Examinations and Young Children: Exploring Foundational Competencies Parent Influences and the Comprehensive Eye exam 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health (ERF 5-1a) research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational The context for this project was an ethical concern Competency #4) involving dental and vision care for at-risk children. 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build Adventure Dental and Vision is an interdisciplinary coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health practice which provides both services for patients with outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) low socioeconomic status. Parent surveys indicate that 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health the interdisciplinary practice provided a convenient content, both in writing and through oral presentation service for them, but there was no clear indication of (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) direct relationship between the practice and young Health Care Ethics Concentration Competencies: children receiving examinations. Adventure Vision 1. Distinguish general concerns of bioethics surrounding provided exams to a greater number of children under health care of populations made vulnerable or marginalized the age of 5 than the stand-alone practices it was (HCE # 3) compared to. This project sought to assess if parents are 2. Apply norms and theories of ethics in assessing health knowledgeable of the recommendation for early dental research. (HCE #4) examinations but are not as aware of the recommendation for early vision examinations (not just screenings). Therefore, children are more likely to have received a dental exam at an early age than a vision examination. 1. Parent Survey and Private Office Questionnaire 2. Data Analysis report 3. Parent Brochure with recommendations
Ethical Decision Making in a Local Health Department Foundational Competencies (ERF 5-1b) 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health The ethical context of this project was to evaluate the research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational nature of ethics, and ethical situations encountered Competency #4) within a local health department that may require 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build additional guidance to ensure that all members of an coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health organization are operating on the same ethical plain. outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) Failure to have this ethical guidance could result in poor 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health ethical decision-making that results in poor health content, both in writing and through oral presentation outcomes and poorer relationships and trust with the (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) community served, which can severely impact the trust Health Care Ethics Concentration Competencies: that the community has in the health department’s 1. Distinguish general concerns of bioethics surrounding programs and services over time. In its mission to health care of populations made vulnerable or marginalized provide the best services possible to its community (HCE # 3) especially those at-risk and low income, and to be 2. Apply norms and theories of ethics in assessing health accredited by the Public Health Accreditation Board research. (HCE #4) (PHAB), the Greenfield Health Department recognized the importance of developing ethics policies and other materials. Therefore, the project that was established was to develop an ethics policy and framework using best-practices and research, an ethical-decision making worksheet, a training presentation that was presented to Greenfield Health Department staff, and recommendations made to Greenfield Health Department leaderships on the development of further policies, materials, and trainings on ethics and related topics to further integrate ethics into the public health practice of the Greenfield Health Department. The project concluded with the successful creation, adoption, and implementation of all project materials into the practice of the Greenfield Health Department.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 82 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Public Health Code of Ethics and Foundational Ethics Skills Applied to project outcomes Qualitative Findings Report for Ethics Interviews City of Greenfield Health Department Ethics Policy created as part of this project Greenfield Health Department Ethical Decision-Making Guide Evaluating the Feasibility of Friends for Youth Alumni Foundational Competencies Program: A Pilot Study (ERF 5-1c) 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health Mentoring programs are structured as a preventative tool research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational used by community-based organizations to help at-risk Competency #4) youths overcome difficult life circumstances. This study 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build utilized a mixed methods design including a survey coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health questionnaire and semi-structured phone interviews (1) outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) to evaluate the impact that Friends for Youth’s (FFY) 1:1 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health Mentoring Program has on youth outcomes, (2) measure content, both in writing and through oral presentation the mentor experience in the program and (3) assess the (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) feasibility of developing an alumni program. Health Care Ethics Concentration Competencies: 1. Email Survey to Mentors 1, Distinguish general concerns of bioethics surrounding 2. Mentor, Mentee and Parent/Guardian Interview health care of populations made vulnerable or marginalized questions (HCE # 3) 3. Table of Current Outcomes 2. Apply norms and theories of ethics in assessing health 4. Slide Presentation to the site research. (HCE #4) 5. Recommendations Report Assessing Appropriateness of Non-statin Lipid Lowering Foundational Competencies: Medications (ERF 5-1d) 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational The objective of this quality improvement project was to Competency #4) assess appropriateness of non-statin lipid lowering 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build medications conducted by a clinical pharmacist. Statin coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health medication therapy is the mainstay to reduce outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) cardiovascular events. However, many times, patients 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health are started on other lipid lowering medications such as content, both in writing and through oral presentation fibrates, fish oil, and/or niacin. A sample of 101 patients (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) was assessed to determine whether patients were on Health Care Ethics Concentration Competencies: unnecessary lipid lowering therapy based on their 1. Distinguish general concerns of bioethics surrounding diagnoses, medical history, and recent cholesterol lab health care of populations made vulnerable or marginalized values. (HCE # 3) 1. Data analysis report and results 2. Apply norms and theories of ethics in assessing health 2. Interpretation and Education/Presentation of Non- research. (HCE #4) Statin Lipid Lowering Medications presented to site
The Undetectables (UND) Program: Evaluating the Foundational Competencies: Effectiveness and Quality of the program in Achieving 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health and Maintaining Viral Load Among Persons Infected with research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational HIV/AIDS (ERF 5-1e) Competency #4) The Undetectables program uses onsite case 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build management and primary care to support people coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health infected with HIV/AIDS achieve their health goals. outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) Another important strength of the program is to track 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health client’s adherence to medication as well as monitor the content, both in writing and through oral presentation engagement to case management services. Through (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) case management, participants of the Undetectables Health Care Ethics Concentration Competencies: receive social support and referrals to other social 1. Distinguish general concerns of bioethics surrounding support services that are not offered on site. The client health care of populations made vulnerable or marginalized also receives directly observed therapy as needed (HCE # 3) through case management. This project evaluated the 2. Apply norms and theories of ethics in assessing health effectiveness of the Undetectables (referring to viral load research. (HCE #4) and services utilized) Program in a community in NY. 1. Findings report from data analysis
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 83 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
2. Interpretation and Dissemination presentation of UND Data Analysis presented to the site including recommendations for overcoming practical and ethical challenges of working with this population Healthcare Management Concentration Reflection of Hope (ERF 5-1f) Foundational Competencies: The organizational problem identified around healthcare 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health management is that this community outreach research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational organization lacked enough staff for an effective suicide Competency #4) prevention program. The solution was the following 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build community-based participatory education program. coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health Reflection of Hope was an interactive community art outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) project aimed at raising awareness for suicide prevention 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health in the community of Lincoln, Nebraska. Collaboration content, both in writing and through oral presentation with various members of the community led to a two-day (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) event where over 100 people came and added their Healthcare Management Concentration Competencies: personal touch to the final art piece, bringing to life one 1. Analyze a healthcare organizations strategic marketing cohesive design. The event provided a platform to plan utilized to achieve organizational goals. (HCM #3) interact with and educate the community about suicide 2. Formulate a human resources solution to an prevention. Once on display, members of the community organizational problem. (HCM #4) are invited to add messages directed towards those who have or are contemplating suicide on the mirrors – the idea being that the viewer will see these positive messages, accompanied by their reflection, and will find a sense of hope and seek help 1. Event promotion and marketing brochure 2. Community education materials 3. Photo image of final art piece installation created for the ArtReach Project, Lincoln, Nebraska, to facilitate community conversation around suicide as a public health issue.
A Study on the Awareness of Risk Factors of Carbon Foundational Competencies: Monoxide Poisoning (ERF 5-1g) 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health This practicum project was with the Nebraska research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational Department of Health and Human Services where Competency #4) student worked alongside the epidemiology team to 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build assess community awareness around CO poisoning. coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health There were two phases of the project: a) Designing and outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) implementing the first ongoing statewide public health 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health surveillance program for the Department of Health and content, both in writing and through oral presentation Human Services and b) creating a strategic plan to use (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) primary preventative strategies to effectively determine Healthcare Management Concentration Competencies: how to collect data and disseminate preventative 1. Analyze a healthcare organizations strategic marketing materials, designing a survey for the Omaha community plan utilized to achieve organizational goals. (HCM#3) that successfully collected descriptive data that allowed 2. Formulate a human resources solution to an for the understanding of people’s awareness of CO organizational problem. (HCM#4) poisoning, and distributing fact sheets and data sheets from survey results to populations in Douglas County.
1. Carbon Monoxide Poisoning Awareness Project Presentation including data analysis, articulation of human resource needs, and other findings with recommendations 2. Carbon Monoxide Surveillance Plan for NE Health Department The Weekend Food Project (ERF 5-1h) Foundational Competencies: The issue this project addressed was hunger in school- 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health aged children in Loudon County, Tennessee during the research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational weekends. The first part of the project was design and Competency #4) distribution of an impact survey for all participants in The 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 84 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Weekend Food Program through The Family Resource coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health Center of Loudon County Schools. The second part was outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) analyzing the survey results and drafting a grant 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health proposal to provide enough funding to both pay for the content, both in writing and through oral presentation program for another year and to expand the program to (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) another school in Loudon County. The grant proposal Healthcare Management Concentration Competencies: was chosen to be presented by The Family Resource 1. Analyze a healthcare organizations strategic marketing Center (FRC) director to a non-profit business with a plan utilized to achieve organizational goals. (HCM#3) history of funding FRC programs, including The 2. Formulate a human resources solution to an Weekend Food Program. organizational problem. (HCM#4) 1. Grant proposal for the Family Resource Center of Loudon County Schools to fund staff and delivery of a Weekend Food Project for families 2. Data analysis report Advanced Directive Education Session for Nurses (ERF Foundational Competencies: 5-1i) 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health The need for this project followed an analysis of this research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational organization’s strategic plan that showed a lack of staff Competency #4) training regarding advanced directives. This project 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build focused on further educating the nurses on the medical coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health surgery/oncology floor of the hospital about Advance outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) Directives and the differences in code status. Using 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health resources from PalliativeCareNow.com, an education content, both in writing and through oral presentation module was created focusing on myths and their truths (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) about ADs followed by the differences in code statuses Healthcare Management Concentration Competencies: and what healthcare workers are and are not allowed to 1. Analyze a healthcare organizations strategic marketing do with each one plan utilized to achieve organizational goals. (HCM#3) 1. Data analysis report 2. Formulate a human resources solution to an 2. Slide presentation of overview of training, organizational problem. (HCM#4) interpretation of results and recommendations
Senior Shelter Guests Experiencing Homelessness (ERF Foundational Competencies: 5-1j) 1. Interpret results of data analysis for public health Anchorage’s homeless population is aging. Shelter research, policy or practice (CEPH Foundational employees have observed increased number of physical Competency #4) and mental challenges experienced by aging shelter 2. Propose strategies to identify stakeholders and build guests. Community leaders and a non-profit social coalitions and partnerships for influencing public health services agency’s leaders expressed a desire for a outcomes (CEPH Foundational Competency # 13) graduate or doctoral student to study senior shelter 3. Communicate audience-appropriate public health guests’ needs. Community leaders desired a better content, both in writing and through oral presentation understanding of mobility issues as they related to (CEPH Foundational Competency #19) shelter and housing needs for seniors experiencing homelessness. The goal of the project was to identify Healthcare Management Concentration Competencies: and increase understanding of the unique needs of 1. Analyze a healthcare organizations strategic marketing senior shelter guests. Seniors, age 65 years and older plan utilized to achieve organizational goals. (HCM#3) were the identified population for study. Data was 2. Formulate a human resources solution to an collected on thirty senior shelter guests utilizing three organizational problem. (HCM#4) tools. 1. Data analysis report with conclusions and recommendations including the marketing of services to the homeless and adequate staff resources to meet the unique needs of seniors in the shelter 2. Data collection instruments and limitations report of project
D5.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has clearly articulated foundational and concentration competencies that students must demonstrate during their practicum.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 85 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• There are clearly articulated evaluation methods through a portfolio approach to assure that student performance is documented. • Determination of the competencies was a collaborative process. • The competencies reflect the mission, vision, and values of the program, advance the public health field, and reflect commitment to our priority communities. • Policies and procedures assure that students are informed of the competencies and given the opportunities to attain them. • The program is confident that students who successfully complete the series of practicum courses have demonstrated performance of the stated competencies.
Weaknesses • The self-study process uncovered some limitations to the grading rubrics used in the early stages of the applied practice experience (MPH 611). Data showed that 1-2 students per academic year had challenges in meeting their requirements for the experience. The program determined this could be improved. Plans for Improvement • Continue to strengthen evaluation methods and rubrics for MPH 610 and 611 to assure that desired improvements are being realized. The measure for this will be the percentage of students who seamlessly move through the three-course sequence. • An adjustment in the timeline for deliverables and a concurrent adjustment to the rubrics could build into the process some flexibility for the student and the field site.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 86 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D6. DrPH Applied Practice Experience
Not applicable.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 87 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D7. MPH Integrative Learning Experience MPH students complete an integrative learning experience (ILE) that demonstrates synthesis of foundational and concentration competencies. Students in consultation with faculty select foundational and concentration- specific competencies appropriate to the student’s educational and professional goals.
Professional certification exams (e.g., CPH, CHES/MCHES, REHS, RHIA) may serve as an element of the ILE but are not in and of themselves sufficient to satisfy this criterion.
The program identifies assessment methods that ensure that at least one faculty member reviews each student’s performance in the ILE and ensures that the experience addresses the selected foundational and concentration- specific competencies. Faculty assessment may be supplemented with assessments from other qualified individuals (e.g., preceptors).
D7.1. List, in the format of Template D7-1, the integrative learning experience for each MPH concentration, generalist degree or combined degree option that includes the MPH. The template also requires the program to explain, for each experience, how it ensures that the experience demonstrates synthesis of competencies. (self-study document) All students in the MPH program, regardless of concentration, take the same three courses as part of their Applied Practice Experience (Practicum) MPH 610, MPH 611 and MPH 612. As previously described, the program identifies the 3 Foundational Competencies and the two Concentration Competencies that each student must achieve. MPH 612 – Capstone course is the third and final course for students in the MPH program wherein they synthesize competencies learned in the program and applied in their practicum experience.
Table D7-1. MPH Integrative Learning Experience (MPH 612 Capstone) All Concentration Integrative Learning Experience (list all options) How competencies are synthesized MPH with Concentration in Health Care Ethics: Prior to enrolling in MPH 612 Capstone, the competencies MPH with Concentration in Healthcare to be synthesized in this final course have been thoroughly Management: presented, discussed, agreed upon and engaged in by students in conjunction with their course instructor, site High quality, written document (final paper). supervisor and the Practicum Coordinator. By doing so, when the student enrolls in MPH 612 the foundational work, practice, and data needed to demonstrate the synthesis of the five competencies have already been assembled with preliminary analysis. The task in MPH 612, then, is to demonstrate the integration of the competencies through the high-quality capstone document that is produced during the course and built out of the portfolio of data, artifacts, and experiences gained in MPH 610 and MPH 611
D7.2. Briefly summarize the process, expectations, and assessment for each integrative learning experience. (self-study document) Process: The MPH 612 Capstone course serves as the program’s Integrative Learning Experience (ILE). It is in this course that students synthesize the three foundational and two concentration competencies that they have been working on in MPH 610 (pre-practicum) and MPH 611 (field experience). These competencies, identified in section D5.1, above were determined by the program to be most appropriate to the academic and professional goals of our students given their chosen concentration, and are in alignment with the program’s mission, vision, values and priority communities. MPH 610 links the foundational and concentration competencies to the pending field practice experience. MPH 611 provides students with the field experience necessary to build their portfolio linked to the competencies. MPH 612 is the capstone course in which students, in conjunction with the Practicum
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 88 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Coordinator, demonstrate their ability to synthesize the field experience with the competencies. This is accomplished through a high-quality written document. Expectations: Prior to enrolling in MPH 612 Capstone, all students during MPH 611 Practicum Experience are expected to produce high-quality written products (“deliverables”) as part of the Practicum Experience that is aligned with the five competencies and their educational and professional objectives. It is developed and delivered in a manner that is useful to external stakeholders. The deliverables should be of value to the student’s practicum site (i.e., sponsoring agency or organization), and should be identified before the start of the practicum, in consultation with the MPH Practicum Coordinator and Course Instructor and the practicum site supervisor. Examples of deliverables include but are not limited to a report on a public health topic written for a general audience, report of data analysis for key stakeholder groups, or development of a training program, or quality improvement recommendations to align with evidence-based best practices. These deliverables form the core of the portfolio being developed by the student prior to enrolling in MPH 612. They document the field practice experience and provide the basic data and verification that reflects the mastery of the five competencies. Assessment: Once a student enrolls in MPH 612 the sole focus is on their ability to synthesize the experiences and end products from their practicum. To ensure student success in ILE, assessment by the Practicum Coordinator begins with a review of all deliverables from the field practicum. Then, the student’s synthesis of the competencies is demonstrated and assessed by the Practicum Coordinator through evaluation of a high-level written document the components of which include: organizational profile, problem statement, literature review for best practices, methods of investigation, results and outcomes, work plan, final product and impact for future use. Additionally, students will conduct an oral poster video presentation. Assessment criteria for this high level document are articulated in a grading rubric and reflect higher level analysis and synthesis that address the application and usefulness of the practicum project to the field site; how the field experience was evaluated; recommendations for future action; best public health practices that were learned; and how the experience contributed to advancement of the student as a public health professional, among other criteria. For the benefit of other students enrolled in MPH 612, all students participate in graded discussion boards during which they share their experiences, deliverables, and success in attaining the competencies. Lastly, all students produce a 5-minute poster presentation video that summarizes their experience and demonstrates their ability to integrate field experiences with program learning objectives, foundational and concentration competencies, all reflecting the mission, vision and values of the MPH program. Only when the requirements are fully met is the student passed and permitted to graduate. If it is determined that quality is lacking or that attainment of this criterion has not be achieved, an incomplete may be issued to permit the student additional time to successfully complete this integrated learning experience. D7.3. Provide documentation, including syllabi and/or handbooks, that communicates integrative learning experience policies and procedures to students.
The following documents are available as ERF D7.3 Integrative Learning Experience Materials. • ERF D7.3a Course Syllabus – MPH 612 • ERF D7.3b e-Portfolio Guide • ERF D7.3c Final Capstone Paper Part II Guidelines • ERF D7.3d Reflective Essay Rubric • ERF D7.3e Poster Presentation Instructions • ERF D7.3f Poster Presentation Rubric
D7.4. Provide documentation, including rubrics or guidelines, that explains the methods through which faculty and/or other qualified individuals assess the integrative learning experience with regard to students’ demonstration of the selected competencies. The following documents are available in ERF D7.3 Integrative Learning Experience. • ERF D7.3d Reflective Essay Rubric
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 89 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• ERF D7.4 E-Portfolio Rubric
D7.5. Include completed, graded samples of deliverables associated with each integrative learning experience option from different concentrations, if applicable. The program must provide at least 10% of the number produced in the last three years or five examples, whichever is greater. MPH 612 Capstone Final Presentations from five students in each concentration are available as ERF D7.5 Select Student Work - ILE
D7.6. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has a deliberate, phased process for students to demonstrate their ability to synthesize competencies through an applied learning experience, beginning with a pre-practicum course (MPH 610), a field practicum (MPH 611) and a culminating capstone experience (MPH 612). This allows students to understand what is expected of them at each stage and offers them the structured support necessary to assure student success. • The five competencies are aligned with the program's guiding statements and are appropriate and relevant to the student’s career objectives. This has been a significant benefit for host sites. By articulating the five competencies, assuring that they align with our guiding statements, we can match a given student with an optimal field site. This also informs the placement site regarding the skill set the student will present, the supervision they will be asked to provide, and the end products that will be produced to benefit the site’s stakeholders. • There is a clear process, specific and detailed expectations, and a comprehensive assessment rubric that guides students through this process. • Students who successfully complete this process have demonstrated their ability to synthesize the stated competencies. Weaknesses
• None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 90 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D8. DrPH Integrative Learning Experience
Not applicable.
D9. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree General Curriculum
Not applicable.
D10. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Domains
Not applicable.
D11. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Foundational Competencies
Not applicable.
D12. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Cumulative and Experiential Activities
Not applicable.
D13. Public Health Bachelor’s Degree Cross-Cutting Concepts and Experiences
Not applicable.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 91 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D14. MPH Program Length An MPH degree requires at least 42 semester-credits, 56 quarter-credits or the equivalent for completion. Schools and programs use university definitions for credit hours.
D14.1. Provide information about the minimum credit-hour requirements for all MPH degree options. If the university uses a unit of academic credit or an academic term different from the standard semester or quarter, explain the difference and present an equivalency in table or narrative form. (self-study document) MPH students must complete 44 credits hours to graduate, regardless of the concentration. Requirements include: • Integrated Core Curriculum = 22 credit hours • Concentration courses = 15 credit hours • Applied Practice Experience = 4 credit hours • Integrative Learning Experience = 3 credit hours
D14.2. Define a credit with regard to classroom/contact hours. (self-study document) The program follows CU’s Academic Credit Hour Policy (4.1.6) for academic credit hours and contact hours. The policy is based on courses taught in a standard 15-week semester, with expanded guidelines for courses not taught in the standard format or that are not classroom-based learning experiences. The full policy can be reviewed on the University Policies website or as ERF D14.2 Academic Credit Hour Policy. Because the MPH program is an online degree program, its courses must adhere to credit hour parity guidelines included in the policy when developing new courses and modifying existing curriculum. Credit hours for distance learning courses which are not also offered in a face-to-face format, such as those in the MPH program, have been verified using the University’s “Distance Course Credit Hour Calculator” (Appendix B of ERF D14.2 Academic Credit Hour Policy).
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 92 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D15. DrPH Program Length
Not applicable.
D16. Bachelor’s Degree Program Length
Not applicable.
D17. Academic Public Health Master’s Degrees
Not applicable
D18. Public Health Academic Doctoral Degrees
Not applicable.
D19. All Remaining Degrees
Not applicable.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 93 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
D20. Distance Education The university provides needed support for the program, including administrative, communication, information technology and student services. There is an ongoing effort to evaluate the academic effectiveness of the format, to assess learning methods and to systematically use this information to stimulate program improvements. Evaluation of student outcomes and of the learning model are especially important in institutions that offer distance learning but do not offer a comparable in-residence program.
D20.1. Identify all public health distance education degree programs and/or concentrations that offer a curriculum or course of study that can be obtained via distance education. Template Intro-1 may be referenced for this purpose. (self-study document) The Master of Public Health program and its concentrations are offered as a completely online program through the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies within the Graduate School at Creighton University. Distance courses and programs at Creighton are designed, approved, and delivered according to standards that ensure consistent quality, as outlined in the University’s Quality in Distance Education Policy.
D20.2. Describe the public health distance education programs, including: a. an explanation of the model or methods used, The MPH program at CU is an entirely online program that does not require students to travel to the campus at any time. Students may apply to the program at various points during the year to be considered for Fall, Spring, or Summer admission. The curriculum is provided in a fully online, asynchronous format to better meet the needs of adult learners who are geographically diverse, working professionals. Technology – CU uses Canvas (“Blueline”) as its learning management system. The Canvas/Blueline platform is available to all faculty and staff at CU for the development of courses, co-curricular content, and other university-sponsored programming. Canvas/Blueline provides students with quick and secure access to class materials, assignments, course calendars, syllabi, and course content as well as offering a host of other tools designed specifically to assist in meeting student learning needs. Curriculum Development – Faculty define course objectives and develop learning and assessment activities with the support of an instructional designer. Faculty collaborate with the larger Curriculum and Evaluation Committee to ensure that course content addresses department and program goals as well as the public health competencies. Course instructors review the course for quality control and provide additional comments for revision during and after a course is offered. Course Instructors – Each instructor is responsible for facilitating classroom discussions, providing substantive feedback on assignments, and answering students’ questions on the course materials. Instructors are selected for their educational and professional experience related to the course topic and are encouraged to incorporate their background into their interaction with students. Course Material - Classes are divided into eight weekly modules, and students must complete the work in each module in the corresponding week of the class. In addition to lectures, any webinars or presentations in class are delivered online through Panopto (“BlueCast”) lecture capture or Zoom web- conferencing and are recorded for students to access at any time and as many times as they wish to view them. Panopto lecture captures are integrated into the Canvas environment. Learning Environment – Class sizes in the program are no larger than 20-24 students per section. To ensure regular and meaningful interactions among online students and faculty, all MPH courses contain multiple discussion boards with most requiring weekly threaded discussions. Students must compose an original post addressing the week’s prompt and 1-2 guided responses to their classmates. Some classes require work within smaller groups of five or fewer students. Faculty communicate regularly with students and participate in and facilitate meaningful discussions.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 94 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Faculty Feedback – Course instructors grade all discussion posts and assignments, as it is a program expectation that faculty provide substantive feedback using the commenting tools in Canvas and rubrics. It is also a program expectation that faculty post their availability to students and how to best get in touch with them. Additionally, instructors typically post weekly announcements with personalized content, including important updates, learning tips for the week’s content, general class feedback on the previous week’s assignments, and relevant trends or resources from the field. Together, these course design components facilitate regular and substantive interaction among online students and faculty. b. the program’s rationale for offering these programs, In December 2007 a university task force identified as a strategic initiative to expand distance education to strengthen local outreach, extend the University’s outreach and mission beyond the Omaha region. This was summarized in a report: Graduate Education at Creighton: A Vision for Growth. An education advisory board was created with university representation to develop this strategic initiative. The MPH program was one of the outcomes of this initiative. Specifically, the program aligns with the Jesuit mission of Creighton University. In presenting a values-centered, interdisciplinary program in public health, students are provided many opportunities throughout the curriculum to reflect on the meaning and application of social justice and, in some cases, to experience first-hand the manifestations of unjust societal conditions that adversely impact the health of certain populations. Further, there is a need to provide graduate degree options for other health sciences students at CU. There are several health sciences programs that enroll large numbers of professional, post-baccalaureate students, some of whom will want to enter their profession with a public health background. As noted in our guiding statements (Section B above), we are committed to training a public health workforce to address marginalized, vulnerable, and at-risk populations wherever they are. A distance education format makes it possible to achieve this on a national and even international level. The online format is the most flexible and sustainable way in which to offer a quality MPH program to students in various geographical locations. The ability to complete courses on an asynchronous schedule allows many working professionals to obtain the education needed to enhance their skill sets and advance their careers. c. the manner in which it provides necessary administrative, information technology and student support services, CU offers several undergraduate and graduate degree programs online, so appropriate infrastructure related to administrative, technology, and student support services for distance programs is well established. Student Services and Support An Academic Coach monitors the academic progression of all MPH students, offers regular office hours, and is available in person, via email, phone, and video conferencing. The duties of the Academic Coach include: a) serving as first point of contact for students; b) onboarding and orienting new students; c) registering, adding, cancelling and withdrawing students from courses; d) creating and maintaining plans of study; e) processing transfer credit requests and temporary withdrawal paperwork (formerly called Leave of Absence); and f) monitoring ongoing support for academic success throughout a student’s plan of study. The university provides students, faculty, and staff access to several advising and retention tools that can be accessed online: • DegreeWorks is a degree management system that outlines plans of study and allows a student to track progress toward their degree. • CreightonConnect (Starfish) is an online retention tool that streamlines communication between students, instructors, advisors and other University resources. • Student Resource Center (SRC) is a centralized, virtual space housed in Canvas (Blueline) that provides essential and comprehensive resource information for students.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 95 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• GRD 600 Orientation to Creighton is a self-paced, non-credit, comprehensive online course that includes information regarding policies and support available for technology, student health/well-being, library use and research support, services and support for writing assignments and requirements, and an introduction to the university’s Jesuit/Ignatian mission and tradition. Library Services CU has three separate libraries: the Reinert Alumni Library, the Health Sciences Library, and the Law Library. All CU students, whether online or on campus, have unlimited access to all three libraries as well as their resources, including the assistance of the library staff. Online students can use the library sites and resources to access course materials through the E-Reserves pages, the Jaysearch database to find current research from scholarly journals or search its extensive selection of current scholarly books, often with full text available online. The library staff provide all students free research assistance with writing assignments. They also maintain the Library Research Toolbox, a collection of instructional materials designed to help students find, evaluate, and cite information sources. It provides how-to guides, online tutorials, and useful websites, including links to other libraries. Instructional Design and Technology Support The Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) staff of instructional designers, technologists, and graduate assistants collaborate with faculty to select the tool(s) that best support each course’s learning objectives, and provide training and ongoing support for using the tools. To support ease of use, the TLC offers online Canvas orientation for faculty and students. The Teaching and Learning Center serves and supports Creighton’s distance learning initiatives through its work with faculty and staff in the following areas: Faculty preparation and support for teaching at a distance, in blended courses or technology-enhanced face-to-face including: • Online teaching certification course • Distance Education Mentoring Initiative – pairing novice online instructors with experienced instructors • Access to professional development resources including webinars, professional journals, and memberships to national organizations • Offering professional development webinars on a variety of distance education related topics Instructional design and technology services for online, campus, and blended education provided by professional staff with training and experience in: • Designing online and blended courses including course layout, aligning course outcomes, assessments, and assignments within the online classroom, building interactivity into your online course to effectively engage distance education students • Using technology to support your teaching in online, blended and on-ground settings; including the use of BlueLine (Canvas) tools • Multi-media creation to support student learning Institutional planning and administrative support for distance education: • In collaboration with University leadership establish the vision for distance education and engage in subsequent strategic planning initiatives to bring the vision to reality • Collaborate with academic unit Deans and program directors to plan and develop online programming. • Conduct regular review of current policies and procedures.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 96 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Draft new policies and procedures based on needs identified in collaboration with university faculty, administrators, and other stakeholders. • Manage the academic integrity aspects of contractual relationships related to the provision of online education programming. Conducting assessment/evaluation activities for distance programming: In collaboration and consultation with program directors and the Teaching and Learning Center, employ standards from the Higher Learning Commission and specialized accreditation to: • Promote the use of best practices in distance teaching and learning • Develop and maintain quality benchmarks for distance programming • Conduct reviews of the design of distance courses • Establish and implement a continuous quality improvement process for distance programming • Build necessary evidence file(s) for online programming as required by external accreditation agencies Coordinating support services for distance learners by: • coordinating and providing distance student preparation and orientation • collaborating with student support service areas to assure adequate provision of services for distance learners The Division of Information Technology and Library Services contracts with vendors that provide support for faculty, staff and students. They also provide support for Canvas, Panopto, and Zoom web- conferencing to students, faculty, and staff. Students may contact the Information Technology and Library Services support hotline 24/7 for password resets and to submit a ticket for support of other technical issues that might arise. Additional information on hours for various technology support can be found on the DoIT webpage. d. the manner in which it monitors the academic rigor of the programs and their equivalence (or comparability) to other degree programs offered by the university, and The MPH program, like all other distance courses and programs at CU, is designed, approved, and delivered according to standards that ensure consistent quality. • The Quality in Distance Education Programs 4.1.2. policy (see ERF D20.2i) • The Online Teaching Standards (see ERF D20.2j) • The Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) oversees application of quality standards including the Quality Assurance Standards for Online Education Programs, (see ERF D20.2f) which encompasses nine categories and is based on nationally accepted standards of quality for online courses and programs, including the Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions (C-RAC) Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education. (see ERF D20.2h) • The Distance Program Administrator Committee (DPAC) develops and promotes practices that contribute to the quality and growth of distance education at CU. The Committee represents students, faculty, and support units in matters pertaining to distance education and technology integration by bringing forth issues, concerns, questions and ideas for innovation. • The Academic Planning Review Committee (APRC) is a university-wide committee responsible for formulating and recommending academic planning goals and initiatives for the University. Specifically, the committee recommends actions and procedures for new and existing academic programs and recommends changes in programs, as well as the elimination of programs. This committee acts in an advisory capacity to the Provost and Council of Deans in academic planning for the University.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 97 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Distance education courses undergo review after initial development and every five years thereafter to assure alignment with the University's Online Course Design Rubric criteria (see ERF D20.2g), which are based on the Quality Matters course review criteria. • Verification of credit hours in distance education courses is accomplished as part of the review of each distance education course, using a set of metrics for seat-time and out-of-class time equivalencies (see ERF D20.2k) e. the manner in which it evaluates the educational outcomes, as well as the format and methods. (self-study document) The MPH program completes an annual assessment review and report to identify areas of strength and opportunities for improvement. This process ensures the specific program objectives are met through the core courses of the program. The MPH curriculum and public health competencies are mapped to program objectives, and a curriculum assessment map provides a visual representation of the linkages between the learning goals and the program objectives. The assessment reports and curriculum assessment map are available as ERF D20.2b-e Summative Assessment Data. The MPH program uses a variety of formative and summative measures in the courses to assess student learning. Formative Assessment of Educational Outcomes The MPH program uses formative measures to directly assess outcomes at the course level, through a review of papers, case studies, discussions, reflections, and presentations. These are embedded in the modules of each online course and used by the faculty to determine if the learning objectives have been met in the course. Summative Assessment of Educational Outcomes All students confirm the learning outcomes of the courses and selected CEPH and concentration competencies have been mastered successfully through the integration of knowledge and skills demonstrated in the pre-practicum, practicum, and capstone courses. These courses are the culmination of the program and serve as direct, summative evaluation measures because they require students to develop a scholarly practicum project and capstone paper on an approved public health topic under the direction of the Practicum Coordinator. Summative assessment activities are part of a program-level annual analysis of qualitative feedback from students and recent graduates. These qualitative data are reviewed on an annual basis, analyzing it for themes and rich quotes. The following data sources are considered: • Reflection Essays – Capstone students complete a reflective essay synthesizing their practicum experiences in combination with their academic MPH coursework, including the program goals and the core functions of public health professional practice. Included in the integration are the five (5) CEPH foundational and concentration competencies as they apply to the practicum experiential learning experience. • Graduate Exit Survey – Shortly after degree completion, graduates are invited via email to anonymously complete an online survey about the quality of the program’s curriculum, instruction, and overall learning environment. The MPH Assessment Plan summarizes the various ways in which the graduate program collects evidence of student learning and opportunities for course and program improvement. Student learning, as it relates to program objectives, is directly and indirectly assessed by formative and summative data to guide changes and refinements to the program, its curriculum, the learning environment, and instructional strategies. Formative Assessment of Student Learning for Continuous Program Improvement Formative elements of the assessment plan at the course-level, such as individual assignments or course/faculty evaluations, are considered a continuous data source and used by the Program Director and faculty for improving individual courses and assignments. At the end of each term, course instructors
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 98 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program are asked to review student feedback from course evaluations to self-assess instructional methods and course delivery. Faculty conduct annual course reviews, using feedback from the Student Evaluation Reports to guide curricular changes and modifications to learning outcomes. When modifications are substantive, the Graduate Program Committee reviews the course and makes recommendations or approves the changes. See ERF E3.5 Course Evaluation Data. Summative Assessment of Student Learning for Continuous Program Improvement The assessment reports and curriculum assessment map are available as ERF D20.2b-e Summative Assessment Data.
D20.3. Describe the processes that the university uses to verify that the student who registers in a distance education course (as part of a distance-based degree) or a fully distance-based degree is the same student who participates in and completes the course or degree and receives the academic credit. (self-study document) CU delivers its online courses using Canvas as the learning management system. Upon admission, new students receive a unique user ID (NetID) and a unique user-determined password to access Creighton courses and other online systems or services. Canvas integrates with university authentication services to ensure appropriate and secure student access to courses and other student information systems. • Secure Login and Passcode: CU uses a secure login process with a user identification number (NetID) and password to determine that any student who registers in a distance education course is the same student who participates in, completes, and receives credit for the course. • Using “Blue Credentials”: The student’s NetID is an identifier or username for logging in and accessing many university resources, such as CU email system, the campus wireless network, the university library resources, and many others. A NetID account allows the account holder to authenticate. • Safeguarding Blue Credentials: Students are responsible for providing their complete and true identity information in any identification verification process. It is against university policy for a user to give someone his or her password or to allow others to use his or her account. Further, all users of Canvas are responsible for maintaining the security of NetIDs and passwords or any other access credentials as required. Attempting to discover another user’s password or attempts to gain unauthorized access to another person’s files or email is prohibited. • Identity Verification: In addition, the university’s student information system provides instructors and department personnel access to class rosters that include student names and NetIDs. With Canvas, students also have the option to upload photos associated with their accounts. This is visible in areas of the course such as discussion boards and the messaging system. Because technology and personal accountability are not absolute in determining a student’s identity, faculty members are encouraged to use assessments that include audio and video presentation at several points in the course and in the program. Most, if not all, courses begin with a video biographical sketch by each student as well as the course instructor. For example, the Capstone course’s last assignment is a video presentation by the student describing the practicum project, competencies attained and overall experience in the MPH program.
D20.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program adheres to Quality Matters guidelines. • Professional development for online distance learning is required of all faculty. • Adoption of a model to provide student support through academic coaches to enhance the advising responsibilities of regular faculty is beneficial in facilitating student success and retention.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 99 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• The MPH program now includes a standing agenda item at their Graduate Program Committee meetings to discuss results from course evaluations to make curricular changes that are informed by student feedback.
Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 100 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E1. Faculty Alignment with Degrees Offered
Faculty teach and supervise students in areas of knowledge with which they are thoroughly familiar and qualified by the totality of their education and experience.
Faculty education and experience is appropriate for the degree level (bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral) and the nature of the degree (research, professional practice, etc.) with which they are associated.
E1.1. Provide a table showing the program’s primary instructional faculty in the format of Template E1-1. The template presents data effective at the beginning of the academic year in which the final self-study is submitted to CEPH and must be updated at the beginning of the site visit if any changes have occurred since final self-study submission. The identification of instructional areas must correspond to the data presented in Template C2- 1. Schools should only include data on faculty associated with public health degrees. (self-study document)
Table E1-1. Primary Instructional Faculty Alignment with Degree Offered Name Title / Tenure Graduate Institutions Discipline in Concentration Academic Status Degrees from which which affiliated with Rank Earned degrees were degrees were in Template earned earned C2-1 Benedict, Tanya Professor Tenured PhD; MS University of Health Policy & Healthcare North Carolina – Administration; Management Chapel Hill Rural (PhD); Sociology/Rural University of Health Arkansas (MS) Chapple, Helen Professor Tenured PhD; MSN; University of Anthropology; Health Care MA Virginia (PhD, Clinical Ethics; Ethics MA); Creighton Nursing University Administration (MSN) Johnson, LaShaune Associate Tenure-track / PhD; MA University of Sociology Healthcare Professor Non-Tenured California-Santa Management Barbara (PhD, MA) Lux, Sarah Department Non-Tenured PhD, MS Iowa State Education; Health Care Associate University Counseling: Ethics Director/ (PhD); Student Affairs Special Faculty University of in Higher Nebraska- Education Omaha (MS) Nolt, Kate Assistant Tenure-Track PhD; MPH Temple Exercise and Healthcare Professor / Non- University Sport Management Tenured (PhD); West Psychology; Chester Community University Health (MPH) Ratnapradipa, Professor Tenured PhD, MSc, University of Health Healthcare Dhitinut MPA, Utah (PhD and Promotion and Management MCHES MPA) Education; Environmental Technology Robinson, Mark Assistant Tenure-Track PhD; MA (3) Princeton Anthropology; Health Care Professor / Non- University (PhD, Religious Ethics Tenured MA); University Studies/Ethics; of Chicago (MA) Social Sciences
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 101 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E1.2. Provide summary data on the qualifications of any other faculty with significant involvement in the program’s public health instruction in the format of Template E1-2. Schools and programs define “significant” in their own contexts but, at a minimum, include any individuals who regularly provide instruction or supervision for required courses and other experiences listed in the criterion on Curriculum. Reporting on individuals who supervise individual students’ practice experience (preceptors, etc.) is not required. The identification of instructional areas must correspond to the data presented in Template C2-1. (self-study document)
See following page for Table E1-2.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 102 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table E1-2. Non-Primary Faculty Regularly Involved in Instruction Graduate FTE or % Concentration Academic Title / Current Degrees Time Institutions from which Discipline in which affiliated with in Name Rank Employment Earned Allocated degrees were earned degrees were earned Template C2-1 Baldetti, Nicholas Special Executive Director of DBA, MBA, .06 Creighton University; Pittsburgh Business Administration; Healthcare Faculty Healthcare Initiative for MS State University; Wayne State Sports and Fitness Management, MHM McPherson College, KS College Management 601 Casanave, Leah Special Supervisor - STD DrPH; MPH .06 University of Kentucky - Epidemiology Integrated Core Course Faculty Prevention and Control / Lexington Only - MPH 606 Douglas County Health Department Furlong, Beth Special Associate Professor JD; PhD; MA; .06 Creighton University; University Law; Political Science/ Health Care Ethics, Faculty Emerita / Creighton MS of Nebraska-Lincoln; University Public Policy; Community MHE 603 University of Colorado-Boulder Health Nursing; Nursing Guetterman, Tim Special Associate Professor / PhD; MA .06 University of Nebraska-Lincoln; Counseling, Rehabilitation Integrated Core Course Faculty Creighton University University of Iowa and Student Development; Only - MPH 707 Educational Psych - Quantitative, Qualitative, & Psychometric Methods Houston, Ellen Special Healthcare MA .06 Bellevue University Management Healthcare Faculty Administrator / Omaha Management, MPH OB/GYN Associates 633 Mustalish, Roger Special Professor Emeritus / PhD; MPH; .06 University of Minnesota; Environmental Health; Integrated Core Faculty West Chester University MS Michigan State University; Zoology Courses Only - MPH University of Pennsylvania 604 and/or 606 O’Reilly, Amy Special Adjunct Instructor / MFA; MA .06 Creighton University Creative Writing; English Integrated Core Course Faculty College of Arts and (Rhetoric and Composition) Only - GRD 601 Sciences, Creighton University Peters, Stephen Special Participant Services MA .06 Central Michigan University Organizational Healthcare Faculty Manager / Private Communication Management, MPH Practice Associates 634 LLC Ransom, Hellen Special Teaching Assistant DHCE; MA .06 Duquesne University; University Health Care Ethics; Health Care Ethics, Faculty Professor / East of Southern Mississippi; Philosophy; Biology MHE 604 Carolina University Tuskegee University Sandstrom, Robert Professor Professor, Physical PhD; MS .06 University of Nebraska Anatomy Health Care Ethics, Therapy / Creighton MHE 601 University Stone, John R. Professor Co-Director, Center for PhD; MD .06 Brown University (PhD); John Philosophy; Medicine Health Care Ethics, Promoting Health and Hopkins University (MD) MHE 600 and/or MHE Health Equity, Creighton 602 University
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 103 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Graduate FTE or % Concentration Academic Title / Current Degrees Time Institutions from which Discipline in which affiliated with in Name Rank Employment Earned Allocated degrees were earned degrees were earned Template C2-1 Weissenburger- Special Postdoctoral Research PhD; MPH .06 University of Nebraska Medical Epidemiology Integrated Core Course Moser Boyd, Lisa Faculty Fellow / Gretchen Center Only - MPH 707 Swanson Center for Nutrition Welie, Jozef Professor Tenured PhD; JD; MA; .06 Radboud University of Nijmegen Medical Ethics; Law; Health Care Ethics, M.Med.S. (PhD, MA); University of Philosophy; Medicine MHE 603 Maastricht (JD, M.Med.S)
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 104 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E1.3. Include CVs for all individuals listed in the templates above. (electronic resource file) Available as ERF E1.3 Curriculum Vitae – Non-Primary Faculty.
E1.4. If applicable, provide a narrative explanation that supplements reviewers’ understanding of data in the templates. (self-study document) Non-primary instructional faculty (Non-PIFs) are selected based on their academic and professional experience within the designated course topic. Please refer to ERF E1.3 Curriculum Vitae – Non-Primary Faculty for detailed qualifications. Non-PIFs are those individuals who contribute less than 50% of their total time to the MPH program or its concentration areas through their teaching assignments. FTE or the percentage of time allocated to the MPH program is calculated the same for Table E1-2. Faculty typically teach one course per 8-week term and spend an average of 15 hours per week teaching, which is approximately 38% FTE per week. Based on this, each 8-week course taught is equivalent to roughly 6% annual FTE. The AY 2019-20 course schedule is available as ERF C2.2b which was used to calculate FTE in Table E1-2.
E1.5. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The MPH Primary and Non-primary Instructional Faculty at CU provide a depth and breadth of expertise that is an asset to the university and the MPH students. • Faculty possess expertise (formal education and professional experience) in each of their respective disciplines. • Current instructional needs of the program are met utilizing current faculty (MPH and HCE) and special faculty. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 105 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E2. Integration of Faculty with Practice Experience To assure a broad public health perspective, the program employs faculty who have professional experience in settings outside of academia and have demonstrated competence in public health practice. Schools and programs encourage faculty to maintain ongoing practice links with public health agencies, especially at state and local levels.
To assure the relevance of curricula and individual learning experiences to current and future practice needs and opportunities, schools and programs regularly involve public health practitioners and other individuals involved in public health work through arrangements that may include adjunct and part-time faculty appointments, guest lectures, involvement in committee work, mentoring students, etc.
E2.1. Describe the manner in which the public health faculty complement integrates perspectives from the field of practice, including information on appointment tracks for practitioners, if applicable. Faculty with significant practice experience outside of that which is typically associated with an academic career should also be identified. (self-study document) The program recruits and employs full-time, part-time and special faculty (teacher-practitioners) who not only have disciplinary and content expertise but broad professional experiences outside of academia that they integrate into their online class experiences (see Section E1 and E2). Below are some examples of how our regular faculty maintain ongoing practice links with priority communities. Dr. Tanya Benedict has an ongoing professional practice involving research and service experience within the Dominican Republic (DR). She collaborated with CU Global Engagement Office and conducted a second Community Assessment in three years, which among other factors looked at the nutritional status of children within a Batey (Haitian shantytown community) located in the DR. As a result of the first Community Assessment, a nutritional program was established and data on the nutritional profile is completed annually. The second Community Assessment confirmed the implementation of the nutritional program for the children was transformative for the children and the community. This experience is shared with our MPH students as part of a review of international and national health systems in a foundational MPH core course (MPH 601). Dr. Benedict also serves as a Consultant in the areas of Accreditation and Credentialing for Thomas Jefferson University, Thomas Jefferson Hospital, and Main Line Health in Philadelphia and the surrounding area of Radnor. She has been actively working with these institutions to develop a process which has been lacking for accreditation and credentialing for nurses in the field of Esthetics. Dr. LaShaune Johnson participated in LEED (Leaders in Equitable Evaluation and Diversity) and has since this time offered trainings on culturally responsive racial equity evaluation at national conferences, for non-profits, the CDC, and for online trainings given by the American Evaluation Association. She also participates in program evaluation as a consultant with her own LLC or, through other work. In MPH 609, when the students have to craft an evaluation plan for a proposed CBPR project, she uses these experiences to guide the students. Dr. Kate Nolt is a consultant for National Government Services for review and implementation of a response to RFP from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. This includes examining methods for improved beneficiary outcomes, reduction in costs, and reform of health care delivery by applying Beneficiary Engagement Incentive Models. This experience as well as her current scholarship within addictive gaming are shared with students as they enter their pre practicum and practicum experiences. Moreover, we have several special faculty members engaged in field practice which provides opportunities for them to integrate theory and practice in the design and delivery of their courses. Special (adjunct) faculty contributions include: Dr. John R. Stone (special faculty for MHE 600 and 602) serves as Co-Executive Director of the Center for Promoting Health and Health Equity (CPHHE), a CU community-campus collaboration that promotes
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 106 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program health and health equity with community health as a primary focus. Omaha community members and our health sciences faculty formed this partnership of equal parity using seed funding from Nebraska Tobacco LB-692 monies. The partnership develops, evaluates, and disseminates multidisciplinary culturally competent research methodologies and health promotion behavior interventions aimed at improving the health of vulnerable populations and reducing health disparities. His knowledge and expertise with research in the social determinants of health is integrated into the scholarly writing and research ethics courses. Dr. Leah Casanave (special faculty for MPH 605) is an Epidemiologist at the Douglas County Health Department and supervisor of the STD Control Program. Her primary teaching responsibility is the MPH 605 Epidemiology. From 2014-2016 she was the Chronic Disease Epidemiologist for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services. She brings experiences with outreach activities, community projects and public health evaluation into her online classroom. Dr. Lisa Boyd (special faculty MPH 707) as a Postdoctoral Research Fellow, oversees organization-wide statistical procedures and conducting quantitative analysis, for the Gretchen Swanson Center for Nutrition. Her expertise in quantitative analysis was used in course assignments and working 1:1 with students. Dr. Roger Mustalish (special faculty for MPH 606 and 604) is immediate Past President of the Amazon Center for Environmental Education and Research Foundation (ACEER) and currently Vice President. In his 27 years with ACEER, Dr. Mustalish has conducted community health needs assessments for indigenous villages; secured funds for humanitarian health missions; fostered traditional uses of plant based medicines; secured clean water supplies for the Ese’Eja native people; worked with local gold miners to demonstrate mercury-free mining techniques; conducted research on water quality for 19 Amazonian watersheds; and managed an extensive conservation education program for rural and urban school children and teachers. He is also a National Geographic grantee and reviewer. Dr. Mustalish works with the Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware to train them to be citizen scientists in an effort to restore an ancestral watershed in Delaware. He integrates his international experiences by incorporating concepts, theories, and practice of transcultural health in MPH 604; and fostering an ecosystem approach to health in MPH 606. Dr. Nick Baldetti (special faculty for MHM 601) is the Executive Director of Healthcare Initiative for McPherson College in McPherson, Kansas. As the former Director of the Reno County Health Department in Hutchinson, Kansas, he brings his expertise as an executive officer to the human resources course. His executive experience in operations involves the development of policies, setting and developing operational goals, managing resources, obtaining funding through various state and federal grants, and the selection of key personnel. Dr. Tim Guetterman (special faculty for MPH 707) is an expert in the field of quantitative and qualitative methodology. His research interests include advancing the science and methodology of mixed methods research, enhancing health communications through bioinformatics technology, and employing software in qualitative data analysis. His teaching experience has included CU, University of Michigan, Bloomberg School of Public Health and University of Nebraska at Lincoln. Stephen Peters (special faculty for MPH 634) works in marketing and strategic planning for a large philanthropic endowment within one of the local health systems in Omaha. He brings his non-profit experiences to the online environment and involves the students in marketing and strategic planning. To maintain ongoing practice links with public health agencies, the program encourages all faculty to be involved in community engagement activities (see Table E5.2 in subsection E5) that complement their work, for the learning experiences of their students, for professional development, and to benefit the community or the public health workforce at some level. A survey of all teaching faculty (n=12) in Fall 2019 indicated that, in addition to having extensive public health practice outside of academia as noted by the profiles above, 83% of faculty integrate external public health practitioners into their courses through guest lectures (ex. Mustalish); ethics committee work with a local hospital (ex. Chapple); and student mentorship/community engagement in biostatistics (ex. Boyd).
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 107 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Lastly, the members of our EAB are all practitioners that review our curricula for relevance and to inform us about current and future practice needs.
E2.2. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • Key regular faculty maintain practice external to academia within their local communities and abroad within the Dominican Republic. • All special faculty are current practitioners and represent a wide variety of professional fields and expertise in public health. • Of all faculty, 83% integrate other external practitioners into their courses through guest lectures, committee work and/or mentorship. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 108 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E3. Faculty Instructional Effectiveness The program ensures that systems, policies and procedures are in place to document that all faculty (full-time and part-time) are current in their areas of instructional responsibility and in pedagogical methods.
The program establishes and consistently applies procedures for evaluating faculty competence and performance in instruction.
The program supports professional development and advancement in instructional effectiveness.
E3.1. Describe the means through which the program ensures that faculty are informed and maintain currency in their areas of instructional responsibility. The description must address both primary instructional and non-primary instructional faculty and should provide examples as relevant. (self-study document) All faculty members are expected to maintain currency in their professional disciplines through participation in professional organizations, appropriate research and scholarship, and publication and presentation of scholarly products. Additionally, PIF and non-PIF are encouraged to take advantage of the many university resources and offerings designed to stimulate teaching and learning innovation and improve instructional effectiveness. Though much of this is through the individual faculty’s own initiative; the university, school, and department have a wide variety of seed grant, travel grant, and faculty development programming to enable each faculty member to continue professional development. Examples include: The Teaching and Learning Center (TLC) is a resource for faculty and staff. The TLC supports faculty and staff development by offering programs in teaching, learning, curricular enhancement, assessment of student learning and educational technology throughout the year. Examples of TLC faculty in-service offerings: • Faculty Partners: Making Progress in Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, AY2018/19 • Complying with Copyright Requirements in a University Context, AY2018/19 • Inclusive Engagement: Incorporating Diversity and Inclusion into Classroom Management and Course Design, AY2019/20 • Creating Authentic Online Discussions (Webinar), AY2020/21 The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies has a Faculty Development Committee that offers professional development workshops and information sessions for full and part-time faculty (example workshop available as ERF E3.1). To encourage faculty to take advantage of the professional development opportunities the department or program pays 100% of costs (if applicable) for faculty and staff to participate in learning-focused activities offered through CU. In addition, the Department budgets an annual stipend per year for faculty participation in local, regional, or national conferences. Professional development within a faculty member’s discipline is evaluated and encouraged through the annual review process and the promotion and tenure review process. Some conferences that faculty attend on a regular basis include: the American Public Health Association Annual Meeting; Midwest Sociological Society Conference; American Society for Bioethics and Humanities Annual Conference; and Society for Applied Anthropology Annual Meeting. Faculty regularly review scholarly publications in their field of expertise. Such publications include Journal of Public Health, Journal of Public Health Policy, American Journal of Bioethics, Hastings Center Report, Public Health Ethics, Clinical Obesity, Anthropology and Humanism, Health Behavior and Policy Review, and Journal of Healthcare Management.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 109 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E3.2. Describe the program’s procedures for evaluating faculty instructional effectiveness. Include a description of the processes used for student course evaluations and peer evaluations, if applicable. (self-study document) Faculty instructional effectiveness is evaluated following university and department specific policies and procedures. Students, faculty, the program director and department chair are integral in these procedures. They are incorporated into annual performance reviews as well as the evaluation of faculty candidates for tenure and promotion as described in the Faculty Handbook, Section III.G.10.d. (see ERF E3.2) Students have the opportunity to complete a course/instructor evaluation at the end of each 8-week term using the online IDEA Ratings of Instruction instrument. Results of the evaluations are provided to the instructor after final grades for the semester have been submitted. Faculty utilize their course/instructor evaluations to review their instructional effectiveness. Individual goals for self-improvement can be developed as part of their annual self-evaluation in preparation for their annual review. Goals for course modifications and improvements can be reviewed at the MPH program meetings as a curriculum review item. All MPH faculty have an opportunity to review and provide input with this process. The MPH Program Director provides mentoring and coaching to faculty and has access to the course/instructor evaluations. Evaluations are analyzed at the end of each 8-week term; in preparation for faculty annual performance reviews; and as needed for quality improvement purposes. The Department of Interdisciplinary Studies Chair provides mentoring and coaching to faculty during their tenure with the university as well. This includes an overall review of the faculty’s teaching and instructional effectiveness.
E3.3. Describe available university and programmatic support for continuous improvement in faculty’s instructional roles. Provide three to five examples of program involvement in or use of these resources. The description must address both primary instructional faculty and non-primary instructional faculty. (self-study document) Faculty development for both full-time and special faculty are offered at the program, department, and university level or continuous improvement in faculty’s instructional roles. Faculty development opportunities offered at the: Program Level MPH faculty have had the opportunity to participate in a health disparities program offered through the Creighton Health Sciences Multicultural and Community Affairs Department in partnership with University of Alabama. Dr. LaShaune Johnson and Dr. Kate Nolt participated in the 12-18 months program to advance their knowledge of health disparities, identify a research trajectory within health disparities, and apply the knowledge writing a grant with mentoring and coaching from experienced faculty. Dr. John Stone, MPH adjunct faculty, mentored and coached Drs. Johnson and Nolt. Department Level Seminars for Ignatian Pedagogy Integration: Annual faculty development seminars are held for the department faculty that focuses on integration of key principles of Ignatian pedagogy. The topic selected for Fall 2019 included “Care for our Common Home” one of the key apostolic preferences that has unique application to our environment and Jesuit philosophy. In 2019, full-time faculty members Dr. Kate Nolt and Dr. Tanya Benedict, as well as adjunct instructor Dr. Roger Mustalish, attended. “The Care of our Common Home” theme provided an opportunity for faculty to become familiar with the apostolic preference of environmental protection and renewal, and to reflect on ways to integrate and apply the preference to the curriculum as well as other areas of the program. As we revised and updated the vision, mission, and goals for the program, “Care for the Common Home” provided strong evidence we were aligned with the vision, mission, and goals for our Jesuit university. Within the classroom, Dr. Mustalish, who teaches the MPH 606 Environmental Health course, was able to directly apply his learnings into the online classroom setting to enhance the course’s strong focus on environmental health disparities, global burdens of disease, and social justice aspects of the environment.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 110 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Conversation Café: Conversation Cafés are held 2-4 times a year within the Department. The February 2019 Conversation Café focused on inclusivity, diversity, and racism. Dr. Christopher Whitt, Vice President for Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, was the keynote speaker. Most of the MPH full-time faculty were in attendance. The presentation included a series of videos followed by reflective questions and conversations. The goal of the conversation was to increase self-awareness of racism, inclusivity, and diversity and how this increased self-awareness can translate into the classroom. Follow-up conversation cafés and university wide symposiums will enhance further professional development of faculty. (see ERF A1.5b) University Level The Teaching and Learning Center facilitates a culture of academic rigor that supports best practices in teaching, learning, curriculum enhancement, and academic technologies directed to enhance student learning at all levels of the learning process (i.e., online, hybrid, face-to-face, classroom, program, college/school, and institution), including assessment of student learning. This area also provides professional development and training in online teaching to new and potential online instructors. Diversity and Inclusion Symposium: Incorporating Diversity and Inclusion into Classroom Management and Course Design (CU Teaching and Learning Symposium, 11/21/19) – Presented by Dr. Christopher Whitt. Attendance at this on-campus symposium included MPH faculty Dr. Helen Chapple and Dr. Sarah Lux and adjunct instructor Dr. Beth Furlong. The key focus of the conference was a presentation on the foundational definitions of inclusion and diversity. This included reflective questions, self-assessments, and faculty conversation specific to classroom climate, silence, and structural and marginalization issues as related to our students. Evaluation of how these key issues impact MPH courses is required in course reviews. Global Health Conference Midwest: This annual conference has been led by a multidisciplinary team within CU since 2014. Global Health Conference Midwest (GHCM) is an opportunity to connect, collaborate, engage, and learn about pertinent and emerging topics in global health. The purpose of the conference is to catalyze action in global health by providing insight into global health issues, promoting a common voice for those interested in global health, fostering talent, and facilitating interprofessional partnerships. MPH faculty have participated in this conference through attendance as well as presentations. On February 14, 2020 both Dr. Kate Nolt and Dr. Tanya Benedict presented their poster “The Reduction of Malnutrition in Children through Food Security”. The conference provides an opportunity for faculty to promote and disseminate their scholarship with professionals and students who have similar interests and bring new information on emerging topics in global health to the classroom.
E3.4. Describe the role of evaluations of instructional effectiveness in decisions about faculty advancement. (self-study document) All faculty (i.e., tenured, tenure-track, non-tenure, both full- and part-time) undergo an annual faculty review per university policy and the Faculty Handbook, Section III.E.1. (see ERF E3.2) Reviews assess faculty effort and achievements, including instructional effectiveness as indicated by student course evaluations and exit surveys. Analyzing data from the prior calendar year allows faculty to plan their effort and achievements for the following year. Annual reviews serve as a basis for determining merit salary increases and provide counsel toward tenure and promotion where appropriate. Reviews are the responsibility of the respective department chair and program director. A significant review and reward mechanism are the tenure and promotion process, whereby faculty receive raises in rank and salary based on achievement of specified attributes in the areas of teaching, scholarship, and service (and clinical work as appropriate). Colleges and schools, and in some cases, individual departments, have specified guidelines for performance for the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor under the terms of the Faculty Handbook, Section III.G, (ERF E3.2) used by Department Chairs, Deans, College/School and University Rank and Tenure Committees and administrators. Probationary faculty applying for tenure and/or promotion are required to be evaluated annually by the Dean, Chair, or other designated senior faculty member. Evaluations are provided in the
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 111 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program context of current University Rank and Tenure Guidelines. This process is intended to assist faculty members in professional and career development. After review by the above-named entities, dossiers for applicants for tenure and/or promotion are sent to the President, whose decision is final. Guidelines for MPH faculty rank and tenure are available as ERF E4.2.
E3.5. Select at least three indicators, with one from each of the listed categories that are meaningful to the program and relate to instructional quality. Describe the program’s approach and progress over the last three years for each of the chosen indicators. In addition to at least three from the lists that follow, the program may add indicators that are significant to its own mission and context. Schools should focus data and descriptions on its public health degree programs. Faculty Currency • Annual or other regular reviews of faculty productivity, relation of scholarship to instruction – An annual faculty performance review provides an opportunity for faculty to reflect on their work and goals to identify areas for development through a structured review process with the Program Director. The Director reviews each faculty member’s productivity and contribution in terms of teaching, scholarship, and service, and discusses how these activities translate into meeting individual and programmatic goals for the MPH program. The Program Director plays a mentoring and coaching role in achieving these goals. Consistent review of the currency of readings, topics, and methods in all courses has resulted in updates to readings in key core courses such as MPH 604 and 606; assignments, such as integrating the current COVID-19 pandemic into MPH 606; and alignment of course objectives, assignments, and assessment with CEPH learning objectives and competencies. Annual reviews of faculty productivity over the three years has resulted in recent structural changes in teaching assignments to allow faculty reduced teaching responsibilities in support of increased scholarship and service. Faculty Instructional Technique • Student satisfaction with instructional quality – The school utilizes an online course evaluation system, Campus Labs, using the IDEA Learning Essentials diagnostic tool to assess student satisfaction with instructional quality. Course evaluations are anonymously completed by students at the end of each 8-week term. The survey asks for students’ perceptions of the faculty’s engagement, accessibility, and ability to facilitate an equitable learning environment. Students were asked to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) to rate whether they felt that the instructor(s) cared about the quality of their learning experience in the course. Mean scores by academic year are as follows: o AY 2016-17: 4.42 (mean) 569 responders o AY 2017-18: 4.24 (mean) 358 responders o AY 2018-19: 4.39 (mean) 255 responders o AY 2019-20: 4.49 (mean) 220 responders Course evaluation reports for the last three years can be found as ERF E3.5 Course Evaluation Data. Also, those students who participated in interviews conducted during the MPH academic program review in 2018-2019, by March 2020, expressed growing satisfaction with the MPH program, noting that faculty were ‘very good about giving feedback’. They also commented that the online learning environment contributed to their development as ‘independent learners.’ Program-Level Outcomes • Examples of courses that involve community-based practitioners – o MPH 605 Epidemiology – In MPH 605, the students interview an employee of a public health organization with a public health background and are required to have a conversation regarding epidemiology and how it is applicable within their workplace. The faculty member has a list of public health practitioners that can be provided for the
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 112 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
students for this assignment. The faculty member brings examples of case-control studies involving disease transmission, chronic diseases, and critical outbreaks that she has experience with both in her role as epidemiologist within the Douglas County Health Department and current Supervisor of the STD Control Program since 2016. In 2014 to 2016 she was the Chronic Disease Epidemiologist for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, Division of Public Health. o MPH 606 Environmental Health – The students conduct a community “Walk About” within their geographic area to identify, engage with practitioners, and describe historical and contemporary public health issues of significance to the area. Students have identified and assessed through their community walk about public health issues such as: contaminated rivers, nuclear waste sites, old World War II sites, workplace hazards, climate change impacts, substandard housing, industrial hazards and the like. o MPH 609 Community Based Participatory Research - In MPH 609, in preparation for their Week Six (self-reflection) and Week Eight assignments (proposal), students are required to interview two community members about health disparities. These community members can be from any parts of the community, but they are expected to talk about their role in addressing the student’s selected health disparities issue. In their interviews, the students ask questions about how the practitioner identifies and addresses the issue; how the practitioner evaluates efforts; and how—if at all—they integrate local culture into the project. The practitioners usually outline the barriers and facilitators for creating change in their communities. Because the practitioners come from a range of areas— local non-profits, schools, clinics/hospitals, and health departments—students get a diversity of ideas of what it means to be a public health practitioner, and these insights inform their papers. • MPH 610 Pre-Practicum Preparation - In both MPH 610 and MPH 611 Practicum Experience, community-based practitioners are sought to host and supervise practicum students. In MPH 610, students are tasked with locating a site whose mission and activities are in line with their professional goals and interests in public health. Agencies such as local public health departments, non-profits, and clinical sites with community health outreach programs are examples of possible practicum sites. Throughout the course, students will build a project with the agency community-based practitioner as the supervisor. In MPH 611 - Practicum Experience, students will be mentored by and the project implementation supervised by both the community-based practitioner at the agency as well as the course instructor. Progress has consisted of an increase in the number of courses integrating community-based practitioners in support of student success and outcomes. Prior to the current year 83% of all faculty integrated community practitioners into courses; now it is 100%. The examples above are illustrative.
E3.6. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has a well-defined process for the annual performance review of full-time faculty. • CU has substantial resources for supporting and improving the teaching performance of faculty members. • The program has demonstrable success in each of the three stated performance indicators. • Steady progress has been made, based on reviews of the outcomes of each of the three stated performance indicators. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 113 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E4. Faculty Scholarship The program has policies and practices in place to support faculty involvement in scholarly activities. As many faculty as possible are involved in research and scholarly activity in some form, whether funded or unfunded. Ongoing participation in research and scholarly activity ensures that faculty are relevant and current in their field of expertise, that their work is peer reviewed and that they are content experts.
The types and extent of faculty research align with university and program missions and relate to the types of degrees offered.
Faculty integrate research and scholarship with their instructional activities. Research allows faculty to bring real-world examples into the classroom to update and inspire teaching and provides opportunities for students to engage in research activities, if desired or appropriate for the degree program.
E4.1. Describe the program’s definition of and expectations regarding faculty research and scholarly activity. (self-study document) Scholarship and research are critical to the impact and reputation of the MPH program and CU. In addition to generating new knowledge for solving real world public health problems, faculty engagement in scholarship and research ensures that students are learning methods in applied contexts that are both current and significant. The program adheres to Boyer’s definition of scholarship recognizing the scholarship of discovery, integration, application and teaching. The scholarship and research expectations of the MPH faculty are identified in the Faculty Handbook (pp. 22-33 – see ERF E4.1) as well as in the Graduate School’s Rank and Tenure Guidelines (see ERF E4.2). There are Standards of Performance in teaching, scholarship, and service for the ranks of Assistant Professor, Associate Professor, and Professor. As outlined in the Graduate School guidelines, achievement in scholarly activity is demonstrated by publication of books, reviews, and articles, by delivery of scholarly papers, by activity in scholarly societies, and by appointments as editor, reviewer, and referee. The MPH program has a two-tiered system for measuring faculty scholarship. Regular, tenure-track faculty adhere to the tenure and promotion policies previously referenced. Targets for each measure in Table E4.1 for Primary Instructional Faculty (N=7), therefore, reflect these expectations for 100% of all primary instructional faculty to be engaged in scholarship. The program does not have formal scholarship expectations for our teacher-practitioners. However, given our commitment to hiring experts in their respective fields, we expect 100% of all special faculty we hire to have demonstrated evidence of scholarship reflected in their CV at the time of hiring and updated, as warranted, upon rehiring in subsequent years. We realize that this scholarship is primarily within their home organization and associated with their professional responsibilities, but as teacher-scholars, we expect their scholarship to be clearly integrated in their teaching for the program.
E4.2. Describe available university and program support for research and scholarly activities. (self-study document) There are several resources within the university that support faculty scholarship within the MPH program. The Office of Sponsored Programs Administration provides members of the Creighton community with the services and resources they need to successfully obtain and manage funding for their research, scholarly, and service endeavors. This office also disseminates information related to grants that financially support scholarly activities. Information is also available from the Research Services Office. There are internal grant opportunities for CU faculty research such as: • The Dr. George F. Haddix President’s Faculty Research Fund supports and enhances the research and scholarly productivity of full-time faculty. The fund supports three categories of applications including new investigators or initiation of research that represents a new direction for established faculty with the intent to build on this work and/or seek funding; the scholarship of
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 114 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
teaching/learning and/or mission-based projects; as well as team-focused projects that cross two or more schools or colleges or two or more disciplines. Faculty are encouraged to involve students in their research programs and scholarly endeavors funded by these grants. • Graduate School Research/Scholarship Grants are available to faculty who are working on projects related to their research or scholarship. Grants are available for up to $500. • The Teaching and Learning Center provides faculty development grants to individuals designing projects related to the assessment of student learning. Awards are between $500 - $2,000. There are also non-financial supports for faculty pursuing scholarship: • The University Research Council was established to provide leadership and direction for CU's research mission, to enhance sponsored research at the university, and to interface with the Research Compliance Committee and Research Compliance Office. • CU partners with the University of Alabama at Birmingham’s Health Disparities Research Training Program in nominating faculty to participate in the 18-month training program designed to further develop health disparities research. • The Center for Interprofessional Practice, Education, and Research (CIPER) facilitates interprofessional education and practice at the university. CIPER provides interprofessional tools and resources as well as courses for clinicians, faculty, and students of the Creighton community. • Opportunities for teaching and scholarship collaboration exist with health science faculty on interprofessional teaching and practice which can be presented at a regional Heartland Interprofessional Conference; the National Center for Interprofessional Practice and Education (NEXUS) conference; and international Collaborating Across Borders (CAB VII) conference.
E4.3. Describe and provide three to five examples of faculty research activities and how faculty integrate research and scholarly activities and experience into their instruction of students. (self-study document) It is a common practice that instructors teach courses which align with their areas of research expertise. This alignment makes it easier for faculty to integrate their research into teaching. This integration benefits students by helping them understand the significance of relevant, timely, and important public health problems and appreciate the research that their teachers are pursuing. Faculty use course-based research projects to facilitate the development of competencies related to research and applied evaluation and some of these projects engender conference presentations or journal articles, or both, for students. A few examples are: Dr. Leah Casanave Professional responsibilities that guide and inform her scholarship include leading the Douglas County Health Department STD Control Section in documenting and analyzing infection patterns while promoting education of individuals regarding communicable diseases and assisting affected individuals in locating appropriate resources and treatment. In 2018 she received a $20,000 grant that aimed to increase LHD and CHC capacity to establish meaningful, collaborative, and sustainable partnerships to improve HIV outcomes and reduce health related disparities. In 2017/2018 at the Open Forum for Quality Improvement and Innovation in Louisville, Kentucky she presented “Innovative Partnerships to Improve Public Health: Public Libraries and STD Testing”. That same year she presented “Strategies for Increasing Males Testing for Sexually Transmitted Infections in Douglas County” at the APHA Annual Meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. A review of her syllabus for MPH 605 Epidemiology indicates she consistently integrates her scholarship into didactic portions of the course so that students benefit from her role as a teacher- practitioner. Dr. LaShaune Johnson • Black Breast Cancer. “Sister Survivor, Sister Sojourner: Black Women’s Decisions about Cancer Treatment,” (Funded by the CU Haddix Fund), Feb. 2017-Feb 2019. Dr. Johnson completed data collection on a project about breast cancer in the Black community. In connection with this
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 115 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
project, she is currently completing a book chapter about community engaged research; this chapter will be a part of a larger volume she is co-editing with Dr. Renzo Rosales. The book manuscript was submitted in Summer 2020. She presented this work at the Society for Applied Anthropology 2019 meeting. In MPH 609, weeks 4 and 5, Dr. Johnson uses this project as an example of how to set up interviews and connect with community mentors as part of their final project. As part of the group office hours, Dr. Johnson describes the process of recruiting through diverse community settings, seeking out a project “champion” in the community, and revising the recruitment materials to adjust to health literacy levels. Students in her class then identify the community members they will interview for their projects and have an assignment where they lay out their communication and recruitment strategy. • SGM breast cancer. Dr. Johnson, along with a team of researchers around the US, undertook a systematic review of the literature about support for sexual gender minority (SGM) breast cancer patients. The team currently has an article about this research under review: Jane A McElroy, Christine M. Proulx, LaShaune Johnson, Katie M. Heiden-Rootes, Emily L. Albright, Maria T. Brown. “Systematic review of Emotional Distress among SGM Breast Cancer Patients and Their Support Persons” And, the team will be presenting a poster about this research project at the Society for Behavioral Medicine in 2020: T. Thompson, K. Heiden-Rootes, M. Joseph, L.A. Gilmore, L. Johnson, E.L. Albright, M. Brown, J.A. McElroy, C.M. Proulx. The social context of cancer for sexual minority women: A systematic review. Poster was accepted for presentation at the Society of Behavioral Medicine Annual Meeting, April 1-4, 2020, San Francisco, CA. • Developmental Evaluator, Adolescent Health Project, Omaha, NE, July 2015-June 2016. In this project, Dr. Johnson used community-based participatory research methods with adolescents, community members and health care providers and worked as a co-facilitator for the Clinical Providers Learning Collaborative. During and after this project, she provided examples from this work for MPH 609 Introduction to Community Based Participatory Research and paired several students in the MPH 609 course with staff from this project for their community interview project. In week 8 students are asked to describe their evaluation plan for the proposed CBPR project. The descriptions provided about the evaluation of the AHP project assist the students to see how CBPR methods can be used both in the data collection and evaluation of a health promotion project. Dr. Mark Robinson • Technology, Innovation and Public Health. Dr. Robinson’s continued research led him to publish The Market in Mind last year from MIT press. In this book, he explores such topics as shareholder anxiety and industry retreat from Alzheimer's and depression research; how laboratory research is understood as health innovation even when there is no product; the emergence of investor networking events as crucial for viewing science in a market context; and the place of patients in research decisions. Dr. Robinson’s courses prominently feature the subjects of technology, innovation, and the future of public health. As an example, this research informs his courses MHE 606 - Theories of Justice and MHE 622 – Public Health Ethics, in the following ways: • Students in MHE 606 address technological issues that increasingly transform global health infrastructures and decision-making • Students in MHE 622 address what are the most important ethical and conceptual issues that should be considered in the future of population-based approaches to health • Students in MHE 606 are asked to discuss the import of science and technology in modern healthcare, and how are issues of justice articulated in issues of technology and innovation Dr. Jos Welie • For the past 30 years, Dr. Jos Welie has been studying the legalization of physician assistance in suicide (PAS) and euthanasia in various countries, including the United States. Different mechanisms are enacted by the various laws that have been passed, with varying success in
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 116 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
transparently regulating these practices. Dr. Welie has co-authored one book and two dozen articles and chapters on PAS/euthanasia, contributing both to scholarly journals and to social media. Lessons learned from these ongoing research efforts have shaped various assignments in the MHE 603 - Law and Health Care Ethics course. Dr. John Stone • With a focus on social justice and health equity in community-academic partnerships, Dr. Stone co-authored a book chapter on trust as a key issue in community-academic partnerships. He also is the lead author of a manuscript under review that addresses ethics and collaboration in community-academic partnerships. Dr. Stone collaborated with the Omaha Maya community in two articles about his work in their community; and co-authored with others a related anthropology paper. As Co-Executive Director of the Center for Promoting Health and Health Equity, Dr. Stone and his team have submitted many related grant proposals and have been awarded approximately two million dollars for research and health promotion. This research and scholarship have informed MHE 602 - Research Ethics in the following ways: • Students review and discuss historical research abuses of populations with disadvantage including African Americans, subsequent ethical analyses, and federal regulations that followed. • Students also examine readings addressing community-investigator/academic partnerships in research. • The first paper in MHE 602 Research Ethics requires summarizing and analyzing ethical models for community-based research that are very relevant for such breast cancer and LGBTQ health issues.
E4.4. Describe and provide three to five examples of student opportunities for involvement in faculty research and scholarly activities. (self-study document) Our program provides students opportunities to become involved in public health research. Throughout the program, students are encouraged to become involved in research and show initiative by recognizing and acting on opportunities that present themselves. Some examples include: Dr. Kate Nolt • During the data analysis phase of a research study conducted by Dr. Kate Nolt, a student assisted with data analysis, created pivot tables and developed variables for comparison. Students were introduced and invited to assist with global health projects. It is Dr. Nolt’s common practice to reach out to the MPH students as a first source for collaboration (i.e., manuscript review, social marketing, data analysis). Dr. LaShaune Johnson • Dr. LaShaune Johnson was a researcher on a project titled, "Spiritual Influence on Wellbeing: a research project aimed at addressing the relationship between health and religion in the Muslim communities in Columbia, Missouri and Omaha, Nebraska". Using funds from the Society for Community Research and Action (SCRA) Dr. Johnson worked with MPH students from both CU and the University of Missouri to design the research project. The students were trained by Dr. Johnson in qualitative research methods and helped her design the interview questions. The students and Dr. Johnson conducted interviews as a team. She taught them how to do preliminary coding of interview transcripts, and methods and analysis training took place during regular conference calls between Dr. Johnson and the students as they discussed selected articles on qualitative research methods.
Dr. Roger Mustalish and Tricia Griffin, MPH Student
• Dr. Mustalish has secured two grants from the National Geographic Society to work with two indigenous peoples: the Ese’Eja of the Peruvian Amazon and the Lenape Indian Tribe of
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 117 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Delaware. Both have been impacted by the current Covid-19 pandemic and also the 1918 influenza pandemic. Dr. Mustalish and MPH student Tricia Griffin are part of an inter-professional team of students and faculty from CU, West Chester University, and the University of Delaware, and representing public health faculty, educators, conservation biologists and digital storytellers. Since July 2020, they specifically have been chronicling the morbidity and mortality associated with the 1918 pandemic among indigenous peoples of the Americas, and to determine what public health lessons were learned from that experience. The results will be integrated with results from other team members studying the Covid-19 pandemic. Results will be disseminated via social media and website platforms including those of National Geographic, the United Nations, and indigenous federations, as well as in print. This project is ongoing into 2021.
E4.5. Describe the role of research and scholarly activity in decisions about faculty advancement. (self-study document) CU is strongly committed to research and scholarship and requires all tenured and tenure-track faculty to develop and maintain a program of research in areas that reflect their expertise. Faculty considered for tenure and promotion beyond year six of their initial appointment must demonstrate levels of genuine excellence in research as demonstrated primarily by peer-reviewed research articles published in high- quality journals, presentations at professional meetings, and grant submissions (see ERF E4.1). In addition, as outlined in the Graduate School Rank and Tenure guidelines (see ERF E4.2), achievement in scholarly activity is demonstrated by publication of books, reviews and articles, by delivery of scholarly papers, by activity in scholarly societies, and by appointments as editor, reviewer, and referee. Acceptance of patents, procedures and methods, and consulting activity are also taken into consideration as appropriate to the discipline.
E4.6. Select at least three of the following measures that are meaningful to the program and demonstrate its success in research and scholarly activities. Provide a target for each measure and data from the last three years in the format of Template E4-1. In addition to at least three from the list that follows, the program may add measures that are significant to its own mission and context. The general CEPH outcome measures involving number of peer reviewed articles, presentations, and extent of faculty engagement in research activities are the most useful measures for the program and provide actionable data in support of the program's Teacher-Scholar Model, as well as hiring, tenure and promotion decision making. In conversations with CEPH consultants during this self-study, the program was strongly advised to modify the general CEPH outcome measures to create ones with aspirational goals that directly relate to our guiding statements, especially as they relate to advancing health equity within vulnerable populations. The measures in Table E4-1 below reflect this CEPH recommendation. It should be noted, however, that program faculty are experienced, productive scholars with robust numbers of publications and presentations. For example, during Years 1-3 the number of peer reviewed articles by faculty were 24, 25, and 28, respectively. For the same three-year time period, the number of presentations were 36, 35, and 28, respectively. Our stretch goal going forward is for faculty to increase their scholarship and research activities specifically related to advancing health equity within our priority populations as reflected in our guiding statements.
Table E4-1. Outcome Measures for Faculty (PIF/Non-PIF) Research and Scholarly Activities Target Year 1: Year 2: Year 3: (PIF N=7 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Outcome Measure (Non-PIF=13) (N=20) (N=20) (N=20) Number of peer reviewed articles with a focus on vulnerable populations to advance health 10 8 4 2 equity) Presentations at professional meetings with a 20 * 10 12 19 focus on vulnerable populations Percent of total faculty participating in research PIF 100% PIF 85% PIF 100% PIF 85% activities Non-PIF 35% Non-PIF 23% Non-PIF 23 % Non-PIF 23% Number of faculty participating in research/scholarship with a focus on vulnerable 20 10 8 8 populations
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 118 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
*These targets are for 2020-2021 due to the severe impact COVID-19 is having on professional organizations holding in-person events, restricted travel, and budget cuts for travel at Creighton. These targets are useful and realistic during this period of time. They will be revisited once conditions improve.
E4.7. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The level of research and scholarly productivity of the faculty in the MPH program is commensurate with their appointment (term, tenure-track, tenured), rank, and career status. • Measures and targets specifically foster faculty scholarship to advance health equity within the program’s priority populations. • There was an administrative decision in 2018 to reduce the teaching workload of the MPH faculty from six 3-hour courses per calendar year to five (five 8-week sessions per calendar year, faculty teaching average is 1 course per 8-week session. Faculty have a 6-week time frame during Summer 2 with no course assignment which allows additional time for focus on scholarship. (see ERF 4.7 Graduate School Academic Calendar 2019-20) • Utilizing the Boyer Scholarship model is an advantage for a university that is primarily focused on teaching and does not self-identify as a research focused university. The four tenets of scholarship in the Boyer model include discovery (advance knowledge); integration (interdisciplinary education); application (engagement) and teaching and learning. Faculty are able to seek promotion and tenure if their scholarship is in one of these key areas. Weaknesses • Creighton hiring policies for special faculty (i.e. adjuncts, many of them Non-PIFs) do not require expectations for scholarship. Plans for Improvement • The program created a new Scholarship and Service Committee that all regular and special faculty participate in in a virtual format. The intent is to foster collaborative research/scholarship, share ideas, and provide professional support. This work is on-going. • Although the program cannot require special faculty to engage in scholarship, the program will commit in its hiring practices to recruit adjunct faculty demonstrating scholarship within their primary field of employment and invite them to actively participate in the Scholarship and Service • A goal for full-time faculty of the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies is to build community and generate opportunities for interdisciplinary scholarship and research. We need to promote this and encourage MPH special faculty to participate in these opportunities as well.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 119 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
E5. Faculty Extramural Service The program defines expectations regarding faculty extramural service activity. Participation in internal university committees is not within the definition of this section. Service as described here refers to contributions of professional expertise to the community, including professional practice. It is an explicit activity undertaken for the benefit of the greater society, over and beyond what is accomplished through instruction and research.
As many faculty as possible are actively engaged with the community through communication, collaboration, consultation, provision of technical assistance and other means of sharing the program’s professional knowledge and skills. While these activities may generate revenue, the value of faculty service is not measured in financial terms.
E5.1. Describe the program’s definition and expectations regarding faculty extramural service activity. Explain how these relate/compare to university definitions and expectations. (self- study document) One hundred percent of primary faculty are involved in service activities that align with the MPH goal statement for service which promotes culturally responsive community engagement through outreach, education and partnership. Faculty are involved with marginal populations within their geographic areas of residency through Creighton’s serviced focused area or within areas of their discipline and interest. Regular (primary instructional faculty N = 7) tenured track faculty adhere to the tenure and promotion policies (see links below). For our special faculty, who are teacher practitioners, the MPH program does not have formal service expectations. But given our commitment to hiring experts in their field we expect 85% of all faculty we hire to have demonstrated evidence of service reflected in their CV at the time of hiring and updated, as warranted, upon rehiring in subsequent years. We realize that this service is primarily within their home organization and associated with their professional responsibilities, but as teacher-scholars we expect their service to be clearly integrated in teaching for the program. Examples of extramural service from our regular faculty include the following: Dr. Johnson is the Assistant Director of Highlander, a Place Based Community Development program located in North Omaha, Nebraska. She actively and regularly engages with community groups and members as they work toward specific goals related to social determinants of health. The Highlander’s mission is to promote culturally responsive community engagement through partnerships and outreach education. Dr. Nolt and Dr. Benedict work closely with communities associated with Creighton’s Institute for Latin American Concern (ILAC) in the Dominican Republic. They conduct community assessments supporting nutritional support programs and establishing infrastructures for future involvement of MPH students. Dr. Helen Chapple works locally and nationally with end of life and palliative care initiatives. These service activities are supported at the university level and are aligned with the description of service with the graduate school’s description of service for tenure and promotion which is consistent with the goals of the program and the mission of the university. The description: “Demonstration of Achievement in Service: Service includes professional, University, College or School, Departmental, community, church, or volunteer activity which is not directly related to teaching, research, or clinical assignments.” (Faculty Handbook 2015 Article-III.G.9. a. vii.) For promotion to Associate Professor, faculty must demonstrate the following in service: “Evidence of active service consistent with the Mission of Creighton University; and • An emerging record of regionally recognized clinical activity consistent with the Mission of Creighton University, if appropriate to the candidate’s position.” For promotion to Professor, faculty must demonstrate the following in service: “Evidence of recognized leadership in service, consistent with the Mission of Creighton University; and A record of nationally recognized clinical activity consistent with the Mission of Creighton University, if appropriate to the candidate’s position.”
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 120 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
See ERF E5.1a and E4.2 for related policies.
E5.2. Describe available university and program support for extramural service activities. (self- study document) All primary instructional faculty have access to: • Global Engagement Faculty Development – Faculty development workshops are offered to faculty and instructors currently teaching with academic service-learning and for those who are interested in doing so in the future. Opportunities are free and open to any interested faculty member. For example, the Immersion with the Poor in the DR/Haiti: Connecting Creighton with Community-Based Service-Learning program was designed to give participants an in-depth and first-hand introduction to how community-based service-learning can offer an effective educational enhancement to traditional classroom pedagogy and was funded by the Creighton Global Initiative Program through an application review process. The premise of the program was that both the DR and Haiti provide a unique opportunity for understanding how to apply this learning strategy to a variety of disciplines. Thus, while the program emphasized connections to learning in the liberal arts, it engaged and required reflection from several disciplines in order to read the reality of the country. The program included a general introduction to social, economic and political challenges within the DR/Haiti. • Ignatian Seminar for Faculty The Ignatian Seminar for Faculty provides an opportunity for faculty to experience a deepening in their consciousness of the Jesuit and Catholic character of CU’s mission of education. The seminar includes an overview of the Spiritual Exercises, a summary history of the educational mission of the Society, reflection, discernment, the Catholic Jesuit Mission as implemented at Creighton, Ignatian pedagogy, research in light of Ignatian values, and the role of the University in promoting justice and peace in society. Faculty participants experience a full immersion/orientation to justice in an Omaha neighborhood. The seminar includes the opportunity for faculty participants to experience an overnight Ignatian retreat at Griswold in December.
• Office of Academic Service-Learning (OASL) OASL offers a variety of free professional development opportunities to faculty interested in service-learning and community engagement. Faculty in-services/professional development are provided to learn how to integrate service learning and reflective practices consistent with CU Ignatian pedagogical approaches into courses. In-services were held in November 2019 and January 2020.
E5.3. Describe and provide three to five examples of faculty extramural service activities and how faculty integrate service experiences into their instruction of students. (self-study document) A few examples of the MPH faculty extramural service activities and how faculty integrate service experiences into their instruction of students include: Dr. LaShaune Johnson • Dr. Johnson, Associate Professor, is a sociologist, researcher, and volunteer in the African American breast cancer communities studying health disparities. Her study has been noted as important because, while major strides have been made in the treatment and detection of breast and ovarian cancer, Black women are experiencing survival disparities for these cancers and evidence is emerging that they are having different diagnosis experiences than their White peers. Dr. Johnson believes these stories need to be told and that through them, Black/African American women can unite and support each other, make changes to the cancer culture, and change the healthcare system. This practice experience and related scholarship inform how she chooses guest lecturers for her courses. For example: • April 2019: “Partnering with the Faith Community to Address Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities” – Keneshia Bryant-Moore, PhD, RN, Associate Professor, Health Behavior and Health Education, Fay W. Boozman College of Public Health, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 121 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• February 2019: “Operant Theory (Behavior Analysis) and Its Application to Community Health” – Daniel J. Schober, PhD, MPH, Clinical Assistant Professor, DePaul University, Master of Public Health Program • Dr. Johnson serves as the Assistant Director of Creighton University at Highlander. Since July 2019, she has worked in partnership with community members, students, and faculty members to co-create health promotion activities. In October 2019, she co-hosted a workshop called “Getting Started with Community Partnerships for Health” with Samia Gamie, from the Lincoln-Lancaster Health Department. In this session, the hosts discussed starting, and maintaining positive community relationships. Many of Ms. Gamie’s recommendations for partnering with non- traditional sites (for instance, employers like Wal-Mart), have been integrated in the Week Five Office Hours for MPH 609, where Dr. Johnson lectures about the students’ final papers where they discuss creating a proposal that addresses creating and maintaining partnerships. • Dr. Johnson has partnered with the Catholic Charities’ St. Martin de Porres “Sazzy Seniors” group, a group of mostly Black/African American seniors who attend activities at a day facility. In the MPH 608 course, students listen to a podcast about “elder speak” and discuss the potential biases that young health educators have when it comes to communicating with older adults. So, during this week, Dr. Johnson can share her experiences with creating and adapting informational material for this older adult population. • Dr. Johnson serves as the Non-Clinical Co-Chair, Health Disparities Implementation Group, Nebraska Cancer Coalition (NC2), May 2018-present. In this role, Dr. Johnson has been collaborating with health care workers, community members, and policy makers to discuss the implications of current policies on the health of urban and rural Nebraskans. Information learned about access and health communication will be integrated into MPH 608 course (Health Communication and Informatics) in its next revision. During the MPH 608 course, in Week Five’s office hours, Dr. Johnson discusses the diverse cancer disparities across the state of Nebraska and the role the demographics (rural vs urban, white vs racialized minority) impact how the statewide goals are implemented to address different audiences. Dr. Johnson relies on their executive summary. Although this report is focused on cancer prevention and screening, the broader lessons of audience analysis and communication channel selection are applicable to all kinds of conditions. • From June 2013-February 2017, Dr. Johnson served as Co-Chair of the Metro African American Women Breast Cancer Task Force, Omaha, NE. In this role, Dr. Johnson helped design and implement a peer education program with members of the North Omaha community. During the Week Two office hours of MPH 609, when the students are learning about identifying community partners/stakeholders who can help them become more aware of the cultural beliefs and practices of their priority community, Dr. Johnson discusses the process of working with community health workers to design an outreach aimed at educating Black women about breast cancer screening and treatment. Dr. Kate Nolt • Dr. Nolt currently serves on the Board of Directors for Pascal’s Pantry, an NGO based in Omaha, NE, whose mission is to improve the lives of undocumented Haitian children living in the distressed Bateyes of the Dominican Republic. This includes travel to the DR communities and creating educational programming to improve the lives of families living in these communities. Topics include basic nutrition, fire safety, vaccinations and hygiene. Her experiences are shared with students in her faculty advisory role as well as her role in the pre-practicum course MPH 610. • Dr. Nolt serves as a consultant to various communities to help other non-profits conduct community needs assessments, analyzing results and making recommendations. Several examples include the Chester Heights Neighborhood Alliance in PA, Communities That Care (CTC) in Phoenixville, PA and Downingtown, PA as well as the Philadelphia, PA office of WIC.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 122 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Dr. Jos Welie and Dr. Beth Furlong • Faculty members regularly engage in policy development and new legislative efforts at a state level by participating in public hearings and otherwise consulting policy makers and legislators. These experiences are then brought back to the courses. This often happens in the form of ad hoc discussion contributions, but the experiences can also become a structural component in a course. For example, Drs. Furlong and Welie were both involved heavily in a public referendum aimed at changing the Nebraska Constitution regarding artificial nutrition and hydration of chronically terminally ill patients. Subsequently, each published a scholarly article describing aspects of this legislative process; both articles are now required readings in the MHE 603 Law and Health Care Ethics course. More recently, Dr. Welie developed and submitted an analysis of a new Nebraska bill on physician assistance in suicide to several Nebraska senators leading the public hearing on this bill. The bill itself, as well as this critical analysis, are now required reading in the aforementioned course to prepare students on their own discussion about the (in)effectiveness of the legal regulation of health care practices. Dr. Nick Baldetti • Dr. Baldetti, a non-primary instructional faculty member who teaches MHM 601 - Human Resources for Health Care Managers served as the Director of Public Health for Reno County in Hutchinson, KS from 2015-2020. He had multiple human resource responsibilities as the director. His extramural service includes several board and advisory board responsibilities, and professional organizational membership and leadership responsibilities. His experiences serving as a board member and participation in outside organizations are incorporated into his online classroom experience. Dr. Tim Guetterman • Dr. Guetterman, non-primary instructional faculty, teaches MPH 707 - Introduction to Mixed Methods, and brings his expertise and experience of quantitative and qualitative methodology to the online class. He has extensive service experience with manuscript reviews, grant/book reviews, editor, editorial membership, and serving in leadership roles within professional organizations. Most of his work is focused on working with students and professionals in research studies using mixed methods.
Table E5.1. Primary and Non-Primary Faculty Community Engagement Activities Primary Faculty Community Engagement Activities Benedict, Tanya • President and Co-Founder, Board of Directors, Pascal’s Pantry, Omaha, NE 2016 – present • Consultant on Accreditation and Credentialing, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA 2019 - present • Consultant on Accreditation and Credentialing, Thomas Jefferson Hospital, Philadelphia, PA 2019 - present • Consultant on Accreditation and Credentialing, Main Line Health, Radnor, PA 2019 - present • Liaison, National Board of Public Health Examiners, 2006-2015 • Member, Nebraska Immunization Task Force, 2016-2017 Chapple, Helen • Member, Nebraska State Bar Association POLST-Advance Care Planning Study Group, 2016 • Member, CHI Ethics Committee, January 2014-Present • Member, Alegent Creighton Care Redesign Committee, January 2014-2015 • Member, Alegent Creighton Excellence in End of Life Care Committee, May 2013-2015 Johnson, • Organizing Committee Member, Celebration of Life, University of Nebraska Omaha, Fall 2016 LaShaune • Introductions, Health Equity Conversation with Courtney Phillips, University of Nebraska College of Public Health, Fall 2016 • Member, Refugee Health Collaborative, Omaha, NE Member, Omaha Advisory Group, Planned Parenthood Teen Pregnancy Prevention Initiative, Omaha, NE • Co-facilitator, Clinical Providers Learning Collaborative, Adolescent Health Project, Omaha, NE • Fact Sheet external reviewer, Social Action Committee, Sociologists for Women in Society • Member, Evaluation Advisory Council, Building Healthy Futures, Omaha, NE • Member, Komen Nebraska Board of Directors Medical/Scientific Advisory Group, Omaha, NE • Co-Editor, Creighton University Public Health Blog, Omaha, NE • Member Komen Nebraska Community Profile Team and Trainer of the Qualitative Data Collection Team, Omaha, NE
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 123 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Co-Chair of Metro African American Women Breast Cancer Task Force, Omaha, NE • Leadership Committee, The Connections Project, University of Nebraska, Omaha Nolt, Kate • Member, Community Needs Assessment team, Chester Heights, PA • Treasurer, Board of Directors, Pascal’s Pantry, Omaha, NE • Consultant, Garnet Valley School District – E-School, Garnet Valley, PA • Youth Advisor, BBYO Wilmington Chapter, Wilmington, DE • Co-PI, Community Health Needs Assessment, Dominican Republic Rural Communities Ratnapradipa, • National Environmental Health Association (NEHA), 2009-Present Dhitinut • Eta Sigma Gamma (ESG): Lifetime Member, 2009-Present • Society of Public Health Education (SOPHE), 2004-Present • Commissioner: Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Management, 2018-2019 • Education (CAHME) – Graduate Healthcare Quality and Safety Program Robinson, Mark • Organizer, International Cultural Political Economy of Research & Innovation International Workshop, Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Boston, 2016-2017 • Planning Committee, National Science Foundation Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers Grant; “Broadening Participation in the Social Studies of Emerging Technologies,” Center for Nanotechnology in Society, Arizona State U, 2015-2016 • Member, Africa Diaspora Committee, SNL Discretionary Committees and Task Forces, School for New Learning, 2014-2016 • Reviewer, Mandela Washington Fellowship for Young African Leaders, IREX, U.S. Department of State, 2013-2014 Non-Primary Faculty Baldetti, Nick 2020 - present - Quest Center for Entrepreneurs Board of Directors - Board Member 2019 - present - Horizons Mental Health Center Board of Directors - Board Member 2019 - present - Hutchinson Regional Medical System Board of Directors - Board Member 2019 - present - Creighton University - Master of Public Health - External Advisory Board Member 2018 - present - Missouri Valley Economic Association - Member 2018 - present - Wichita State University – Public Health Sciences - External Advisory Committee 2017 - present - Kansas Association of Counties Board of Directors - Board Member - Finance Committee 2017 - present - International City/County Management Association 2016 - present - Academy of Management - Healthcare Management, Technology and Innovation Management 2015 - present - Kansas Association of Local Health Departments - At-Large Board Member 2015 - 2017 - Communities That Care – Board Member 2014 - 2017 - National Association of City and County Health Officials - Finance Executive Committee 2014 - present - Rotary Club of Hutchinson 2014 - present - University of Kansas - Master of Public Health - External Advisory Board Member Casanave, Leah 2018 - 2021 STD National Electronic Disease Surveillance System Base System (NBS) Leadership Group 2019 - 2020 NACCHO HSHW Co-Chair 2018 - 2020 National Association of City and County Health Officials 2018 - 2021 HIV, STD and Hepatitis Workgroup (HSHW) 2016 - 2019 National Coalition of STD Directors 2016 - 2019 American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association Furlong, Beth 2017-2020 Member, Visiting Nurse Association 2017-2020 Board of Director Member, Visiting Nurse Association 2017-2020 Member, Quality Improvement Committee, Visiting Nurses Association 2017-2020 Member, Board of Directors, Douglas County Health Foundation 2017-2020 Member, Omaha Together One, Mental Health subcommittee 2017-2020 Member, Board of Directors, Association of Safe Patient Handling 2017-2019 Editor, Online Newsletter, Association of Safe Patient Handling 2017-2020 Community Events: Participate in Community Dramas – Lavinia Dock – Public Health Nurse and Suffragist 2017-2020 Member, League of Women Voters 2017-2020 Member, ANA 2017-2020 Member, APHA 2017-2020 Member, Sigma Theta Tau 2017-2020 Member, Fulbright Foundation 2017-2020 Member, Health Ministry 2017-2020 Member, ASPHP Guetterman, Tim 2018 - present Associate Editor-Media, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, SAGE Publications 2019 - present Academic Editor, PLOS One 2019 Co-Editor, Special issue on research methodology, Vol 7, Issue 2, Family Medicine and Community Health, BMJ Journals 2015 - present Associate Editor, Journal of Mixed Methods Research, SAGE Publications Editorial 2015 - present Board Membership, Journal of Mixed Methods Research 2013 - present American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Mixed Methods SIG
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 124 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
2017 - present Dissertation Award Reviewer, American Educational Research Association 2016 - present Scholarship Review Board, Bellevue University 2017 Grant Reviewer, Ad hoc, National Science Foundation International 2018 Grant Reviewer, Auckland Medical Research Foundation Houston, Ellen 1988 – present Nebraska Medical Group Management Association 1994 – present Medical Group Management Association 1998 – present American College of Medical Practice Executives 2017 – present WCA Women’s Center for Advancement 2019 – present WCA Women’s Center for Advancement Executive Committee & Finance Chair Mustalish, Roger 2017-present Manager, Ese’Eja Nation (Peru) Community Development Fund 2018-present Consultant, Longwood Gardens, PA 2017-present Consultant and Technical Advisor, Lenape Indian Tribe of Delaware 1996-present Immediate Past President, current Vice President, Amazon Center for Environmental Education and Research (US and Peru). 2019-present Grant reviewer, National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 2020 Book reviewer, American Botanical Council, Austin, TX Peters, Stephen 2017 - present Member of the Nebraska State Board of Health Credentialing Review Public 2017 - present Member, Advisory Panel, Creighton University’s Health Administration 2017 - present Seminar the Rural Healthcare Association(current) Residency Program Education: 2017 - present Presentations to UNMC and Clarkson Family Residents Ransom, Hellen 2014 – 2018 American Academy of Physician Assistants 2013 – present Gold Humanism Honor Society 2006 – present American Society for Bioethics and Humanities 2013 – present Vidant Medical Center, Greenville, NC Adult Ethics Consultation Chairperson, Vidant Medical Center Ethics Committee 2013 – present Clinical Ethics Consultation, Vidant Medical Center Sandstrom, Robert 2012 – present Division of Public Health, Ne DHHS, Technical Review Committee 1997 – present American Physical Therapy Association Member 1997 – present Health Policy and Administration Section, 2001-presentEducation Section Stone, John R. 2011 - present Board of Directors, Omaha Comunidad Maya Pixan Ixim Fall 2013, spring 2014, and continuing - Advisor, Omaha Maya Community Health Workers Community Educational Programs 2013 Primary instructor, lead curriculum developer, Omaha Maya Community Health Workers Train-the Trainers Educational Program 2011 - 2014 Advisor and co-developer, funded program for Peer and Community Educators, Omaha Maya Guatemalan Community 2007-2010 Advisory Board, Center for Transcultural Learning, College of St Mary, Omaha, NE Welie, Jos 1997 - 2020 Member, Operations Board, Nebraska Coalition for Compassionate Care, Omaha, NE 2016 - 2020 - Member, Clinical Education Committee, CHI Health, Omaha, NE 2010 - 2013 - Consultant, development of a new hospital ethics committee, Mary Lanning Memorial Hospital, Hastings, NE 2003-2005 - Palliative Care Committee, Division of Oncology, Creighton University Medical Center Weissenburger- 2015 – Present Volunteer, Heartland Family Services Moser Boyd, Lisa
E5.4. Describe and provide three to five examples of student opportunities for involvement in faculty extramural service. (self-study document) • Dr. Mustalish and current MPH student Camille Cuonzo are collaborating, in 2020, on the production of a series of public service announcements (PSAs) for the ACEER Foundation, an international non-profit working with indigenous peoples of the Americas. The Ese’Eja and Shipibo people of the Peruvian Amazon have been particularly hard hit by COVID-19. The student is scripting and providing voice over for a series of PSAs describing their dire situation and explaining how viewers can get involved to help these vulnerable communities. Dr. Mustalish will orchestrate the visuals and dissemination. The bilingual PSAs will appear on ACEER’s social media platforms that include Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. They will also appear on www.aceer.org. • Dr. Dhitinut (DT) Ratnapradipa, Program Director, and MPH student Kevin Boes are collaborating Fall 2020 to promote the annual National Preparedness Month in Omaha, NE. The Federal Emergency Management Agency sponsors the awareness month to help the public prepare for and respond to natural and other disasters. Their service collaboration is to assist in creating an initial plan to promote awareness of the importance of preparedness among the stakeholders in
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 125 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Omaha, NE. Planning activities began during the first week of September 2020. Planning aspects include partnership inventory, a time frame of promotion, channels of communication, and future dissemination opportunities. • Dr. Nolt and MPH student Vui Dang served on the planning committee of the Omaha chapter of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) for their annual Survivor Day held in November 2018. Together they collaborated on planning all aspects of the event, including scheduling, and creating the itinerary. A key opportunity for the student was designing and presenting an art exhibit on suicide prevention, called Reflection of Hope that invited members of the Omaha community to write and display their experiences as survivors or friends/family of survivors. • MPH faculty and students coordinate the National Public Health week activities on an annual basis. Dr. Johnson, Dr. Nolt, Dr. Mustalish and the MPH Student Advisory committee coordinated the National Public Health Week 2020 activities. These activities have included welcoming distinguished speakers to the campus, holding virtual seminars with key leaders in public health, and hosting special events. An activity occurs Monday through Friday of the week. (see ERF A1.5a Program Level Communication, Student Advisory Board Interactions, NPHW 2020)
E5.5. Select at least three of the following indicators that are meaningful to the program and relate to service. Describe the program’s approach and progress over the last three years for each of the chosen indicators. In addition to at least three from the list that follows, the program may add indicators that are significant to its own mission and context. The MPH faculty provide dedicated service with numbers of activities far above those indicated in Table E5. The Measures below are more useful to the program as they specifically relate to our guiding statements regarding advancing health equity in our priority populations. The targets are aspirational and represent a stretch goal for the faculty to achieve. They were derived after consultation with CEPH, as noted in subsection E4 above. The program views the targets for participation of faculty in service as a minimum, especially for PIF. So, while we report meeting our targets each year, and exceed them for Non-PIF, they remain useful to the program. It would be a significant issue if program faculty did not regularly attain, or in the case of PIF, exceed these targets. Data indicating non-attainment would trigger conversations within the program to address reasons why and to implement corrective measures. Our service expectations are directly linked to our mission and value statements and focus on health equity in vulnerable populations. These measures assure that faculty are focused on this kind of service, rather than broader, more generic service activities.
Table E5. Service Indicators for Primary and Non-Primary Faculty, FY 2018-2021 Target (PIF N=7] Non-PIF Year 1: 2018- Year 2: 2019- Year 3: 2020- Indicator N=13) 19 20 21 Percent of primary instructional faculty participating in culturally responsive extramural service activities with 100% 100% 100% 100% vulnerable populations. Percent of non-primary instructional faculty participating in culturally responsive extramural 85% 100% 100% 100% service activities with vulnerable populations. Number of faculty-student service collaborations with 10 8 6* 2* vulnerable populations
Number of priority community-based service projects 10 4** 7** 0* *Faculty-Student Service Collaborations - 2019-20 (fall 2019 data only; Spring 2020 activities suspended due to COVID-19); 2020- 2021 (fall 2020 data only; activities resumed and following COVID-19 protocols) **MPH Community based Service Projects
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 126 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
COVID-19 had a significant negative impact on all community service activities in 2020, first by causing all activities to suspend until such time as protocols for continuing were in place, and second, by forcing most activities to include a significant if not total online format for meetings and work. The program is satisfied with progress we are making, though reaching our target virtually may be aspirational. Faculty- student collaborations will remain virtual for the most part given our online format and geographic distribution of students and faculty across the country.
E5.6. Describe the role of service in decisions about faculty advancement. (self-study document) The evaluation of faculty is based on the candidate’s breadth and depth of positive achievements in Teaching Performance, Scholarly Performance, and Service Performance, as cited in the Graduate School Rank and Tenure Guidelines. (see ERF 4.2) The more positive achievements the candidate demonstrates (quantity) and the greater the degree of the achievements (quality), the higher the evaluation is likely to be. Thus, candidates do not necessarily have to achieve all the examples cited below to garner a positive evaluation. Service as defined by CU includes manuscript reviews, book reviews, participation on expert panels, membership in professional organizations, participation on committees with professional organizations, community events, board membership, advisory board memberships, journal editorial commitments, as well as University, College or School Departmental commitments. E5.7. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • Program faculty reflect a strong level of service engagement within professional, local, regional, national, and international communities. • Clear benchmarks for faculty engagement are articulated, with 100% engagement in extramural service expected of regular faculty and 85% engagement expected by special faculty recognizing this may be influenced by their roles within their home organizations and their ability to serve. • Targets for regular and special faculty have been met or exceeded. • Students have opportunities for participation in faculty extramural service. • Extramural service categories are clearly identified and include professional and community- based service such as manuscript reviews, book reviews, expert panel members, professional organizational memberships or leadership roles, community event organization leadership, board or advisory member, and journal editorial commitments. • Service activities are linked to the program’s mission and vision, focusing on service to advance health equity within our priority populations. Weaknesses None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 127 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
F1. Community Involvement in Program Evaluation & Assessment The school or program engages constituents, including community stakeholders, alumni, employers and other relevant community partners. Stakeholders may include professionals in sectors other than health (e.g., attorneys, architects, parks and recreation personnel).
Specifically, the school or program ensures that constituents provide regular feedback on its student outcomes, curriculum and overall planning processes, including the self-study process.
With regard to obtaining constituent input on student outcomes and on the strengths and weaknesses of the school or program’s curricula: • The school or program defines qualitative and/or quantitative methods designed to provide useful information. • Data from supervisors of student practice experiences may be useful but should not be used exclusively. • The school or program documents and regularly examines its methods for obtaining this input as well as its substantive outcomes.
F1.1. Describe any formal structures for constituent input (e.g., community advisory board, alumni association, etc.). List members and/or officers as applicable, with their credentials and professional affiliations. (self-study document) The program employs an array of systems to assure that community stakeholders are engaged in decision making and evaluation of the program. These include an EAB, community practitioners serving as adjunct faculty in the program, practicum site supervisors, and employers of graduates. Below is a description of each. External Advisory Board (EAB): Collaboration with the EAB is the principal means of engaging outside constituents on behalf of the program. In 2018, the initial EAB was created and composed of five individuals representing public health practice, community stakeholders, and alumni in the Omaha metropolitan area. In the course of the current self-study, the EAB recognized that the majority of our students reside throughout the United States and recommended to the program that it be expanded to better represent the geographic and demographic nature of the program and to more effectively address the needs of our priority communities, as represented in our guiding statements. In 2019 the current EAB was officially expanded. (see membership list in Table A1.1) The purpose of the EAB is to utilize the knowledge and interest of public health professionals, academics, community members, alumni, and friends for the continued improvement of the MPH program. The principal function of the Board is to assist, advise, comment upon, and make recommendations to the MPH program. Thematic areas for the EAB include providing feedback on the MPH self-study; evaluating the existing curriculum and any proposed enhancements; reviewing data on the effectiveness of students and graduates in meeting competencies; and staying current on other operational aspects of the program. Teacher-Practitioners: Adjunct faculty are also key community constituents with knowledge, skills, and extensive practical networks that can be leveraged on behalf of the program. Adjunct faculty serve on the Scholarship and Service committee through which they contribute to the program. Annual surveys are also conducted among the adjunct faculty regarding student performance, community engagement and scholarship. (See Section E for names and credentials). Practicum Site Supervisors: The practicum site supervisors regularly assess our students for knowledge, skills, and attitudes during their Applied Learning (practicum) experience.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 128 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Employers: Employers of new graduates are surveyed annually to assess the quality of our graduates and to solicit recommendations and suggestions for improvement of the program.
F1.2. Describe how the school or program engages external constituents in regular assessment of the content and currency of public health curricula and their relevance to current practice and future directions. (self-study document) In March 2018, the MPH program underwent its inaugural academic program review process as a prelude to seeking CEPH accreditation (see ERF B5.3d). The program review was conducted by two ad hoc external reviewers and one internal reviewer. The external reviewers were David A. Shoham, PhD, MSPH, Director, MPH Program, Loyola University Chicago, and Andrea Crivelli-Kovach, PhD, MA, Director of Graduate Programs, Department of Public Health, College of Health Sciences, Arcadia University. The internal reviewer was Jacqueline Font-Guzmán, Professor and Director, Negotiation and Conflict Resolution Program, CU. The Reviewers Report identified several strengths, including opportunities for interdisciplinary collaboration, student support resources, academic coach, program mission/vision, training and research focus areas for faculty, and retention/graduation rates. Identified opportunities for improvement included faculty resources, lack of faculty support for research, student mentorship opportunities, and lack of student outcome data on competencies. The external reviewers also provided additional recommendations to assist the MPH faculty in preparing for the CEPH accreditation process. Many of the recommendations in the Reviewers Report were incorporated into the MPH program’s Action Plan document. The EAB, described above, formally meets biannually. However, for the purposes of the self-study process and when any substantive changes to the program are proposed, special sessions of the EAB are held via video conferencing. Since the purpose of the board is to utilize the knowledge and interest of public health professionals, academics, community members, alumni, and friends for the continued improvement of the MPH program, the board is engaged proactively and in advance of decisions so that we benefit from their knowledge and recommendations. Teacher-practitioners are engaged through participation on a Scholarship and Service Committee along with regular faculty. In addition, annual surveys of these faculty are conducted to solicit input on the alignment of the curricula with current practices and future needs based on their own extensive knowledge and experience as public health practitioners. Practicum Site Supervisors provide regular input each term in the context of the student specific field placement. Employers of graduates are surveyed within a year of the student’s graduation.
F1.3. Describe how the program’s external partners contribute to the ongoing operations of the school or program. At a minimum, this discussion should include community engagement in the following:
a) Development of the vision, mission, values, goals and evaluation measures In October 2019, the MPH program faculty and members of the EAB met to discuss the program’s guiding statements. (See ERF A1.5a GPC Minutes - Guiding Statements) A series of follow-up sessions occurred among faculty to reflect on feedback from the EAB, and resulted in the guiding statements presented in Section B. In Fall 2019, all program faculty, including adjunct teacher- practitioners, reviewed and commented on the draft guiding statements. The MPH program faculty then reviewed the MPH-specific vision, mission, and goals to ensure alignment with the broader institutional vision, mission, and outcomes of the Graduate School and CU. The vision and mission of the University are informed through input from external stakeholders, including the Board of Trustees, alumni, and our healthcare partner, Catholic Health Initiatives (CHI). (see ERF B5.3f)
b) Development of the self-study document Members of the original EAB met with program faculty in 2018, and again in 2019, to review and discuss the self-study process, make recommendations for board expansion, as previously noted,
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 129 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
and to review curricular proposals. In April of 2020, the draft self-study was sent to all members of the newly expanded EAB. The EAB specifically reviewed the draft self-study offering comments and advice that were then reflected in the preliminary version of this self-study. Our EAB is prepared to participate directly in the site visit. In late April of 2020, all program faculty, including community-based adjuncts, reviewed the draft self- study as well. Once all constituents had a chance to provide review and input, the program virtually visited with CEPH on May 21, 2020, for a formal external consultant’s review. Consultant and reviewer’s comments were integrated into the final preliminary self-study submitted to CEPH. This current version of the self-study was reviewed by all regular program faculty, the EAB, and the Student Advisory Board in September 2020. c) Assessment of changing practice and research needs The program employs three strategies to secure external constituents’ engagement to assess practice and research needs. First, given the program’s strategic decision to employ community practitioners as adjunct faculty, we are assured on-going input on changing practice and needs that they themselves identify and integrate into their teaching. They also participate in this regard through their service on the Scholarship and Service Committee, in conjunction with regular faculty. In Fall 2019, the Program Director and Faculty Liaison conducted interviews and surveys of adjunct faculty to specifically address the current state of practice and research needs of their communities. Annual surveys will follow. The second way we assess practice and research is through the engagement of our EAB, and if warranted, ad hoc community constituents. Annually, we ask EAB members to articulate the needs for practice changes they are seeing in their communities and to identify both research and service needs in their regions. Given the now expanded membership of our EAB, the program benefits from a national perspective on these arenas. (see ERF B5.3f) The third way we assess changing practice and research needs is through our practicum site supervisors. Students do not develop proposals, or engage in community work, without the site supervisor approving the project and assuring the program that best practice is being employed.
d) Assessment of program graduates’ ability to perform competencies in an employment setting The program relies on employer surveys to assess performance of competency areas in real world settings. The initial survey was conducted in April 2019. All MPH alumni were asked to obtain permission to submit the name of their supervisor to receive a survey from the program. The response to the 2019 survey resulted in a lack of useful data. The survey (see ERF F1.3d) was re- administered in July 2020 to the most recent cohort of program graduates. The results are available as Table F1.3d. The survey will be conducted annually for the most recent cohort of program graduates. This permits not only a snapshot of each cohort’s performance but permits the program to assess trends. Before the survey is administered, it is shared with the EAB to solicit feedback and suggestions. After it is administered, all results of these surveys are shared with the program’s faculty and EAB for review and feedback.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 130 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table F1.3d. (Part 1) Employer assessment of program graduates’ ability to perform competencies in an employment setting – Quantitative Responses Survey Item – Based on your experiences with graduates from the MPH program at 2020 Survey Creighton University who are employed at your organization, please rate our graduates in the following areas: Responses Mean Score Evidence-based Approaches to Public Health: Select appropriate methodologies (quantitative or qualitative) for collecting and analyzing data for a given public health context. 6 4.50 Interpret results of data analysis for public health research, policy or practice. Public Health & Health Care Systems: Understand the organizational, structural, and functional facets of public health and regulatory systems. Recognize how structural bias, 6 4.83 social inequities, and racism undermine health and prevent health equity at organizational, community, and societal levels. Health Promotion: Assess population needs and then design or implement culturally competent public health policies or programs. Use basic principles and tools of budget and 6 4.50 resource management as well as appropriate methods to evaluative policies and programs. Policy in Public Health: Understand ethical complexity of the policy-making process and evaluate policies for their impact on public health and health equity. Build coalitions and 6 4.67 partnerships, as well as advocate for policies and programs, that will improve health in diverse populations. Leadership: Apply principles of leadership, governance, and management in collaborative and team environments. Apply negotiation and mediation skills to address organizational or 6 4.33 community challenges. Communication: Use audience-appropriate strategies and consider cultural competence 6 4.50 when communicating public health content, both in writing and through oral presentation. Interprofessional Practice and Systems Thinking: Perform effectively on interprofessional 6 4.33 teams and apply systems thinking tools to public health issues. Note: Survey questions used a 5-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree).
Table F1.3d. (Part 2) Employer assessment of program graduates’ ability to perform competencies in an employment setting – Qualitative Responses Survey Question Responses What are the main • Training, technical assistance to partners across the state, communications, data quality responsibilities of assurance and cleaning, meeting preparation and facilitation, contract monitoring, providing Creighton University MPH content/SME to others, and evaluation. graduate(s) you employ? • Health Educator for prevent/reduce tobacco use and the associated health and economic consequences in the Omaha area via prevention through public policy and education. • Environmental Health and Safety Chemical Hygiene Safety Officer Bio-safety Officer. • The Creighton University MPH graduate will serve as manager and public contact for the Nebraska Radon and Indoor Air Quality Programs. Will develop, oversee, and manage a federal grant, multiple contracts and award agreements with outside partners. Will provide oversight for the budgets of various programs, including approving expenses, processing invoices, and monitoring for allowable costs. Will provide public assistance for Indoor Air Quality issues including mold and mercury poisoning, spills and cleanup to include answering the Mercury Call Line. • Perform and review inspections to determine compliance with the Nebraska Clean Indoor Air Act and implementation of the Nebraska Radon Program rules and regulations including the review of license applications, and renewals. Prepare documents related to enforcement actions for violations of associated regulations. Prepare technical reports; provide guidance to other health professionals for investigations of incidents and potential environmental health hazards. • Health education, social marketing, grant work, grant management and compliance. Is there anything else you • I've only worked with my employee for just over a month, so I am not able to say much about would care to share with her skill set yet. us? • My experience in hiring a Creighton MPH graduate has been outstanding. The level of thoughtfulness and understanding she provided in her answers during the interview clearly set her apart from the rest of the applicants. I continue to be impressed with her performance in the position every day. Her ability to take on new tasks and complete them without assistance has been remarkable. She clearly possesses the same abilities to succeed in our organization as someone with years of experience. I am very fortunate that she applied for the position, and the state of Nebraska will absolutely benefit from the education she received in the Creighton MPH program.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 131 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
F1.4. Provide documentation (e.g., minutes, notes, committee reports, etc.) of external contribution in at least two of the areas noted in documentation request 3. (electronic resource file) See ERF F1.4
F1.5. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program ensures that community stakeholders have an active voice in decision making: an EAB, teacher-practitioners as adjunct faculty, practicum site supervisors, and employers. • Our current, expanded EAB assures that the geographic and practice diversity of our student body is concurrently represented by external practitioners and stakeholders assuring we are responsive to the needs of our national priority communities. • The program documents responses from external constituents that our program is meeting community workforce needs. • We have a reliable means to assess changes in practice as well as research needs. Weaknesses • While our initial experience with surveying employers regarding our graduates proved useful, response rates were disappointing, especially for those graduating many years ago. Plan for Improvement • We will conduct the employer survey each year and believe surveying our most recent cohort of graduates will improve response rates. There will be fewer employers to survey each year, and the time frame associated with the survey will be more current, yielding better actionable data upon which to evaluate the effectiveness of our program.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 132 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
F2. Student Involvement in Community and Professional Service Community and professional service opportunities, in addition to those used to satisfy Criterion D5, are available to all students. Experiences should help students to gain an understanding of the contexts in which public health work is performed outside of an academic setting and the importance of learning and contributing to professional advancement in the field.
F2.1. Describe how students are introduced to service, community engagement and professional development activities and how they are encouraged to participate. (self- study document) The core values of the MPH program are reflective of the core values of CU, which include “Service to others, the importance of family life, the inalienable worth of each individual and appreciation of ethnic and cultural diversity….” Students are introduced to service, community engagement and professional development in the following strategic ways. • Faculty advisors, at the very beginning and throughout the student’s studies reinforce the value of community and professional engagement, and offer suggestions and assistance for those seeking new opportunities, • MPH faculty provide informal advising, discussion boards, written assignments, and a diverse array of learning resources in their courses. That, while part of didactic instruction, also serves to demonstrate and model the significance of community service and professional development to address health inequities and in service to our priority populations. A fall 2019 survey of all MPH faculty documented that 100% of faculty actively promoted community and professional service in their courses. • All faculty in the program serve as direct role models as 100% of the faculty are actively engaged in community service and professional development themselves. Upon entering the MPH program, current students are subscribed to the MPH program listserv. MPH alum, adjuncts, and other interested parties are invited to sign up for the listserv. The mailing list has evolved to serve several purposes. One purpose is to connect the students to the larger Creighton campus; posts about scholarship opportunities, contests, educational events/volunteer opportunities on the larger Creighton campus are listed here. MPH community-building is another goal. MPH program faculty-initiated events, such as National Public Health Week and virtual guest lectures, are posted on the listserv. Finally, professional development and job opportunities are shared with the distribution list. The primary posters on the listserv are the contingent and full-time faculty. A sample of postings are available as ERF F2.2b. The program maintains a public health blog. The primary posters on the blog are the full-time faculty. The blog audience is the Creighton MPH student population, public health practitioners (on-campus and in the larger community), and lay audiences interested in public health. Posts on the blog feature information about National Public Health Week, information about national health observances, breaking public health news (for instance, a link to the CDC website describing the novel coronavirus), and links to peer- reviewed articles/reports about “hot” topics in public health (health disparities, climate change, childhood obesity, etc.). Students, through the Student Advisory Board, are actively recruited to participate in National Public Health Week, both on campus and through distance technology. The program also maintains an MPH Facebook page. Select coursework provides direct opportunities for service learning and/or professional development. All MPH students have access to service philosophy and activities through Creighton’s Schlegel Center for Service and Justice.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 133 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
In addition to the above, the program provides experiential opportunities for professional development through an invited speakers series. Examples of such events include (see ERF F2.1 Professional Development Presentations): • Dr. Georges Benjamin (2016) spoke on two separate occasions through funding provided by the School of Medicine’s Distinguished Lecture series. One presentation was entitled “Working Together to Become the Healthiest Nation” and the other was “Population Health Moving Beyond Clinical Intervention.” • Dr. Thomas Laviest (2015), a medical sociologist, spoke to students and faculty. His presentation was entitled “My Journey to Understand Why Health Disparities Exist and What to Do About it.” • National Public Health Week Initiative 2017: Black LGBT Health in the United States: A Book Launch and Community Conversation • Citizens of Nowhere: A Free Public Screening and Panel Discussion (2018) – CU event hosted by the Negotiation & Conflict Resolution Program. MPH student, Tom Kelly, was one of the panelists. • Health Disparities Art Contest and Award Ceremony, co-hosted by CU faculty/staff and community members
F2.2. Provide examples of professional and community service opportunities in which public health students have participated in the last three years. (self-study document) A spring 2020 survey of all MPH actively enrolled students (n=42) documented that 83% are or have been engaged in community service during the past three years; 60% maintain a licensure or certification; and 67% have participated in some form of professional development external to the program. Students commonly reported participating in community service activities within: 1. faith communities 2. homeless shelters 3. minority advocacy organizations 4. free health clinics and community health fairs A sample of student resumes and list of community service is available as ERF2.2a and c.
F2.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strength • 83% of our students have participated in community service in the last three years. • Fostering student engagement in community service and professional development activities is deeply integrated in the program from advising to coursework and via role modeling, experiential learning external to the program, and through a rich array of digital and social media outreach efforts. Weaknesses • There is great geographic diversity within our study body, and helping students from across the country engage in community and professional service and development activities is a challenge. The scope of our outreach needs to better address this. Plan for Improvement • As a result of our spring 2020 survey of student community service and professional development activities, we now know those students who are not engaged. Faculty advisors will discuss the value of such experiences and assist those seeking such opportunities to find them.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 134 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• We will engage the EAB in helping us identify service and professional development activities across the US, and in the communities of our students, to better guide and assist students seeking service opportunities. • We will encourage all faculty to continue to promote service through both didactic learning and via informal advising and role modeling.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 135 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
F3. Assessment of Community’s Professional Development Needs The school or program periodically assesses the professional development needs of individuals currently serving public health functions in its self-defined priority community or communities.
Examples could include periodic meetings with community members and stakeholders, formal or informal needs assessments, focus groups with external constituents, surveys that are administered or co-administered to external constituents and use of existing data sets.
F3.1. Define the school or program’s professional community or communities of interest and the rationale for this choice. (self-study document) In Section B, Guiding Statements, the MPH defined its priority populations in the following manner: The program prioritizes national and global populations experiencing health inequity, including those who are vulnerable, at-risk, or marginalized. Therefore, when the program assesses the professional development needs of individuals serving public health functions, we are focused on those working with the priority populations defined above. As the program is online, and with a national and global reach, our “priority communities” are not specifically geo-referenced, but rather reflect the geographic diversity and scope of our program. We have strategically created a model of identifying professional development needs of community practitioners as a function of where our students come from, where our external advisors’ practice, and where our faculty engage in scholarship and service. Therefore, examples of locations where we assess and address the professional development needs of practitioners begin with the local Hispanic community in South Omaha and the African-American community in North Omaha, but extend to the Bay Area of California, rural Colorado, metro areas of Phoenix, Philadelphia, Indianapolis and Atlanta, to name just a few. Globally, our efforts extend to Latin America and Africa. We focus our attention, therefore, wherever we have a presence and where there are communities suffering from health inequalities.
F3.2. Describe how the school or program periodically assesses the professional development needs of its priority community or communities and provide summary results of these assessments. Describe how often assessment occurs. Include the description and summary results in the self-study document and provide full documentation of the findings in the electronic resource file. Assessment of the professional development needs within our priorities communities is essentially, and primarily, an on-going process, rather than a specific action conducted at a specific time. Regular and special faculty in the course of their professional responsibilities are regularly engaging in formal/informal conversations among themselves and with other practitioners during which time professional development needs are identified in real time. A common mechanism is the identification of future professional development needs following the evaluation of programs to address current professional development needs. For example, the program has had a long relationship with the Institute for Latin American Concern (ILAC). Following a program between ILAC and the MPH program in the Dominican Republic, ILAC staff identified a future need for staff training in best practices regarding designing and conducting community health needs assessments. This led to development of a new training program that was conducted in 2019. Most of the program’s assessment of professional development needs in priority communities have been identified in this manner. Other methods, especially employed by special faculty, include but are not limited to: agency identified needs; state mandates for workforce training; and sudden needs caused by events such as the coronavirus outbreak. In recent years, and in keeping with our program’s guiding statements that focus on communities that are at-risk, marginalized and vulnerable, the broad categories of training needs identified have included: • Best practice in community health needs assessments
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 136 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Culturally responsive evaluation training • How to foster community engagement around health equity • How to implement evidence-based programs with fidelity • Racial equity and culturally responsive health education for advocates and researchers Given the geographic diversity of the program and our desire to address the professional development needs of priority communities throughout the US, we have begun to survey our EAB annually to identify the workforce training needs across the country where the program has a presence. (see ERF F3.2 Professional Development Needs Identification) Results from the 2020 survey were dominated by the response to the coronavirus pandemic and included: • Comprehensive health data analysis • How to address anxiety during an epidemic/pandemic • Food and housing security during a health crisis • Public health preparedness and priority setting • Disease surveillance in the time of a pandemic F3.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The substantial professional networks of regular faculty permit on-going opportunities to assess and identify the professional development needs within our priority communities. • The program benefits from the agency driven articulation of professional development needs represented by our special faculty of teacher-practitioners. • The EAB permits the program to assess the professional development needs of the public health workforce across the geographic diversity of our program. • Our guiding statements provide the context through which the program identifies, aligns, and responds to needs that are identified. Weaknesses • The EAB was only recently expanded in 2019. As such, our data collection on needs beyond Omaha are only now being articulated. We anticipate greater assessment of professional development needs in the coming years as we more fully engage the EAB. • In reviewing the needs articulated by the EAB, we realize that they were, not surprisingly, dominated by needs broadly associated to the COVID-19 pandemic and not necessarily focused on our priority communities. Plan for Improvement • Going forward, we will need additional time and conversation, especially with our EAB, to fully assess professional development needs across the country and to then strategically align needs with the program’s capacity to design and deliver interventions. We recognize that many more needs will be identified than our capacity to deliver interventions. Our plan will be to play to the strengths of our faculty, both regular and special, and assure that each effort closely aligns with our mission, vision, and values as a program. • The EAB will continue to be surveyed annually but with a revised survey that will stress identifying practitioner professional development needs that specifically align with our mission and priority communities.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 137 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• To provide more cohesion and structure to the way faculty identify needs via their professional networks, we will use our newly created Scholarship and Service Committee as the vehicle for discussing and identifying needs and possible responses. This committee is specifically designed to bring the regular faculty and special faculty together to enhance the program’s community outreach capabilities through scholarship and culturally sensitive community engagement. While we will still rely on the professional networks of all faculty, the interaction among regular and special faculty will catalyze response efforts to a greater degree than is being done now.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 138 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
F4. Delivery of Professional Development Opportunities for Workforce The school or program advances public health by addressing the professional development needs of the current public health workforce, broadly defined, based on assessment activities described in Criterion F3. Professional development offerings can be for-credit or not-for-credit and can be one-time or sustained offerings.
F4.1. Describe the school or program’s process for developing and implementing professional development activities for the workforce and ensuring that these activities align with needs identified in Criterion F3. (self-study document) As noted in the previous section, needs are first derived within our priority communities from our assessment mechanisms, and guided by our mission, values, and vision. Needs assessment data gathered through the professional networks of faculty, plus the results of the survey of the EAB are reviewed by program faculty and the Program Director to determine how best to respond, and whom would be involved. Our process for developing and implementing professional development activities is then driven by program faculty, often though, in consultation with and with the direct collaboration of our community partners. If a need is within the specific professional expertise of a faculty member, then that faculty member designs and implements the program directly in conjunction with the community agency. If the need identified requires a collaborative team to design and then implement the program, that is how it is done. There is not a specific formula, but is rather driven by the need, the skill sets of our faculty members, and the opportunity for collaborative assistance. Given the large needs across a wide geographic area, the program prioritizes efforts that balance faculty expertise specific to the identified need; available resources to design, implement and evaluate the intervention; opportunity to engage with community partners in the design and implementation if warranted; and our ability to advance public health by the specific intervention. Characteristics such as best practices, evidence-based approaches, and cultural competence and sensitivity are the hallmarks of our designs. Content and delivery formats, such as short courses, distance learning, in person didactic learning or experiential learning are dictated by the need identified, the learning objectives and the desired learner outcomes.
F4.2. Provide two to three examples of education/training activities offered by the school or program in the last three years in response to community-identified needs. For each activity, include the number of external participants served (i.e., individuals who are not faculty or students at the institution that houses the school or program). (self-study document) Below are examples nationally and internationally of how the program responded to needs identified in F3. For each activity, the particular need that was addressed is identified. Nationally: Need addressed: How to conduct culturally responsive evaluation and assessment of public health programs in communities that are marginalized and at-risk. Program faculty independently, and in partnership with evaluators from American University and Public Policy Associates, Inc., offer workshops about culturally responsive evaluation and assessment. At these workshops, faculty take participants through evaluation theory, a practice case study, and social-justice self-reflection. Attendees of these workshops are participating in the American Evaluation Association (AEA) and Culturally Responsive Evaluation and Assessment (CREA) national meetings and are employed in public health, social service and governmental organizations addressing, among other needs, the particular needs of communities that are marginalized and at-risk. Need addressed: How to conduct equity evaluation in a culturally responsive manner. In December 2019, Program faculty co-facilitated an equity evaluation training workshop for one of the working groups at CDC in Atlanta. This was attended by approximately 50 participants.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 139 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Also, in December 2019 (and in 2018) faculty gave an equity evaluation training workshop for cohorts of Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars grant recipients in Durham, NC. Recipients were in the second or third year of their grants and needed to begin evaluating outcomes. In 2018 there were 9 teams with 3 people at each table for 27 attendees. In 2019 there were 10 teams with 3 people at each table for 30 attendees. In March 2020, the program also co-facilitated an equity evaluation training workshop (online due to coronavirus) for a community health worker/workforce development project funded by the Jane Bancroft Robinson Foundation in Baltimore, MD. This was attended by approximately 30 attendees. Need addressed: Public health preparedness and priority setting during COVID-19. In April 2020, program faculty, in association with the university’s Center for Promoting Health and Health Equity developed and conducted a training program for Community Health Ambassadors (CHAs) in North and South Omaha on how to address COVID-19, social distancing, environmental cleaning and resources available for various services to these vulnerable and marginalized communities. There were 13 attendees. Another training for a wider audience is scheduled for later in 2020. Need addressed: How to implement evidence-based programs with fidelity. The program independently, and in collaboration with other public health professional organizations, provided professional development workshops regarding fidelity and adaptation to community programming. In 2018, program faculty provided training in collaboration with the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Commonwealth Prevention Alliance of Pennsylvania (CPA) on this subject. Attendees to the workshop were interdisciplinary and came from schools and local agencies that implement evidence-based programming in vulnerable communities, as well as funding agencies. Number of attendees for RWJF was 27. The number of attendees for CPA was 52. Internationally: Need addressed: Best practice in community health needs assessments In November 2019, program faculty and an interprofessional team from the School of Medicine and Theology Department conducted a training program for health promoters, Institute for Latin American Concern staff and administrators, and volunteer students from a local college in the Dominican Republic. The capacity development training was to build skills on how to conduct a community health needs assessment (CHNA). Funded by an internal grant, program faculty developed and facilitated a training program for 15 attendees that included how to conduct a CHNA, using tablet technology for environmental scans and surveying technique. After a classroom didactic session, trainees were taken into the communities to conduct field experiences from the training and to receive guidance as part of a process evaluation and overcoming challenges.
F4.3. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. (self-study document) Strengths • The program has a demonstrated capacity to advance public health through workforce professional development on the local, national, and international level. • Design and implementation align with the needs of the workforce and reflect the mission, vision and values of the program. • Activities are focused on the professional development needs of practitioners in our stated priority communities. • The program is nimble and creative in approaches to design and implementation of interventions. • Interventions reflect the special needs of the learner and are outcome oriented. • Interventions are evaluated for effectiveness. 100% of all past interventions were deemed successful in advancing the professional development needs of the attendees. • We have established trusted relationships with local and global workforce communities.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 140 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Weaknesses • Comprehensive nationwide assessment of workforce development needs has only begun with the 2019-2020 academic year. These needs have yet to be thoroughly evaluated with decisions made on how and to what extent the program can respond to the needs identified.
Plan for Improvement • Program faculty in conjunction with the EAB and our community partners will evaluate the results of faculty and EAB survey data from 2020 to prioritize workforce development needs for 2020 and beyond. This will include identifying needed personnel/expertise, financial resources, the objectives and outcomes of interventions, a timeline for delivery, format, and evaluation measures. Efforts going forward will be to formalize this needs assessment, design, and implementation process more than has been done in the past to assure the program is proactively responsive to the needs of our priority communities’ workforce.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 141 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
G. Diversity and Cultural Competence Aspects of diversity may include age, country of birth, disability, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, language, national origin, race, historical under-representation, refugee status, religion, culture, sexual orientation, health status, community affiliation and socioeconomic status. This list is not intended to be exhaustive.2
Cultural competence, in this criterion’s context, refers to competencies for working with diverse individuals and communities in ways that are appropriate and responsive to relevant cultural factors. Requisite competencies include self-awareness, open-minded inquiry and assessment and the ability to recognize and adapt to cultural differences, especially as these differences may vary from the program’s dominant culture. Reflecting on the public health context, recognizing that cultural differences affect all aspects of health and health systems, cultural competence refers to the competencies for recognizing and adapting to cultural differences and being conscious of these differences in the program’s scholarship and/or community engagement.
G1. List the program’s self-defined, priority under-represented populations; explain why these groups are of particular interest and importance to the program; and describe the process used to define the priority population(s). These populations must include both faculty and students and may include staff, if appropriate. Populations may differ among these groups. (self-study document) The program’s self-defined, priority under-represented populations for STUDENTS are: • Male students of color, with a particular focus on Latino students. The program’s self-defined, priority under-represented populations for FACULTY are: • Regular, special, full-time and/or part-time faculty of color with initial focus on Latino and Asian individuals. In addition to the above the following decisions were made in fall 2019 by the program, in consultation with the Student Advisory Board and the EAB: • Our first effort is to maintain our current student and faculty diversity at a minimum while aggressively working to increase diversity so that the program contributes to reversing the current profile within the US public health workforce and keeps pace with national trends within the broader workforce. • We are satisfied with the geographic distribution of our students within the US and choose to maintain the current level of geographic diversity. • Recognizing that the program defines itself as a national and global program, we seek to internationalize the student body. The context for the program’s self-defined priority under-represented populations is presented in detail below for both students and faculty and derives from the mission and values of, first, CU, and secondly, the guiding statements of the MPH program. Creighton University, inspired out of a Catholic and Jesuit tradition, treasures the innate dignity of each member of our community and upholds the sanctity of each human being as a profound gift of God. Finding the resplendence of the divine reflected in the uniqueness of every person, we seek, acknowledge, and celebrate diversity at Creighton because our Catholic and Ignatian heritage inspires and impels us to do so. Diversity in principle is the "service of faith in the promotion of justice." In a truly Catholic context, diversity at Creighton commends inclusion as a prudential, virtuous, and practical principle. Celebrating diversity at Creighton is an invitation to incarnate our mission to educate lifelong
2 CEPH understands that the definition of diversity in non-US settings, as well as the ability to track such data, differs greatly from that in the United States. This does not, however, relieve international schools and programs from the obligation to demonstrate efforts and outcomes related to diversity and cultural competency, as defined in appropriate local contexts.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 142 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program learners who will be agents for change in our local communities and in the world. Diversity at Creighton animates our varied intellectual pursuits and enriches our mission to "seek Truth in all its forms." In 2018, CU hired Christopher Whitt, PhD, as the inaugural Vice Provost for Institutional Diversity and Inclusion. Dr. Whitt serves as chair of the new Presidential Committee for Diversity and Inclusion. Under the leadership of Dr. Whitt, the university will administer climate surveys among students, faculty, and staff. Resulting data will inform Creighton’s status in terms of diversity and inclusion and will provide a road map for future plans. Further, the University aims to develop a diversity-related curriculum, reflect diversity and inclusion in its research endeavors, and recruit and retain an increasingly diverse faculty, staff, and student body. Strategic planning documents as well as related progress performance reports are available on the Strategic Plan webpage. To this end, Creighton faculty, staff, students and administrators seek to foster an environment of awareness, inclusion, and compassion for everyone in our community and our guests, regardless of age, culture, faith, ethnicity, immigrant status, race, gender, sexual orientation, language, physical appearance, physical ability, or social class. Our caring, hospitable community, our attention to those who are underserved, our academic and co-curricular offerings, and our admissions, hiring, and promotion policies all give testimony to our desire to make Creighton a welcoming, inclusive community. We do this by constant vigilance and reassessment of our campus climate, reaching out to those who are marginalized and whose voices are muted by the mainstream. For additional resources and information, please visit the university’s Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion webpage. The Mission Statement of the MPH program speaks specifically to critical self-reflection; social justice; and culturally responsive community engagement. Our program Values include a commitment to diversity at all levels, cultural humility, and social justice. Given this context, the MPH program, through engagement by all program faculty, the Student Advisory Board and the EAB, reviewed annual enrollment data, the results of a faculty survey conducted in fall 2019, national data on the gender and ethnic diversity of the US public health workforce and the gender and ethnic diversity of the overall US workforce. These data are presented and described below. Student Diversity: Table G.1 presents program student diversity trends for the past 5 years.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 143 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table G1. Enrollment Trends Data – Student Diversity Profile AY AY AY AY AY 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Student Composite 127 139 91 74 54 Gender Female 100 114 74 56 38 Male 27 25 17 18 16 Ethnicity/Race Asian 13 8 6 5 3 Black 24 21 16 14 8 Black, Asian 0 1 0 0 0 Hispanic or Latino 2 6 6 5 3 Native American/Alaskan Native 1 2 1 1 1 Native Hawaiian/Other Pacific Islander 1 2 2 3 3 Native Hawaiian/Asian 0 1 1 1 1 White 78 86 53 42 31 White, Asian 3 4 2 0 1 White, Black 0 0 0 0 1 White, Native American/Alaskan Native 1 1 1 1 0 Not Reported 3 7 3 2 2
International Students 3 6 8 8 5
A review of the data indicates that the median percentage for females was 78% with a range of 70-82%; the median percentage for males was 19% with a range of 10-24%. During this time period the following ethnic diversity was noted: Overall, the median percentage for white students was 58% with a range of 57-62%; the median percentage for non-white students was 42% with a range of 38-43%. The median percentage and (range) for specific ethnic groups was: • Black: 18% (15-19%) • Latino: 6% (2-7%) • Asian: 7% (6-10%) • Native American: 3% (2-7%) The median percentage and (range) for international students, regardless of ethnicity, was: • 9% (2-11%) To help us put these percentages in context, and to inform our decision making, we reviewed current data from the CDC on the diversity of the US public health workforce. It was: • 90% White • 10% Non-white • Less than 5% Black • Less than 2% Latino • Predominantly Female
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 144 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
By comparison, our program is significantly more diverse and will contribute to enhancing diversity of the US public health workforce. To get yet another perspective to inform us on our decisions regarding under-represented populations within our student body, we reviewed data for the broader US workforce. It is: • 64% White • 36% Non-white • 12% Black • 16% Latino • 5% Asian It is apparent that our program is much more reflective of the broader US workforce. Of note, however, are projections that the percentage of non-whites in the overall US workforce is expected to reach 57% in the coming decades. It is this latter figure that provided us the benchmark for our decisions regarding under-represented populations. Faculty Diversity: For the 2019-2020 academic year, there is a faculty headcount of seven primary and 13 non-primary faculty for a total of twenty. The diversity profile for the faculty is: • 45% Male/55% Female • 85% are White • 15% are Non-white • Two Non-white faculty are African-American • One Non-white faculty is Asian. • There are no Latino, or American Indian faculty The diversity profile for our faculty is substantially better than the current US public health workforce discussed above, and our 10% black faculty compares well to the less than 5% in the public health workforce. The faculty diversity also compares well to the overall US workforce regarding Black individuals (10% in the program vs 12% in the US workforce) but significantly less favorable regarding Latinos and Asians. These data inform us on our actions and strategies to diversify the program’s faculty.
G1.2 List the program’s specific goals for increasing the representation and supporting the persistence (if applicable) and ongoing success of the specific populations defined in documentation request 1.
Students:
Based on the data analysis above, and following broad conversation, the program has identified these specific goals regarding students:
• Goal 1. Focus increased activities on student success to maintain/increase retention and graduation rates to at a minimum maintain, as a baseline, the current cultural diversity of the student body. • Goal 2. Increase Hispanic representation in the student body to 15% within 5 years through targeted recruitment • Goal 3. Reduce the gender ratio to at least 60/40% within 5 years, with a focus on targeted recruitment of males of color.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 145 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Faculty: Based on the data above, and following broad conversation, the program has identified these specific goals regarding faculty:
• Goal 1. Maintain the current gender parity within the faculty (regular and adjunct; full time and part time). • Goal 2. Recruit and hire faculty of color, with an initial focus on Latino and Asian individuals, (regular and adjunct; full time and part time) as position vacancies occur and/or as new positions are created to at least reflect the current diversity of the US workforce and our own student body. • Goal 3. Proactively mentor and support existing diverse faculty to assure retention.
G1.3 List the actions and strategies identified to advance the goals defined in documentation request 2, and describe the process used to define the actions and strategies. The process may include collection and/or analysis of program-specific data; convening stakeholder discussions and documenting their results; and other appropriate tools and strategies. The goals for the program reflect a broader institutional commitment to diversity and inclusion as reflected in CU’s strategic initiative “Thriving in our Mission.” Under the leadership of our Vice Provost for Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, Dr. Whitt, the campus community has engaged in listening sessions and fact gathering to address equity, inclusion, and social justice within our enrollment, hiring practices, retention of students, and organizational culture. The MPH Program Director and faculty engage and work with this strategic initiative, honing its broad initiatives specifically to the MPH program. Students: The specific actions and strategies to achieve our four goals for students are delineated below. All engage our newly expanded EAB and are informed by our students. Goal 1. Focus increased activities on student success to maintain/increase retention and graduation rates to at a minimum maintain, as a baseline, the current cultural diversity of the student body.
• The results of our data analysis on enrollment trends and diversity profile was disseminated to all faculty, the Student Advisory Board, and the EAB in spring 2020. To provide a context for our actions, we presented data on the lack of cultural diversity in the current US public health workforce and expressed commitment to our current level of diversity as a minimal baseline below which the program does not wish to go. This will inform all other actions. • Faculty advisors speak with all advisees each semester to tailor the plan of study to the student’s professional goals in consideration of the student’s personal and professional responsibilities. Faculty advisors also provide mentoring and alert students to research and service opportunities. Regular meetings should enable the student and faculty to identify and remediate any issues that are negatively impacting the student’s ability and/or desire to remain in the program. Improved focus on retention and interventions will be needed to increase graduation rates. • The Academic Coach, with responsibility for monitoring student success and progression, will work with advisors to identify “at-risk” students so that early interventions can be implemented to keep them on-track for timely graduation. Examples of interventions include referral to campus resources, mediating discussions with faculty members about late assignment submissions, requesting an “Incomplete” or “Withdrawal” if extenuating circumstances arise, and developing an action plan to complete late or missing assignments. • As all faculty serve informal advising roles in their courses, an annual faculty meeting will be held to review retention and graduation rates, and ways to spot “at-risk” students early in their careers. This meeting will also be used to review roles/responsibilities of faculty, reinforce the benefits of using university services such as Creighton Connect, and encourage all faculty to engage with the Academic Coach in addressing student success measures.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 146 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Goal 2: Increase Hispanic representation in the student body to 15% within 5 years through targeted recruitment. • The Program Director will meet with all currently active Latino students to document, above what was presented in their admissions application, their motivation for choosing Creighton and identify recruitment strategies that can be applied nationally to promote the MPH to Latino students. • Engage the EAB, especially those who represent regions with strong Latino population, i.e. Arizona, to promote the program and identify students for recruitment via “meet and greet” events. • Implement a targeted recruitment plan with a) undergraduate Latino students currently enrolled at CU; b) universities within a 100-mile radius of Omaha, NE, which have undergraduate health science programs, but no MPH programs, and c) within the national network of Jesuit universities, those who do not have an MPH program. • The Program Director and core faculty will collaborate with others across campus that work with diversity/diverse students and arrange an informational session about the program and careers in public health. This includes staff working in The Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, Student Cultural Organizations, the ADA committee, the Center for Promoting Health and Health Equality, the Intercultural Center, the Global Engagement Office, Health Sciences Multicultural & Community Affairs (HS-MACA), Institute for Latin American Concern, Encuentro Dominicano, Lieben Center for Women, and the Schlegel Center for Service and Justice.
• Continued identification of listservs, APHA-affiliate groups, and public health-related events that provide opportunities to advertise the program and its diversity-related events.
• Continue to add diversity-related content to the public-facing MPH program blog.
Goal 3: Reduce the gender ratio to at least 60/40% within 5 years, with a focus on targeted recruitment of males of color. • The program will engage in activities and strategies like those identified in Goal 2 to specifically recruit males of color. This includes engagement of the EAB, interviews with male students, and targeted recruitment plans on campus, within the Omaha region and within the network of Jesuit universities. • Collaborations with on campus offices, also as noted in Goal 2, focusing on diversity and inclusion will also involve efforts to recruit males of color. • Continued use of social media platforms as noted in Goal 2. Faculty: MPH faculty recruitment, hiring and retention activities are guided by these institutional policies and initiatives: • In 2013, the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Policy (1.1.6), was formally approved and operationalized the commitment to advance diversity both within the Creighton community and to society at large. The Diversity and Inclusion Policy coupled with the Non-Discrimination Statement, serves as the foundation for academic and co-curricular offerings, and outreach endeavors, as well as admissions, hiring, and promotion policies. (see ERF G1.3) • In 2014 The University initiated its Hiring for Mission project to develop and implement plans that would provide new faculty and staff an opportunity to understand and contribute to the University’s mission. The Diversity Leadership Project team partnered with the Hiring for Mission team to develop web content and a toolkit for hiring for mission and diversity.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 147 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• In 2016 a Presidential Diversity Commission was formed to increase awareness of diversity at Creighton, advise on recruitment and retention of a diverse faculty, staff, and student body, and advocate issues of diversity for the entire campus community. The specific actions and strategies to achieve our first two Goals for faculty are delineated below. All engage our newly expanded EAB and are informed by our students. • Work in partnership with the Diversity/Inclusion Task Force and the EAB to identify multicultural practitioner websites/venues for advertising open positions.
• Utilize the materials and guidance from the Office of the Vice Provost of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion for recruitment and retention of diverse regular and special faculty.
• Promote faculty positions through our EAB and encourage members to nominate candidates.
• Whenever conducting a faculty search, the program uses the guidance from the University’s Diversity and Inclusion Policy and the Affirmative Action Policy, as well as determined curricular needs to help guide the search for this position. • Work in partnership with the Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion in identifying listservs, APHA-affiliate groups, and public health-related events to respectfully reach diverse faculty. Goal 3, retention of diverse faculty, is achieved through a new faculty mentoring program within the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies that helps all new faculty transition into the academic community at CU. Within the program, the Program Director serves a supportive capacity. Assistance with instructional technology, support and funds for scholarship, collaborative engagement in community service, proactive support for navigating tenure and promotion, assistance with improving pedagogy, and assistance with the unique aspects of teaching in an online format all assist in the guidance and retention of diverse faculty.
G1.4 List the actions and strategies identified that create and maintain a culturally competent environment and describe the process used to develop them. The description addresses curricular requirements; assurance that students are exposed to faculty, staff, preceptors, guest lecturers and community agencies reflective of the diversity in their communities; and faculty and student scholarship and/or community engagement activities. Creighton has an infrastructure to support a diverse and inclusive environment for the campus community. This includes university offices (e.g., Equity and Inclusion); centers (e.g., Educational Opportunity Programs); and committees (e.g., Committee on Status of Women). CU is deliberate and strategic in its efforts to ensure that the faculty, staff, and student communities represent diverse gender, racial-ethnic, and culturally diverse populations. These efforts reflect a shared sense of responsibility for fostering diversity on our campus. Within this institutional framework, the MPH program has created and maintained a culturally competent environment in the following ways (Note: this list of actions is not exhaustive but demonstrates the scope and types of actions and strategies employed by the program). Since the inception of the program, ongoing efforts have been undertaken to create a community welcoming of diversity and encouraging cultural competence. This atmosphere has been fostered through a range of community, curricular, and extra-curricular opportunities. Examples follow. • Health Disparities Art Contest 2018. With funding from the Graduate School, Office of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion, and the Kingfisher Institute, program faculty joined colleagues in the Department of Interdisciplinary Studies to create a health disparities art contest, open to the broader Omaha community. The theme was health equity for people of color. The art contest had community artists and Creighton faculty as judges. In connection with this event, Dr. Johnson: • Helped organize two community-based art events at the local libraries, where community members learned about health and did art projects. • Presented at an Omaha Public School professional development day for art teachers.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 148 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Organized the “Art is Life” celebration where awards were presented, and there was public health educational programming. • Panel about Black LGBT health 2017: Dr. Johnson facilitated a panel about Black LGBTQ health issues during National Public Health Week 2017. • School of Medicine Distinguished Lecture Series 2015 and 2016: Members of the program, with the support of the Medical School and other sources, hosted two lecture events. These events were offered and available to the Creighton and Omaha community. Both events featured a speaker from a racial minority group and both focused on issues of diversity. The first event featured medical sociologist Thomas A. LaVeist, and the second event featured APHA leader Georges Benjamin. These events were widely publicized and attended by the public and the Creighton community. The decision to apply for these funds and the selection of the speakers were made in faculty meetings, and in consultation with the School of Medicine’s Continuing Education staff. • Diversity/cultural competence-related curricular. During their time in the program, students engage in reflection and faculty guided discussions designed to specifically address diversity and cultural competence in key core and concentration courses. The inclusion of these assignments reflected the faculty’s careful consideration of ASPPH’s document about cultural competence in public health and medicine. (see ERF G1.4) A few examples of their assignments around these topics are: • In MPH 609 (CBPR), students are directed to readings about diversity and participate in an activity where they interview community members about health disparities. This assignment results in a self-reflection activity and mock project proposal. • In MPH 604 (Social and Behavioral Health), students watch and discuss The Raising of America documentary that presents a multicultural look at health disparities and children. • In MPH 606 (Environmental Health), students venture into their community to do a “walk about” and document environmental health inequities. Results are shared with all students in the course. • Guest Lecturers in MPH 604 and 609 that feature diverse speakers and/or focus on diverse topics: ▪ Michelle M. Jacob, PhD, associate professor at the University of Oregon, College of Education, and director of the Sapsik‘ʷałá (Teacher) Education Project, lectures about her community-based research with the Yakama Nation: “CBPR in Indian Country” ▪ Michelle Teti, Associate Professor, Department of Health Sciences, University of Missouri-Columbia, lectures about her use of Photovoice with marginalized populations ▪ Emily Christensen, Avenue Scholars, lectures about community education ▪ Monica Rodgers, Creighton University, lectures about health literacy ▪ Jo Giles, Director of Policy and Training, Coalition for a Strong Nebraska, lectures about community advocacy ▪ Chelsi West Ohueri, PhD, University of Texas-Austin, guest lectures about health research in East Austin and Albania: “Ethnography of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities: Reflections from Albania and Texas” ▪ Alexander Roedlach, MA, SVD, PhD, Director of the Master of Medical Anthropology Program, Creighton University, lectures about his international work in health. “Meanings of Disease Determining Access to Health Services: The Example of HIV/AIDS and TB” ▪ Daniel Lopez Cevallos, PhD, MPH, Associate Professor, Latino Studies/Ethnic Studies, Oregon State University, presented on working with Latino communities on education and evaluation: “Parental Engagement and Latino Youth Academic Success: Lessons from the 2016 – 2017 OSU Juntos Program Evaluation”
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 149 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
▪ Ashley Aubry, RDH, MA and Kelly Gould, RDH, MPH, lectures about public health and oral health: “Dental Health Meets Public Health: A Celebration of National Children's Dental Health Month” • MPH 601 has several readings and assignments related to diversity. A small sample follows: ▪ Maynard, D. (2015). Chapter 2. Employment law, employee relations, and healthcare. In B. J. Fried and M. D. Fottler (Eds.), Human resources in healthcare: Managing for success (4th ed., pp. 35-78). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press. ▪ Evans, R. M. (2015). Chapter 5. Workforce diversity. In B. J. Fried and M. D. Fottler (Eds.), Human resources in healthcare: Managing for success (4th ed., pp. 123-142). Chicago, IL: Health Administration Press. ▪ Edmondson, A., & Roloff, K. (2009, Fall). Leveraging diversity through psychological safety. Rotman Magazine, pp. 47-51. ▪ Week Two Assignment: Based on the readings for this week, discuss a strategy for addressing workplace diversity in a specific healthcare organization. It may be your organization or another you identify. Briefly describe the organization. Address at least one strategy including specific details. Discuss how you will know whether the strategy is working. • MHE 603 Law and Health Care Ethics has several related readings: ▪ Skloot, R. (2010). The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks. New York, NY: Random House. ▪ McCarthy, M. (August 9, 2013). NIH and family of Henrietta Lacks reach agreement on access to HeLa genome. British Medical Journal, 347 (F 5041), 1. ▪ Harmon, A. (2010, April 21). Indian tribe wins fight to limit research of its DNA. The New York Times. ▪ Mello, M.M. & Wolf, L.E. (2010). The Havasupai Indian Tribe case: Lessons for research involving stored biologic samples. New England Journal of Medicine 363 (3), 204-207. ▪ Berry, R.M. (1998). From involuntary sterilization to genetic enhancement: The unsettled legacy of Buck v. Bell. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, 12(2), 401-48.
• Culturally competent engagement with community partners – All field placements are consistent with our Guiding Statements of working for health equity among at-risk, underserved and marginalized populations. Therefore, in the Practicum experience, students are expected to select projects that address disparities and/or cultural competence and have hands-on experiences in working with community members and/or on multicultural teams. • Creighton MPH listserv – Creighton MPH faculty and staff post to the student listserv. The listserv posts include professional development webinars or jobs that address disparities, along with advertisements about events on campus featuring diversity issues. Decisions about what to post are largely based on feedback given to faculty and staff about topics of interest. (see ERF F2.2b) • Creighton MPH blog – The Creighton MPH program has a public-facing blog. On this blog, there are posts about webinars of interests, links to articles/research reports about health disparities, and posts about social justice/health disparities events on campus. Faculty and staff aim to create posts that reflect the faculty and student interests and engagement in local, national and global issues.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 150 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Planned Strategies to Reach Diversity and Inclusion Student Goals: • Incorporate an MPH strategic goal within the Department interdisciplinary strategy. • With the guidance from resources on campus, the MPH core faculty and members of the admissions committee will discuss anti-bias readings. • Review all student assignments and student-facing websites for ADA compliance deficiencies. • The program intends to create a Diversity/Inclusion Task Force in AY2020/21, with the guidance of the Vice Provost of Institutional Diversity and Inclusion. Areas to be addressed include, but are not limited to: o Website (images, examples of assignments, testimonies of alums/current students) – Feedback will be given to the University Marketing team o Promotional materials – Feedback will be shared with the University Marketing team o Recruitment efforts – Venues (in-person and virtual) and style o Upcoming and proposed guest speakers and their topics
G1.5 Provide quantitative and qualitative data that document the program’s approaches, successes and/or challenges in increasing representation and supporting persistence and ongoing success of the priority population(s) defined in documentation request 1. As noted in G1 above the operative data upon which the program is taking action to achieve our stated goals for students are: A review of the data indicates that the median percentage for females was 81% with a range of 82-70%; the median percentage for males was 19% with a range of 18-30%. During this time period the following ethnic diversity was noted: Overall, the median percentage for white students was 58% with a range of 57-62%; the median percentage for non-white students was 42% with a range of 38-43%. The median percentage and (range) for specific ethnic groups were: • Black: 18% (15-19%) • Latino: 6% (2-7%) • Asian: 7% (6-10%) • Native American: 3% (2-7%) The median percentage and (range) for international students, regardless of ethnicity, was: • 9% (2-11%) Our baseline regarding student diversity alone suggests the program is successful in attracting, retaining and graduating a student body far more diverse that the existing US public health workforce. A review of enrollment trends documents that the program has made progress in recruiting Hispanic students. In 2013, for example, the program enrolled no Hispanic students. It has risen and across the 5- year period reported here progress has been made, but growth has still not allowed the program to achieve Goal 2 under G2 above. The key now will be to achieve that goal, then maintain and perhaps grow this number going forward. A review of trends for Black students indicates that while the median representation is 18%, the enrollment in the most recent academic year is down to 15%, suggesting the need for additional retention and recruitment efforts. In a similar vein, the female/male gender ratio has persisted at a median of 81% female, although the percentage for females in the latest academic year was down to 70%. Both trends bolster the importance of Goal 3 under G2 above regarding recruitment of males of color. The challenge for the program in achieving Goal 4, internationalizing the student body is a combination of needing an international
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 151 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program marketing/recruitment plan for which dedicated dollars have not been available in the past, and the overall political climate regarding international students. As this is an online program, international students are not eligible to get student visas to come to the US to study. That means the program must begin to recruit students who remain residents of countries outside the US. This will form the basis for our efforts going forward. We do note, however, that international student enrollment, while low, has still grown by 450% during the last five years. Regarding faculty, the program has been successful through recent male hires in reversing an historical gender inequity such that gender parity has been achieved. Maintenance of that level is our focus now in this regard. A vacancy in the Program Director position in 2019 resulted in a national search that yielded a finalist pool of 3 individuals. The position was offered and accepted by an Asian faculty member who joined the program in June 2020.This appointment contributes to the maintenance of our gender diversity and improve the percentage of people of color in the faculty from its current 16% to 21%. This hire improves our Asian diversity to 5% of the program, contributes to a national public health workforce currently less than 2% Asian, and reflects both the Asian percentage of the US workforce and the percentage of Asian students in our program. Additional faculty vacancies and/or new positions are not anticipated at this time, but a commitment has been made to seek a Latino faculty member to address our lack of diversity with that underrepresented population.
G1.6 Provide student and faculty (and staff, if applicable) perceptions of the program’s climate regarding diversity and cultural competence.
Quantitative and qualitative data on student, faculty, and staff perceptions relating to the MPH program’s climate of diversity and cultural competence were collected through an online survey in summer and fall 2020. Mean scores ranged from 4.33-4.58 out of 5.00. The average was 4.42 indicating there was strong student perceptions of a positive program climate relating to diversity and cultural competence. Qualitative data reinforce the quantitative data. There were very useful comments to allow the program to do an even better job at cultivating a positive climate. (see ERF G1.6a for associated qualitative data)
Table G1.6a Student Perceptions of Program Climate of Diversity and Cultural Competence Q1: Please respond to the following statements on climate in the 2020 41 Surveyed / 80% Response Rate Creighton University MPH Program regarding culture, inclusion, and diversity. Mean Score Responses a. The instructor was sensitive to diversity (e.g. race, class, culture, gender, 4.33 33 sexual orientation). b. The instructor showed respect for the questions and opinions of students. 4.58 33 c. Based on my experience to date, the MPH program fosters a climate that 4.45 33 respects diversity and cultural competence. d. The MPH program integrates diverse perspectives into the curriculum. 4.33 33 e. I am treated fairly within the MPH program without regard to my age, race, ethnic background, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation, or veteran 4.45 33 status.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 152 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Results from the July 2020 Faculty/Staff survey, using a 4-point Likert scale are as follows:
Table G1.6b Faculty/Staff Perceptions of Program Climate of Diversity and Cultural Competence Q1: Please respond to the following statements on climate in the 2020 26 Surveyed / 50% Response Rate Creighton University MPH Program regarding culture, inclusion, and diversity. Mean Score Responses The MPH program fosters a climate that respects diversity and cultural competence. 2.87 13 The MPH program demonstrates the concepts of diversity, cultural competence and 3.15 13 inclusion. The MPH program strives to create an open environment that promotes awareness 3.23 13 of diversity among individuals and transparency between individuals. The MPH program has an inclusive work environment where diversity at all levels is 2.92 13 valued and encouraged. I am treated fairly within the MPH program without regard to my age, race, ethnic 3.54 13 background, religion, gender, disability, sexual orientation or veteran status.
The range of means was 2.87-3.54. For a, b, and d faculty/staff responses show the program is only doing an “average” job; For c and e responses indicated the program was doing a “good” job. Weakest was that the program fosters a climate that respects diversity and cultural competence; the strongest was that faculty/staff felt they were treated fairly.
In addition to the Climate Surveys reported above, the MPH program, since 2018-2019, began to survey students and faculty on their perceptions regarding the program’s diversity and cultural competency. The focus of these surveys was related to the curriculum. Students Perceptions on Diversity and Cultural Competence within the Curriculum The student survey occurs at two different points during their program. Students complete the first survey, the MPH Midpoint Survey, when they begin the MPH 707 Mixed Methods (previously MPH 607 Biostatistics) course, which is halfway through the program. Students complete the second survey, the MPH Exit Survey, in the final course, MPH 612 Capstone. Survey samples are available as ERF H1.4a MPH Midpoint Survey and ERF H1.4b MPH Exit Survey. In both surveys, students were asked to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) in response to the statements included in Table G1.6. Response rates are indicated in the table.
Table G1.6c Student Perceptions of Diversity and Cultural Competence within the Curriculum 2018-19 2019-20 MIDPOINT SURVEY Rate Mean Rate Mean I believe that the MPH program provides students with 93% 3.85 91% 4.30 a sufficient number of opportunities to engage in (n=13) (n=10) coursework that is culturally sensitive and appropriate. I believe that the MPH program prepares students to 93% 3.85 91% 4.20 be culturally competent in the professional field of (n=13) (n=10) Public Health. The MPH program provides students with a sufficient 42% 4.60 80% 3.88 number of opportunities to engage in coursework that (n=5) (n=8) is culturally sensitive and appropriate. The MPH program prepares students to be culturally 42% 4.20 80% 4.00 competent in the professional field of Public Health. (n=5) (n=8)
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 153 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
A review of the data suggest that the program is doing a good job within the curriculum in providing a climate that promotes diversity and cultural competence. Qualitative Data on Student Perceptions In both surveys, students are asked the following open-ended question: Please share any general comments that you have about cultural competency elements in the MPH curriculum. Qualitative data reinforce the quantitative data that the program fosters a climate of diversity and cultural competence. Student comments also provided insight on how the program could do an even better job in creating culturally competent public health professionals. The survey data for both can be found as ERF G1.6c. Cultural Competency Midpoint and Exit Survey Results. Faculty Perceptions on Diversity and Cultural Competence within the Curriculum: Quantitative Data: In a survey of all faculty conducted in Fall 2019, faculty were asked if they specifically fostered cultural competence in their didactic instruction, assigned readings, and through assignments. 100% reported that they did so. Reviews of syllabi by members of the program’s Curriculum and Evaluation Committee verified that course syllabi reflect the values of the program and vision, mission statements that speak to cultural competence and promoting a climate of diversity. Faculty were also asked if they perceived that there was NOT a climate of diversity within the program and in their course(s). 0% of the faculty reported concerns that the program was failing to commit to a climate of diversity. A review of faculty CVs highlighting scholarship and community engagement indicate that 100% of all faculty have scholarship experiences and/or community engagement that speaks specifically to this criterion regarding self- awareness, open minded inquiry and the ability to recognize cultural differences. This commitment to cultural competence and to being teacher-scholars and teacher practitioners is what, in turn, leads to the climate of diversity within didactic portion of the program. Qualitative Data: During the faculty interviews in Fall 2019, addressed immediately above, faculty were given a chance to provide open ended comments on the climate of diversity within the program, how they perceive cultural competence being promoted within their courses, through their scholarship and in their community engagement, and how they perceived the cultural diversity of the student body. Nearly all faculty offering comments noted the majority culture profile of the current student body and given such, were aware of the need to provide learning experiences that addressed the public health needs of those other than the majority culture. Examples such as videos regarding PTSD of black children subjected to violence in their communities, discussions on the plight of Latino migrants in the food industry, and reflection on ethical issues of those people of color experiencing health inequality were cited as approaches faculty were proactively taking to assure an inclusive learning environment. Similarly, when faculty were asked to comment on the program’s plan to recruit underrepresented student populations, all of those offering open ended comments applauded the efforts and asked how they might help.
G1.7. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths
• The program is the beneficiary of a deep institutional commitment to diversity, inclusion, and cultural competence. Thus, a wide array of infrastructure, resources, and expertise exists in student services, recruitment, advising, career counseling, mentoring, community engagement, hiring and retention services. • We have a dedicated faculty, guided by our mission and values, with a deep commitment to cultural competence in teaching, scholarship and service as documented above.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 154 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• The diversity of our student body is substantially greater than that presented by the current public health workforce, is consistent with the current US workforce, and upon graduation, these students will contribute to improving diversity in the field. • Our faculty are more diverse than ever, diversifying more with each new hire, and committed through teaching, scholarship and service to provide to students a wide array of multicultural experiences and, specifically, to present to our students a profile of public health, community needs, the richness of different cultures and more that move the experience and conversation beyond the dominant culture. • The program has in place policies, procedures, and resources to successfully retain students and faculty of color. • Qualitative and quantitative data from faculty and students confirm that the program’s curriculum fosters diversity and cultural competence. • Faculty/staff climate survey results indicate the program does a good job in creating an open environment that fosters awareness of diversity. • Faculty/staff reported that they feel the program treats them fairly. • Where gaps exist, such as in minority faculty hires and continuing to diversify the student body, the program has comprehensive strategies and the necessary resources for improvement that include the engagement not only of our faculty but our external advisors and students. Weaknesses • While improving, the gender parity within the student body, especially males of color, needs to be achieved. • The Latino population is underrepresented in both the student body and faculty. • A Faculty/Staff survey on the program’s climate of diversity and cultural competence documented that more work needs to be done to improve the climate, especially regarding fostering a climate that respects diversity; demonstrating the concepts of diversity and inclusion; and creating an inclusive work environment. Plans for Improvement • G1.3 above provides the specific actions and strategies identified to address each of our Goals articulated in this Criterion. The two weaknesses noted are included in G1.3, and our plan for improvement is presented in detail in that section. Two main strategies will be employed to address the weaknesses identified in G1.6. • To promote on-going enhancement of cultural competency, the program will regularly collaborate with the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, to identify strategies through which we intertwine cultural values and practices beyond student assignments, to make diversity and inclusion a core value of the MPH program in terms of both program climate and a culturally competent curriculum. • Twice per year we will dedicate a program meeting to diversity and inclusion to foster discussion and promote awareness among faculty and staff. Activities during these meetings may include guest presentations or focused discussions.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 155 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H1. Academic Advising The program provides an accessible and supportive academic advising system for students. Each student has access, from the time of enrollment, to advisors who are actively engaged and knowledgeable about the program’s curricula and about specific courses and programs of study. Qualified faculty and/or staff serve as advisors in monitoring student progress and identifying and supporting those who may experience difficulty in progressing through courses or completing other degree requirements. Orientation, including written guidance, is provided to all entering students.
H1.1. Describe the program’s academic advising services. If services differ by degree and/or concentration, a description should be provided for each public health degree offering. The MPH program provides a three-tiered approach to academic advising from the time a student is admitted through graduation. (see ERF H1.1b) The foundational tier of our system is the Faculty Advisor. These individuals are full time, regular faculty with expertise, teaching responsibility, scholarship and community engagement in Health Care Ethics or Healthcare Management, so that regardless of concentration, students have faculty advisors who are actively engaged in the discipline and fully qualified to offer academic advice to students. To supplement the faculty advisors, the program employs an Academic Coach who serves essentially as a student success “navigator” helping students with monitoring their plan of study, course registrations, temporary withdrawals, and progression toward the degree. If there is any indication that a student’s success is in question, the Academic Coach in conjunction with the student’s Faculty Advisor will intervene, as described below. The final tier of our system consists of the informal, but very valuable, support role that individual faculty in core and concentration courses and the Practicum Coordinator play in academic advising and student success. In many cases, it is the faculty member in a given course that first notices a potential risk to student success. If intervention directly with the student is unable to correct the situation, the faculty member contacts the Academic Coach and Faculty Advisor who then, in collaboration with the student, creates a student success plan that is then implemented. This could be as simple as permitting a student additional time or resources to successfully complete a course, all the way to consideration of temporary withdrawals, the granting of an incomplete for the course, or additional strategies dictated by the situation. As students approach graduation and their field experiences, the Practicum Coordinator offers students the unique academic advice associated with community engagement and preparation for a success field placement. This is a culminating academic advising service that the program provides and is tailored to the unique needs that students will have as they approach their capstone experiences in the program. The Practicum Coordinator works hand in hand with the Academic Coach and the student’s Faculty Advisor to assure a smooth transition into field experiences and ultimately graduation. Through this three- tiered approach the program’s academic advising system is student centered to assure success. See Table H1.1 for specific duties of each role.
Table H1.1. Academic Advising Services Roles Title / Role Description Faculty Advisor A full-time, core faculty member who is matched to their advisees by educational background, future goals, and areas of interest within public health. The duties of the Faculty Advisor include all aspects of academic advising, selection of concentration, and assisting students in identifying practicum sites and goals. Faculty advisors offer regular office hours, and are available in person, via email, phone, and video conferencing. Academic Coach Serves as the academic “navigator” for all MPH students. The Coach also offers regular office hours, and is available in person, via email, phone, and video conferencing. The duties of the Academic Coach include: a) serving as first point of contact for students; b) onboarding and orienting new students, including introducing students to the Faculty Advisor; c) registering, adding, cancelling and withdrawing students from courses; d) creating and maintaining plans of study; e) processing transfer credit requests and
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 156 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Title / Role Description temporary withdrawal paperwork; f) first point of contact for CIPER staff regarding student enrollment in and timely progression through interprofessional education modules (IPE 500 and related Passport Activities) and; g) monitoring ongoing support for academic success throughout a student’s plan of study. The Academic Coach is assisted in these responsibilities by the Program Coordinator that serves as the second point of contact for students. Individual Course All core and concentration faculty serve students through informal academic advising in Faculty their individual courses and work in conjunction with the Academic Coach and Faculty Advisor to assure student success in their course. Practicum Serves as practicum advisor for students as they progress through MPH 610 Pre-Practice Coordinator Preparation, MPH 611 Practice Experience, and MPH 612 Capstone. Specific duties include addressing student questions and concerns related to practicum, assisting students in IRB process, and serving as faculty advisor for practicum projects.
Faculty Advisors, the Academic Coach, individual faculty, Practicum Coordinator, and students are oriented to the following university resources that serve as online advising tools: • DegreeWorks is a degree management system that outlines plans of study and allows a student to track progress toward their degree. • CreightonConnect (Starfish) is an online retention tool that streamlines communication between students, instructors, advisors and other University resources. Details regarding how faculty and staff use the CreightonConnect/Starfish retention tool interface are available as ERF H1.1a CreightonConnect Faculty Guide. • Student Resource Center (SRC) is a centralized, virtual space housed in Canvas (Blueline) that provides essential and comprehensive resource information for students. Resources include links to university, department, and program policies and procedures; student service offices and resources (i.e., Financial Aid Office, Business Office, Career Center, CU Library System); and technology assistance. The SRC also includes resources that are specific to MPH students such as faculty biographies and contact information, staff contact information, writing and career resources, and links to professional organizations and public health resources. In addition, upon admission, students are given written confirmation of their Faculty Advisor, confirmation of their Concentration, and develop with the Academic Coach a plan of study that forms the basis for academic advising with the Faculty Advisor and the monitoring of student progression conducted by the Academic Coach.
H1.2. Explain how advisors are selected and oriented to their roles and responsibilities. As mentioned in H1.1, the MPH program employs a three-tiered academic advising system through which each student has access to an Academic Coach and a Faculty Advisor, supplemented by informal advising from all program faculty and special advising from the Practicum Coordinator. As noted above, Faculty Advisors are selected based on their expertise, teaching, scholarship and community engagement activities relating specifically to our two concentrations. The Academic Coach receives extensive training regarding orienting or onboarding new students, enrollment and registration, plans of study, and best practices in academic advising. The Academic Coach trains with program faculty on the program’s curriculum, the concentrations, plan of study options, and how to best support the students as they progress through the program. Such training occurs both formally and informally, including: • information emails to faculty and staff (ERF H1.2a Faculty Email - Student Support and Resources), • staff and faculty development workshops (ERF H1.2b Interdisciplinary Faculty Development Workshop Flyers), • and monthly Academic Progression Committee faculty/staff meetings (ERF A1.5a)
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 157 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Individual faculty, serving informal academic advising roles, are selected specifically for their expertise in the courses they teach, and present professional expertise, scholarship and community engagement related to their area of specialty. All faculty go through a formal orientation and training program to learn not only about the online teaching platform they will use, but to be given extensive information about the unique attributes of online learners, the MPH program’s specific advising system described here, and the institutional academic advising support services such as Creighton Connect.
H1.3. Provide a sample of advising materials and resources, such as student handbooks and plans of study, that provide additional guidance to students. (electronic resource files) The university strongly encourages students to use DegreeWorks, a degree management system, in collaboration with their Academic Coach when determining their plan of study. The following advising materials and resources are available as ERF H1.3: • H1.3a Student Handbook • H1.3b Student Advising and Support Staff • H1.3c Advising Communications Roadmap • H1.3d Plan of Study by Concentration
H1.4. Provide data reflecting the level of student satisfaction with academic advising during each of the three last years. Include survey response rates, if applicable. Schools should present data only on public health degree offerings. Prior to Fall 2018, student satisfaction with academic advising was reported through course evaluations in which students were asked broad questions about their perceptions of faculty availability and university services. The results of these surveys are summarized in Table H1.4a: H1.4a. – Academic Advising Prior to fall 2018 Mean # Enrolled # Responses ADVISING Q1: I received the student support services I needed in a 4.36 425 278 timely fashion ADVISING Q2: The course registration process was (excellent <-> 4.70 317 204 poor) These data indicate that student perceptions of satisfaction with services that included academic advising were good across a large number of responding students. However, during this self-study, it was determined that the program needed more specific data on advising itself and not services in general. Beginning in Fall 2018, the MPH program surveyed students on their satisfaction with the role of Faculty Advisors in academic advising at two different points during their program. Students completed the first survey, the MPH Midpoint Survey, when they began the MPH 607 Biostatistics course, which is halfway through the program. Students completed the second survey, the MPH Exit Survey, in the final course, MPH 612 Capstone. Summary data are provided in Table H1.4b below. Survey samples are available as ERF H1.4a MPH Midpoint Survey and ERF H1.4b MPH Exit Survey. In both surveys, students were asked to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) in response to the statements included in Table H1.4b.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 158 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
Table H1.4b. Student Satisfaction with Academic Advising
2018-19 2019-20 MIDPOINT SURVEY Rate Mean Rate Mean My faculty advisor treats me with respect. 3.77 4.53 93% 96% (n=13) (n=27) My faculty advisor is sufficiently familiar with the 3.69 4.26 program and courses to guide me in selecting 93% 96% (n=13) (n=27) my plan of study. My faculty advisor refers me to other resources 3.79 4.04 100% 89% when appropriate. (n=14) (n=25) Faculty are generally available and willing to answer my questions about fields of 3.38 4.23 specialization and guidance about career 86% 93% (n=12) (n=26) opportunities (either in person, by email, or by phone). EXIT SURVEY My faculty advisor treated me with respect. 4.20 4.06 42% 94% (n=5) (n=17) My faculty advisor was sufficiently familiar with 4.00 4.18 the program and courses to guide me in 42% 94% (n=5) (n=17) selecting my plan of study. My faculty advisor referred me to other 3.60 4.00 42% 94% resources when appropriate. (n=5) (n=17) Faculty were generally available and willing to answer my questions about fields of 4.00 3.47 specialization and guidance about career 42% 94% (n=5) (n=17) opportunities (either in person, by email, or by phone). **Qualitative comments on advising are included on the H2.4 Career Advising document.
A review of the data for 2018-2019 during this self-study indicated that students reported that academic advising services were satisfactory. These results prompted program faculty to again strengthen efforts at academic advising. The result was the three-tiered approach described in detail above. This model reinforced the prime role of faculty as academic advisors and clarified the role of the academic coach to one of monitoring, intervention, and support. To assess the efficacy of this new model, the program in spring 2020 surveyed all actively enrolled students to specifically assess perceptions regarding academic advising. As shown in Table H1.4b, there was significant improvement in student perceptions of advising services, supporting the program’s decision to strengthen the services from prior years.
H1.5. Describe the orientation processes. If these differ by degree and/or concentration, provide a brief overview of each Orientation for new students in the program is a multi-tiered process. When a newly accepted student confirms his or her intention to enroll in the program, a dedicated representative from Enrollment Management notifies the Academic Coach who initiates contact with the student. A virtual meeting between the Academic Coach and the new student is scheduled to conduct thorough orientation to the program that includes an introduction to their Faculty Advisor, verification of their Concentration, and development of their plan of study. All online students in the Graduate School, including MPH students, are required to complete GRD 600 Orientation to Creighton during their first semester. GRD 600 is a self-paced, non-credit, pass/no pass comprehensive online course that includes information regarding policies and support available for technology, student health/well-being, library use and research support, services and support for writing
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 159 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program assignments and requirements, and an introduction to the university’s Jesuit/Ignatian mission and tradition. There is no formal course syllabus for GRD 600, but screenshots of the course content are available (ERF H1.5a GRD 600 Modules Page). The academic coach monitors student progress and places a registration hold on the student’s record until the student satisfactorily completes the course. MPH students are required to complete GRD 601 Writing for Graduate Students, during their first term. GRD 601 is a 1-credit hour course that is designed to prepare students for graduate-level writing. The course syllabus for GRD 601 is available as ERF H1.5b GRD 601 Course Syllabus. The Academic Coach adds new students to the Student Resource Center (SRC) in Blueline. The Student Resource Center is designed to serve as a central location to direct students to appropriate university resources as well as provide program level information. Screenshots of the online Student Resource Center are available as ERF H1.5c Student Resource Center Snapshot. Newly admitted MPH students are subscribed to recurring communications including: the MPH blog, focused on public health news, career and professional development opportunities; and the MPH student and alumni listserv for general program communication. Once this general orientation to the University and the operational aspects of the program are completed the MPH curriculum begins with an orientation to the field of public health through MPH 601 Organization and Management of Public Health Services. This is a required core course for students enrolled in the program. Designed as a foundation course, it provides learners with a comprehensive understanding of the organization and functions of public health services and the vital role public health plays in the health service system. In addition, this course provides students with a systems perspective for examining the core and elective public health competencies offered in future courses in the program. The course syllabus for MPH 601 is available as ERF H1.5d MPH 601 Syllabus.
H1.6. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • Survey data indicate that overall, students feel the program is doing a good job in providing academic advising services. • Satisfaction with informal advising that students receive by faculty in individual courses is consistently high based on course evaluations. • Satisfaction with the special academic advice students receive from the Practicum Coordinator is equally high based on course evaluations. • CU employs a best practices model in supporting distance students with the use of faculty advisors in conjunction with academic coaches, who act as the single point of contact to track student progression, proactively intervene for students not progressing, and connect distance students to University support services and resources. • A stable infrastructure and university-wide support exists for advising tools and technologies. These include DegreeWorks for academic advising, and CreightonConnect (Starfish) for student retention and support. Weaknesses • Although student satisfaction with academic advising is “good” based on survey data and anecdotal evidence the program aspires to excellence. Therefore, we need to continue to enhance the academic advising experience for our students. Plans for Improvement • We will focus attention on: o increased systematic outreach to advisees each term by faculty advisors from the very beginning of the program and continuing throughout the student’s enrollment in the program;
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 160 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
o continued conversations among faculty advisors and the academic coach to assure that all are aware of student success issues unfolding in a given term; o offering a “refresher” in-service for all instructional faculty on how to optimize their informal advising roles in their courses and to reinforce the need to engage the academic coach and faculty advisors at the earliest sign of academic difficulties by a student.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 161 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H2. Career Advising The program provides accessible and supportive career advising services for students. Each student, including those who may be currently employed, has access to qualified faculty and/or staff who are actively engaged, knowledgeable about the workforce and sensitive to his or her professional development needs and can provide appropriate career placement advice. Career advising services may take a variety of forms, including but not limited to individualized consultations, resume workshops, mock interviews, career fairs, professional panels, networking events, employer presentations and online job databases.
The program provides such resources for both currently enrolled students and alumni. The program may accomplish this through a variety of formal or informal mechanisms including connecting graduates with professional associations, making faculty and other alumni available for networking and advice, etc.
H2.1. Describe the program’s career advising and services. If services differ by degree and/or concentration, a brief description should be provided for each. Include an explanation of efforts to tailor services to meet students’ specific needs. Schools should present data only on public health degree offerings. As described in detail in H.1, the program employs a three-tiered advising system. The same system employed for academic advising is employed for career advising. Career advising is offered in a variety of formats for all students and alumni, regardless of their employment status. The primary career advisors for all students are the regular faculty; and as noted above, individual course faculty and the Practicum Coordinator provide informal career advising. In a fall 2019 survey of all program faculty, 100% of all faculty reported providing advice with career planning, networking, and job seeking within their individual courses, in addition to the formal services offered through faculty advisors. What is a bit different, though, with career advising versus academic advising, is that the Academic Coach does not serve a direct role in career advising, rather, the Academic Coach offers referrals to those who can provide the relevant advising. In the course of monitoring student progression, success, and, if necessary, intervening to assure retention, if a question arises relating to career paths and career advising services, such as resume preparation, the Academic Coach will first refer the student to their formal Faculty Advisor. The Faculty Advisor will assist the student directly and/or direct the student to other program or institutional resources, such as the Career Center (see below). Faculty Advisors provide career counseling and planning to students on an individual basis to address the specific needs of the student or alum. Given the geographic diversity of the program, and the fact that the majority of all students are working professionals, faculty take strategic advantage of the expertise of our EAB members, so that if a student, for example, were interested in pursuing a career with a local public health agency, or in a particular geographic region, there are ample representatives on our EAB available to meet with the student and refer students to working professionals in order to better assist students in their career interests. Our EAB provides students and alums with a robust network of professionals to augment services provided by faculty and/or campus resources. In addition to specific career advice, faculty are also available to write letters of recommendation for students and alumni as they pursue positions in the field. Opportunities for students to learn of career paths, agencies, advocacy organizations, and professional networks are infused throughout the core and concentration curricula. Courses such as MPH 601, 604 and MPH 606, to name just a few, include content about potential career paths within the discipline (i.e. environmental health), agency and employee responsibilities, relationships among the various sectors within public health, and the knowledge and skill sets employed by professionals in the field. This exposure to career opportunities invites students to envision their future beyond the attainment of the degree and fosters self-reflection and informed inquiry that, in turn, is catalyzed by the career advising system offered by the program. The MPH program encourages students to join and become involved in professional organizations such as the American Public Health Association (APHA), The Society for Public Health Education (SOPHE), state public health associations, and others to grow their professional networks for developing their
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 162 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program careers. Additionally, potential job opportunities submitted by faculty, students, alumni, professional networks, and community partners are shared via the program listserv, which includes current students and alumni. (see ERF H2.1a) To promote professional networking and professional development, announcements on upcoming conferences and workshops are publicized on the program’s listserv and blog. Information about these organizations are available in the Student Resource Center and any career resources provided by them, such as the American Public Health Association’s (APHA) CareerMart and PublicHealthJobs.com are highlighted. The Graduate School hosts or facilitates professional development offerings throughout the year. Some of these events include career advising or professional mentoring elements, such as the Annual Women in Healthcare Symposium. An additional resource is the John P. Fahey Career Center, with eight staff members who are available by appointment to assist students and alumni explore, develop and implement their career goals. All students and alumni have free access to the Career Center. Services include The Career Advisor Network, which is a network of over 6,000 vetted professionals from all major industries who are available for virtual meetings to critique resumes, provide career advice and conduct mock interviews. A Career Webinars site that provides advice, networking strategies and interviewing skills from industry leaders is also available. The Career Center also helps students locate internships and job opportunities in their career field with tools like Handshake, an online career management system and Jay2Jay, a social and career network. They also provide students and alumni with information on resume writing, networking, interviewing, and negotiating salaries. Currently, seven MPH students and one alum have completed their profile in Handshake and are actively using the system to search for jobs and internships. See ERF H2.1b MPH Students and Alumni in Handshake for a list of individual usernames.
H2.2. Explain how individuals providing career advising are selected and oriented to their roles and responsibilities. As the same system for academic advising noted in H1 above is used for career advising, the selection criteria for career advisors is similar. All faculty providing career advice are experts in their respective disciplines, with teaching, scholarship, service and professional development, and professional networking experience. All faculty (regular and adjunct) in the program are oriented by a formal online training module that includes on campus services for career counseling, alumni services, and approaches to engaging students in the learning environment at CU that includes networking, professional development and career planning. Members of the EAB play a supportive role for students and alumni and were selected specifically because of their past academic training, current expertise, employment within the field, their geographic diversity to reflect that of our students, and for their ability to provide unique networking and professional development opportunities. Several board members are alums of the program. This enhances the overall impact of the EAB by bridging those students actively pursuing the degree and program graduates who are now working professionals. The team at the Career Center are dedicated professionals with designated training in career advising. Staff backgrounds and profiles are available on the CU website. To assure that Career Center professionals are up to date on public health workforce needs and trends across the US, the program, effective with the 2019-2020 academic year began annual in-service programming for all Career Center staff to assure that the Center’s staff are best equipped to assist MPH students and alums. This training consists of an update of our MPH curriculum; the diversity profile our of students; the guiding statements for our program, including our priority communities; and current workforce needs in public health.
H2.3. Provide three examples from the last three years of career advising services provided to students and one example of career advising to an alumnus/a. For each category, indicate the number of individuals participating. The program relies on the MPH Student and Alumni Listserv to quickly share information on public health job openings and related career opportunities. The listserv is also a way to promote professional development opportunities, conferences, and networking events. Examples of these communications are
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 163 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program available as ERF H2.3 Career Opportunity Communications with summaries for both students and alums below: Current Student Example 1: In November 2018, the Career Center hosted an orientation webinar for both students and alumni from the MPH program. A total of three students attended the live webinar. A recording of the presentation is available for all MPH students to view in the Student Resource Center, which has resulted in 24 views as of September, 2020. Resources discussed include resume building, networking, job search skills, and virtual meetings with their Career Advisors. A link to the email communication can be found in the ERF H2.3a Career Opportunity Communications. Current Student Example 2: In April 2019, the Career Center developed a recorded webinar for MPH students and alumni on negotiating salary and job benefits. A recording of the presentation is available for all MPH students to view. As of September 2020, there have been 35 views. The Program Coordinator shared the video recording link on the MPH Student and Alumni Listserv as well as in the Student Resource Center. See ERF H2.3c for the associated PowerPoint presentation. Current Student Example 3: The Career Center holds two on-campus Career Fairs each year. In the 2018-2019 academic year, 95 employer organizations (including those in healthcare) attended the Fall Career Fair with over 450 students and alumni attending (three MPH students attended this event). The Spring 2019 Career Fair included 90 employer organizations with over 250 students and alumni attending (one MPH student attended this event). Current Student/Alumni Example 4: Job postings, opportunities to attend conferences, and other professional development are also communicated through the MPH Student and Alumni listserv. A sampling of messages from 2016-2018 can be found as ERF H2.1a MPH Listserv Job Post Example and ERF H2.3b NPHW Career Forum Communication Current Student Alumni Example 5: On December 2, 2019, Emily Sarcone, MPH, CHES, TTS, Oncology Outreach Coordinator with CHI Health, presented a videotaped professional development webinar for all current MPH students and alumni covering the following: 1) The CHES exam - what it is and how to prepare for it? 2) Community Health Needs Assessment (CHNA) and how to use its findings to help in thinking about topics/partners for practicum; how one can use the CHNA to help plan community events. 3) Evidence-based resources for cancer prevention during which she shared some of her on-the-ground screening experiences. 4) Translating her non-public health work experiences into skills she identifies on her job applications for public health jobs. 5) Alignment of her current job duties with the CEPH competencies. Fifteen students and alumni participated in the live event. (see ERF H2.3d)
H2.4. Provide data reflecting the level of student satisfaction with career advising during each of the last three years. Include survey response rates, if applicable. Schools should present data only on public health degree offerings. Prior to fall 2018, as described above for Academic Advising, student satisfaction with career advising was assessed through course evaluations addressing broad questions of satisfaction with student services and faculty advising. The results of these surveys are presented below in Table H2.4a: H2.4a. – Career Advising Prior to Fall 2018 Mean # Enrolled # Responses CAREER Q1: Contact with my program 4.40 317 198 advisor (excellent <-> poor) CAREER Q2: Faculty made adequate 3.99 317 202 provisions for consultation and assistance. These data indicate that the program was doing a good job regarding the surveyed services. The program, though, as it did with academic advising, wanted more direct data on satisfaction with career advising. Therefore, questions were added to the survey described above to specifically address career
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 164 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program advising. Students completed the first survey, the MPH Midpoint Survey, when they began the MPH 607 Biostatistics course, which is halfway through the program. Students completed a second survey, the MPH Exit Survey, in the final course, MPH 612 Capstone. Results for 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 are presented in Table H2.4b below. Survey samples are available as ERF H1.4a MPH Midpoint Survey and ERF H1.4b MPH Exit Survey. In both surveys, students were asked to use a five-point Likert Scale (strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5) in response to the statements included in Table H2.4
Table H2.4b. Student Satisfaction with Career Advising 2018-19 2019-20 MIDPOINT SURVEY Rate Mean Rate Mean Overall, I am satisfied with the 93% 3.23 89% 4.08 quality of career advising that I (n=13) (n=25) receive as a student in the MPH program. The MPH program enables me to 86% 3.58 93% 4.15 develop relevant professional skills (n=12) (n=26) Overall, I am satisfied with the 42% 3.40 89% 3.94 quality of career advising that I (n=5) (n=16) received while a student in the MPH program. The MPH program enabled me to 42% 4.80 94% 3.53 develop relevant professional skills. (n=5) (n=17)
See ERF H2.4b for related qualitative data on Student Satisfaction with Career Advising
A review of the data regarding overall student satisfaction with career advising showed that for 2018- 2019, student satisfaction was not at a level acceptable to the faculty. This prompted the program to enhance the role of the faculty in career advising, similar to what was described in the previous section regarding academic advising. The data for 2019-2020 suggest a significant improvement in student satisfaction with students reporting that the career advice they are now getting is good. Qualitative data indicate strong approval of the role of faculty in career advising. This is all in the context, of course, that the vast majority of MPH students are already employed. Their needs for career advising are different than, for instance, a student for whom graduation from the program will begin a first-time effort to secure a public health career. The program is encouraged by the responses of students to our enhanced career advising services.
H2.5. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • The program employs an effective three-tiered approach to career advising with faculty possessing appropriate expertise and orientation. • The EAB offers students and alums an added level of expertise and perspective especially relating to careers across the geographic diversity of the program, and in the breadth of their public health expertise. • There is strong student satisfaction with career advising as they approach the practicum. • The program augments career advising by promoting job opportunities, professional development events, professional associations, career fairs, and networking via our listserv and blog.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 165 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• The Career Center provides infrastructure to assist current students and alumni. Creighton alumni have “lifetime access” to the Career Center. The program maintains a list of career resources in their online Student Resource Center. Weaknesses • Although students reported that their overall career advising was good, the program aspires to excellence and will explore how to improve satisfaction levels. • A review of all faculty indicated that adjunct faculty are not as aware of the services offered by the Career Center compared to the regular, on campus faculty. This limits the effectiveness of their informal advising during individual courses. • The geographic diversity of the program, coupled with the fact that most of our students are already employed, limits student participation with on campus resources such as the Career Center. Plans for Improvement • In 2019-2020 we implemented a requirement that all students meet with their faculty advisor each semester to assure that all students are regular engagement. This is especially important with an online program as geographically diverse as this one, and since the majority of students are employed. We have clear anecdotal evidence that our students appreciate this advising model by the increased rate of interaction between faculty and students but need to collect further data to continue to assess and improve in this area. • In 2020 we launched an enhanced orientation in partnership with staff at the Career Center in an effort to ensure our students are well informed on trends and needs within public health. This initiative will continue to grow. Plans are being developed to improve the orientation and to offer it annually. • Continue to work with adjunct faculty on their knowledge of the services offered by the program and the Career Center and encourage them to direct students to these resources as warranted. • Since the program now has a larger, more geographically diverse EAB, the program will continue to provide each board member with information on our career advising services to expand their role and their reach. • The program will expand its outreach and dissemination of career information via our social media platforms, listserv, and blog.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 166 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H3. Student Complaint Procedures The program enforces a set of policies and procedures that govern formal student complaints/grievances. Such procedures are clearly articulated and communicated to students. Depending on the nature and level of each complaint, students are encouraged to voice their concerns to program officials or other appropriate personnel. Designated administrators are charged with reviewing and resolving formal complaints. All complaints are processed through appropriate channels.
H3.1. Describe the procedures by which students may communicate any formal complaints and/or grievances to program officials, and about how these procedures are publicized. Policies and procedures regarding academic standards and regulations for students are contained in the Graduate School Catalog. The Division of Student Life also plays an important role in matters impacting students, with a Center for Student Integrity and various resources available via the web, including a Code of Conduct, Student Credo, Student Handbook (see ERF A1.3d) and student conduct policies. The Provost and each respective Dean, assisted by other key offices and functions, have overall responsibility for oversight and monitoring of established academic activities, including academic policies and procedures as contained in handbooks. The MPH graduate student complaint procedures fall under the larger Student Complaint Policy held by the University, which applies to all students regardless of school, or college, status, classification, type, or location. The procedures are described in the Student Complaint Policy. (see ERF H3.1a) It is the policy of the University to address grievances in a fair and timely manner. Exclusions to this policy include complaints regarding academic grade disputes (see ERF H3.1b), academic integrity, non-academic misconduct, disability, affirmative action, sexual violence, harassment and discrimination. These exclusions have specific policies and procedures. These situations are handled by the Graduate School following the Graduate School’s policies and procedures. (see ERF H3.1) • Concerns or complaints about academic procedures or personnel must be filed with the Graduate School. • Concerns or complaints about non-academic procedures or personnel must be filed with the appropriate unit (i.e. Administration, Registrar, Disability Accommodations, Financial Aid, etc.) • Harassment and discrimination grievances are addressed by the Office of Equity and Inclusion, which is housed under the Office of the General Counsel.
H3.2. Briefly summarize the steps for how a complaint or grievance filed through official university processes progresses. Include information on all levels of review/appeal. As detailed in the documents linked above, a student with a complaint that a policy or procedure has been incorrectly or unfairly applied, or a complaint against a person’s behavior, has recourse through the process described. In most cases, complaints can be resolved informally. The complaint process is divided into four stages below: • Stage 1: The complaint is shared with the staff, faculty, or department personnel in which the matter originated. If the matter is not resolved, the complaint is moved forward to the supervisor, department chair or associate/assistant dean. • Stage 2: A formal complaint can be filed if an informal complaint is not resolved. The student files a formal complaint by completing the online Student Complaint Form (also available as ERF H3.5) • Stage 3: The Office of the Vice Provost for Student life investigates all formal complaint submissions and may refer complaints to the appropriate college/school/division for investigation and proposed resolution.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 167 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
• Stage 4: Should a student wish to appeal a decision, they must contact the Provost within 5 working days of communication of the resolution. If a student feels that he or she has been subjected to harassment or discrimination, they may follow the complaint procedure outlined in the Sexual Violence, Harassment, Discrimination and Grievances policy. Students may also file a complaint with an outside agency as outlined in the policy linked above.
H3.3. List any formal complaints and/or student grievances submitted in the last three years. Briefly describe the general nature or content of each complaint and the current status or progress toward resolution. The program received complaints from two students in Academic Year 2017-18. The issues were related to students who were dismissed because of earning a failing grade. It is important to note that no new complaints have been received since 2017-2018. • August 2017: A student expressed dissatisfaction with the communication from the instructor of the Summer 2017 course from which the student was dismissed. The student also disputed the reasons for her dismissal. The case was assigned to an Academic Hearing Subcommittee and an investigation was conducted. The subcommittee determined there was miscommunication on both sides. The committee developed recommendations regarding the student’s appeal. The student was permitted to resubmit an assignment and an additional reflection paper which were evaluated by an independent faculty member. The submissions were deemed satisfactory, and the student was reinstated to the program and graduated. • January 2018: A student was dismissed for academic reasons and subsequently reinstated following an appeal to the Graduate Board. She was dismissed a second (and final time), for failing to meet the conditions stated in her original letter of reinstatement. The student sent a series of emails to the program director and Assistant Dean disputing the facts and expressing dissatisfaction with the communication of the program director. The Assistant Dean called the student to ensure her concerns were heard but conveyed the message to the student that the outcome (dismissal) would stand. The student continued to send emails, but the program director and Assistant Dean chose not to engage in an escalation of emails and did not respond.
H3.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • The university employs standard, clearly defined grievance procedures. University and Graduate School policies affirm the rights of students to a prompt and fair resolution of an academic complaint. • The complaint rate is exceedingly low with only two since 2017. Weaknesses • None identified
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 168 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H4. Student Recruitment and Admissions The program implements student recruitment and admissions policies and procedures designed to locate and select qualified individuals capable of taking advantage of the program’s various learning activities, which will enable each of them to develop competence for a career in public health.
H4.1. Describe the program’s recruitment activities. If these differ by degree (e.g., bachelors vs. graduate degrees), a description should be provided for each. CU recruits local, national, and international candidates for the program through a variety of marketing and recruitment efforts. Our efforts are targeted to recruit highly qualified prospective students who fit the program requirements and we feel will succeed in the program. Marketing and recruitment efforts are coordinated by the Graduate Marketing and Recruitment office in conjunction with faculty, current student, and alumni efforts. Examples of our efforts are outlined below: Paid Media: Advertising opportunities that the University pays to place content in third party locations. • Digital Advertisement - Program-specific campaigns are running on Google search, Facebook, Instagram, and LinkedIn where we feel prospective students are actively searching and seeking out information for public health programs. The digital ads will display if the prospective student aligns with the demographic and psychographic profile, we have established is our ideal candidate for our program. The profile of the type of student we are targeting was created from attributes of current students and alumni of the program as well as industry and job data collected from 3rd party platform called EMSI. • Recruitment events – The Graduate recruitment staff attend career and graduate fairs, promoting program awareness. Attendees are undergraduate students and working professionals, specifically those with an interest or experience in a health care setting. Owned Media: Advertising opportunities that the University owns, manages, and creates the content for. • Graduate School Website and Program Page – The Graduate Marketing and Recruitment team manages the Graduate School website and program page. The program page is dedicated to promoting the Public Health program. This webpage gives students access to information on how the program is relevant, outcomes students are experiencing since graduating from the program and the relevancy of pursuing a graduate degree in public health. Information about curriculum, admissions requirements, tuition and scholarships, and deadlines is also available for students who are interested in taking the next steps and starting an application. • Social Media Channels – The Graduate Marketing and Recruitment team manages Graduate School social media channels—Twitter and Facebook. They work with campus partners, program directors, faculty, alumni, and current students to create content for the page. The channel promotes all Graduate School programs, but they give share of voice to all programs equally. The MPH program itself maintains its own Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn pages that specifically promote the field of public health and the program. • Program Listserv - The program maintains a listserv that promotes the program, highlights faculty and student achievements, previews community engagement and employment opportunities, and broad public health news and developments. (see ERF F2.2b) • Email Communication – The University manages inquiries received for the program in a CRM tool called Slate. They utilize the CRM to send custom email communications to prospective students who have shown interest. The custom email communication flow allows us to engage with the prospective student from inquiry to a completed application. This is done in conjunction with recruitment efforts by dedicated enrollment specialists who are also calling, scheduling appointments and meeting with the students to help them finish their application. • Program Webinars – the Graduate Marketing and Recruitment office hosts webinars in partnership with the faculty and program director to attract prospective students and engaged
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 169 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
inquiries within Slate. The webinars are hosted to allow students to ask questions, hear from current students and alumni, and engage with faculty from the program. • Campus Information Sessions – In addition to webinars, the Graduate Marketing and Recruitment office hosts general information sessions for students who are interested in Graduate School but unsure where to start. These sessions provide general awareness of our program offerings. Earned Media: Advertising opportunities that are not paid for but placed in third party locations because of a news-worthy content. • Newspaper – Graduate Marketing and Recruitment have a partnership with the local newspaper to pitch stories that are newsworthy. They work in collaboration with the University Communication and Marketing department who handles public relations for the university. Stories about students, faculty and the program are crafted and sent for news placement when both teams feel the content is relevant for the newspaper audience.
H4.2. Provide a statement of admissions policies and procedures. If these differ by degree (e.g., bachelors vs. graduate degrees), a description should be provided for each. It is the admission policy of the university to accept qualified students within the limits of its resources and facilities. Admissions Requirements, as outlined on the MPH program webpage: • Bachelor’s degree with a minimum 3.0 GPA in last 60 hours of undergraduate study • Completed application (requires non-refundable $50 fee). Must include the following documents: o Resume or curriculum vitae including relevant educational and employment history, teaching and research experience, publications, presentations, awards, honors, affiliates, professional associations, experience and background in health, public health, or healthcare. o Personal essay, in two pages or less, describing personal qualities, accomplishments, academic background, and professional experience that will contribute to your success in the program. Include how successful completion of this program will assist you in achieving your professional goals. o Three letters of recommendation from individuals familiar with your academic background, achievements, and personal qualities. o Official transcripts from all educational institutions attended. o International applicants must meet English language proficiency requirements. o International applicants who are formally admitted must complete and submit a Certification of Available Finances Form through the Global Engagement Office.
H4.3. Select at least one of the following measures that is meaningful to the program and demonstrates its success in enrolling a qualified student body. Provide a target and data from the last three years in the format of Template H4-1. In addition to at least one from the list that follows, the program may add measures that are significant to its own mission and context. The MPH program demonstrates its success in enrolling qualified students by selecting students who meet or exceed the cumulative grade point average (GPA) required for graduate admission.
Table H4.1 Outcome Measures for Recruitment and Admissions Outcome Measure Target 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 Mean GPA for newly matriculating MPH students 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 170 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H4.4. If applicable, assess strengths and weaknesses related to this criterion and plans for improvement in this area. Strengths • The program benefits from a highly collaborative relationship with the Academic Marketing and Enrollment Management team. Both parties maintain a transparent recruiting and admissions process with a comprehensive approach to marketing and enrollment. Through this relationship, the program has a significant and direct investment in and access to recruiting and admissions activities and strategies. • The program has a revised and expanded student recruitment plan for implementation in the 2020-2021 recruitment season. • The program has strengthened its student recruitment efforts by engaging faculty, alumni and existing students in the identification and on-boarding of potential new students. • The program consistently meets its recruitment outcome measure and continues to attract an increasingly talented, academically prepared student body. Weaknesses • Enrollment in the program has not met its targets for the most recent years. It was anticipated that once the University ended its recruitment contract with Deltak, that there would be a drop off in recruitment and a short lag time until the internal student recruitment program was fully functioning. The current low enrollments reflect this lag time. It is not, however, seen as a permanent indication of student recruitment levels. The program needs additional recruitment efforts, more directly driven by program faculty, staff and advisors, to augment that which is provided by the Department and the Graduate School. COVID-19 has had an impact on enrollment with some students deferring enrollment and others, due to economic circumstances, delaying graduate studies. Plans for Improvement • A planned area of improvement is to continue to work collaboratively with the Academic Marketing and Enrollment Management team to enhance our marketing strategy and ensure adequate and stable enrollment numbers in the future. Regular meetings will be held between the program and marketing and enrollment management division. • Actively promote the program to current undergraduate health sciences students at CU. • Target new recruitment efforts at universities within a 100-mile radius of Omaha, NE, to identify health science undergraduates wishing to pursue an online MPH at Creighton. • Build collaborative relations with other Jesuit universities that have undergraduate health science programs but no MPH, to recruit those students in the MPH.
• Successful accreditation by CEPH is seen as a program priority and it is expected that having accreditation status will enhance our recruitment efforts across the country.
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 171 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
H5. Publication of Educational Offerings Catalogs and bulletins used by the program to describe its educational offerings must be publicly available and must accurately describe its academic calendar, admissions policies, grading policies, academic integrity standards and degree completion requirements. Advertising, promotional materials, recruitment literature and other supporting material, in whatever medium it is presented, must contain accurate information.
H5.1. Provide direct links to information and descriptions of all degree programs and concentrations in the unit of accreditation. The information must describe all of the following: academic calendar, admissions policies, grading policies, academic integrity standards and degree completion requirements.
Table H5.1. Publications of Educational Offerings Publication Name Website URL Academic Calendar https://www.creighton.edu/registrar/academiccalendars/ Admissions Policies https://www.creighton.edu/program/public-health-ms Grading Policies http://catalog.creighton.edu/graduate/administration-policies/grading-guide/ Academic Integrity Standards http://catalog.creighton.edu/graduate/administration-policies/academic- responsibility/ Degree Completion Requirements http://catalog.creighton.edu/graduate/graduate-programs-courses/public-health/
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 172 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
ERF – Document Inventory Name Description Intro1_c Creighton Factbook Examples a. Enrollment and Persistence b. Faculty and Class Size Intro1_d University Mission Statement Intro1_e Creighton University Academic Specialized Accreditation Intro1_f MPH Steering Committee Documents A1.3 Governance Bylaws and Other Policy Documents a. Graduate School Bylaws b. Program Director Handbook c. Faculty Handbook d. Student Handbook A1.5a Program Level Communication A1.5b Department and College Level Communication A3.1 Academic Program Review Agenda B1.2 Creighton Strategic Plan B4.2 MPH Alumni Survey Template and Results B5.3 Evidence for Template B5-1 a. Practicum Site Student Evaluation Template b. MPH Midpoint Survey 2018-2019 c. MPH Exit Survey Template d. Program Review Documentation e. Alumni Survey Template f. External Advisory Board Meeting Minutes g. CIPER IPE 400/500 Report h. Course Review Example i. Evaluation Plan Implementation B6.1 Faculty Meeting Minutes – Student Writing Discussion C1.1b Scholarship Communication Example C1.1c Leadership Fellows Program Nomination C1.1f Grant Activity of Primary Instructional Faculty C2.2 MPH Courses Schedules a. 2018-2019 Course Schedule b. 2019-2020 Course Schedule C2.6 Course Evaluation Qualitative Data C5.1a Student Technology Requirements D1.2 Syllabi and Assignments D2 MPH Program Requirements (2020-21 University Catalog) D2.1 Interprofessional Education - CIPER a. IPE 500 Syllabus 2020-2021 b. IPE 500 Introduction to Collaborative Care Course Policy c. Interprofessional Education Passport Curriculum Policies and Procedures -
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 173 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
d. IPE Passport Activity List e. IPE 400/500 and Passport Activities Presentation f. Interprofessional Education Catalog Entry 2020-21 g. IPE 0001 Passport Syllabus D2.3 Syllabi for Table D2.2 D4.3 Syllabi for Table D4.1a and b D5.2 Applied Practice Experience Materials a. Practicum Manual b. Practicum Syllabus – MPH 611 c. Practicum Learning Contract d. Practicum Site Proposal e. Practicum Bi-Weekly Checklist f. Pre-Practicum Syllabus – MPH 610 D5.3 Select Student Work – APE a. Health Care Ethics Student Work Samples (5) b. Health Care Management Student Work Samples (5) D7.3 Integrative Learning Experience Materials a. Course Syllabus - MPH 612 b. ePortfolio Guide with Rubric c. Final Capstone Paper II Guidelines d. Reflective Essay Rubric e. Poster Presentation Instructions f. Poster Presentation Rubric g. Final Reflective Essay Instructions D7.4 E-portfolio Rubric D7.5 Select Student Work - ILE a-e. Student Work Samples D14.2 Academic Credit Hour Policy D20.2 Distance Education b. Assessment Objective Set c. Assessment Report 2018-19 d. Assessment Report 2017-18 e. Assessment Report 2016-17 f. Quality Assurance for Distance Education Programs g. Online Course Design Rubric h. Interregional Guidelines for the Evaluation of Distance Education i. Quality in Distance Education Programs (policy 4.1.2) j. Online Teaching Standards k. Documenting Credit Hours for Distance Education Courses E1.1 Curriculum Vitae Primary Instructional Faculty a. Benedict, Tanya b. Chapple, Helen c. Johnson, LaShaune d. Lux, Sarah e. Nolt, Kate f. Ratnapradipa, Dhitinut g. Robinson, Mark E1.3 Curriculum Vitae Non-Primary Faculty a. Baldetti, Nicholas
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 174 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
b. Casanave, Leah c. Furlong, Beth d. Guetterman, Timothy e. Houston, Ellen f. Roger Mustalish g. O’Reilly, Amy h. Peters, Stephen i. Ransom, Hellen j. Sandstrom, Robert k. Stone, John l. Weissenburger-Moser Boyd, Lisa m. Welie, Jozef (Jos) E3.1 Interdisciplinary Studies Department professional development workshop flyers E3.2 Faculty Handbook E3.5 Course Evaluation Data E4.1 Faculty Handbook pp. 22-33 E4.2 Graduate School Rank and Tenure Guidelines E4.7 Graduate School Academic Calendars E5.1a Tenure and Promotion Details F1.3d Employer Survey F1.4 External Partner Contributions a. Exit Survey b. External Advisory Board c. Practicum Supervisory Surveys F2.1 Professional Development Presentations a. Benjamin and LaViest Presentation Flyers b. Public Health Week 2017 Flyer c. Citizens of Nowhere Flyer F2.2 Professional and Community Service Opportunities a. Student Resumes for Community Service – check on this b. MPH Listserv Example c. Student Community Service Participation – check on this d. Listserv Communications - Health Equity Examples F3.2 Professional Development Needs Identification G1.3 Creighton Diversity and Inclusion Policy G1.4 ASPPH Cultural Competence Document G1.6 Midpoint and Exit Surveys G1.6a Student Perceptions of Program Climate of Diversity and Cultural Competence – qualitative data G1.6c Student Perceptions of Diversity and Cultural Competence within the Curriculum – qualitative data H1.1 Advising Resources a. Creighton Connect Faculty Guide b. Advising and Registration Flow Chart H1.2 Advising Roles and Responsibilities
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 175 Creighton University Master of Public Health Program
a. Faculty Email – Student Support and Resources b. Interdisciplinary Faculty Development Workshop Flyers H1.3 Advising Materials and Resources a. Student Handbook b. Student Advising and Support Staff c. Academic Coaching Advising Communications Roadmap d. Plan of Study by Concentration H1.4 Student Satisfaction Data a. MPH Midpoint Survey Example b. MPH Exit Survey Example H1.5 Orientation Processes a. GRD 600 Modules Page b. GRD 601 Course Syllabus c. Student Resource Center Snapshot d. MPH 601 Syllabus H2.1 Career Advising and Service a. MPH Listserv Job Post Example b. MPH Students and Alumni in Handshake H2.3 Career Opportunity Communications a. Career Center Orientation Webinar Announcement b. 2019 NPHW Career Forum Communication c. MPH Job Offer Eval Salary Negotiation Webinar d. Sarcone Presentation H2.4b Qualitative data on Student Satisfaction with Career Advising H3.1 Student Complaint Policy a. Student Complaint Policy b. Appeals and Petitions H3.5 Student Complaint Form
Preliminary Self-Study Report Page 176