University of Alberta
Course Guide for SPH 622 Winter 2015 Campus
Theory and Practice of Health Promotion Interventions Tuesday 1300-1550 ECHA 2-125
Instructor:
Kim D. Raine, PhD, RD, FCAHS Phone: (780) 492-9415 Email:
[email protected] Office: 4-308 (and 4-077) Edmonton Clinic Health Academy (ECHA)
Course Description
This course will cover concepts, theory and methods pertinent to impact oriented population intervention science, tailored to chronic disease prevention. Modules will address epidemiological perspectives, ethical issues in population intervention (e.g., tensions between utilitarian vs. social equity approaches), contrast population and clinical intervention and research, and emphasize study design methods and ethical issues most relevant to population intervention research. An integrated knowledge translation or engaged scholar approach (i.e., doing impact oriented studies by working across research, policy, and practice sectors) will pervade.
Objectives
Upon completion of this course, students will be able to: 1. Understand the rationale for population intervention for chronic disease prevention. 2. Analyze the theoretical foundations of and conceptual models for population health interventions. 3. Examine the evidence base supporting population health interventions. 4. Identify how context influences the design, implementation and evaluation of population interventions. 5. Debate diverse methodological approaches relevant to population health interventions. 6. Examine knowledge translation exchange approaches with promise for population health interventions. 7. Examine ethical and organizational issues pertinent to population health interventions.
Competencies
Learning Resources
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
8. Develop a research proposal for a population health intervention project. Critically analyze basic concepts, principles and theories related to health program and policy planning and evaluation Discuss and explain the principles of health promotion intervention at the individual, community, organizational and policy levels. Explain the methodological approaches used in evaluating population health interventions affecting health.
All required materials are made available through eClass
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 2
The University of Alberta library system’s website www.library.ualberta.ca details the range of services offered to students on and off campus.
Library
If you need further information or assistance, contact the Library's Electronic Reference Desk at www.library.ualberta.ca/ereference/index.cfm or call 1-800-2070172.
Course Evaluation Mid Point Evaluation: As is the case with all SPH instructors, I am interested in improving the course. I need to hear from you in order to do that well. I will gather feedback and recommendations from you at the mid-point of the course, by asking a student to administer and deliver an anonymous course evaluation back to the instructor(s). Final Course Evaluation: Following completion of the course, you will receive a standardized summative evaluation. Course evaluations will be done online by Test Scoring and Questionnaire Services. An invitation to participate in the survey is emailed to each student. One email will be sent for each start date, i.e., if a student has surveys with different start dates, they will receive multiple messages. Note that the message includes a login button.
Student Evaluation Assignment/Exams
Percentage
Date
Bi-weekly assignments Presentation
5-10% each : Total 45%
Approx. Bi-weekly
10%
April 5
45%
April 12
Final Proposal
Evaluation of Course Work The main assignment is to develop an intervention research proposal. As the proposal is developed iteratively, assigned sections will be due approximately biweekly and feedback from the instructor will be provided. Students are encouraged to use their thesis work for the proposal assignment and to define their research focus/preliminary objectives in advance of the course.
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 3
Grading
Assignments and Marking Criteria Assignment and Final Proposal Submission Instructions
You will lose one mark/day for late assignment submissions. If you need to negotiate timelines, please contact the instructor at least one week before the due date. Ensure the first page includes your name, ID number, and course number The instructor will aim to provide feedback within 2 weeks and will be provided to each student individually.
Assignments (45%) The assignments provide an opportunity to draft and re-work the proposal with input from instructor and a peer over the term. To prepare the assignments, see "Additional Details and Suggestions" section below.
Assignment 1: Proposed Intervention and Outcome (5%) This will help guide the rest of your assignments
Assignment 2: Draft Goals, Objectives, Hypothesis or Research Questions (5%)
Assignment 3: Introduction in point form (5%)
Assignment 4: Methods section in point form (10%)
Assignment 5: Written draft of Introduction and Methods sections (10%)
Assignment 6: Draft of remaining sections (10%)
Final Proposal (45%) The course project is to develop an intervention research proposal. As the proposal is developed iteratively, multiple drafts will be submitted and feedback from the instructor will be provided. Students are encouraged to use their thesis work for the proposal assignment and to define their research focus/preliminary objectives early in the course. The final proposal cannot exceed 12 pages, single-spaced. However, the 12 page limit does not include references or appendices. Your proposal may include up to 3 appendices. Appendices may include tables, charts, figures, photographs, questionnaires and consent forms. Please note that your proposal does NOT need to include any granting agency forms, CV SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 4
modules, budget module, timeline, letters of support, or other supplementary material. Presentation (10%) On the final day of classes you will provide a brief (15 minute + 5 mins for questions) oral presentation of your proposal. Cover all sections of the proposal and use visual aids (Powerpoint or Prezi)
Additional Details and Suggestions for Assignments Proposal Development You may notice that granting agency (such as CIHR) guidelines are vague and abstract. One reason for the vague guidelines is to allow authors the flexibility to prepare the proposal how they feel best suits their study. For example, the proposal for a study that is part of a larger, ongoing project may present information that is different from that of a new study with some pilot data or a study with multiple phases. As you develop your proposal, remember that your goal in this course is primarily to acquire and demonstrate mastery of competencies required to do population intervention research. To that end: Focus your study accordingly so that you acquire a range of skills and have an opportunity to demonstrate real competence. You may propose something larger than you would actually be able to do as a thesis project. It is possible for you to explicitly specify assumptions about what is in place (even though it's not, e.g., the ability to recruit 20 communities simultaneously to participate in an experimental or quasi-experimental intervention study) in order to develop a proposal that provides a strong foundation for learning. Edit carefully; in most grant competitions only 10 to 20% of applications are funded. Reviewers can quickly lose confidence in, and be frustrated by, applications that suggest that the applicant team is careless, or has not really thought through their plan. Make sure your study is original. Do a literature review to make sure no one has done what you plan to do. Consider linking your proposal to a larger project that is actually being planned or conducted. This can enrich the substantive learning by involving scientists who are expert in the area you are working in. It also provides experience in working as a junior member of a larger team, and this in itself is a valuable learning experience. If you do this, you might think of developing a project that forms a component of the larger "host" program. This can be an excellent strategy for enhancing the credibility of a grant proposal, since it creates a sense in the review panel that by both benefiting from, and contributing to, the host study the project will create synergy that adds value to the research investment Assignment 1: Proposed Intervention and Outcome For this assignment, the expectation is about 1 paragraph in length and the purpose is to start SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 5
your thinking about the direction you want to take for your proposal. As you develop your proposed intervention and outcome statement, be sure to address the following: Convey a sense of why the problem is important by, for instance, documenting how many people are affected, how profoundly they are affected, the social and financial cost of the problem. Convey a sense that influential organizations need your evidence to address the problem, if this is the case: has somebody identified the problem as a priority (e.g., the federal/provincial Joint Consortium for School Health has been created under the auspices of federal and provincial ministers whose mandates pertaining to health and education in a concerted effort to improve youth health with obesity/physical activity/nutrition as a priority; the WHO has created the Framework Convention for Tobacco Control to avert up to 1 billion deaths in the 21st century worldwide, and 171 countries signatories to this agreement need evidence to guide their action). Document the premises underlying your approach: for instance, if you are providing skill training for large numbers of people to care for relatives dealing with chronic illness, demonstrate that the underlying problem is related to lack of skill, rather than, for instance, unrelenting demands for which respite care, rather than skill training, might be more appropriate. Assignment 2: Draft Goals, Objectives, Hypothesis or Research Question(s)
Goals are the broader statements about what you would like to achieve with this research. Objectives should be clear and concrete statements that are closely related to your research question(s). Your objectives will guide both the study methods and the data analysis, so it important for them to be well defined. For example: o Good objective: The main objective is to evaluate the impact of a national sodium reduction policy on sodium intake among adults (18-64 years) with hypertension compared to those without hypertension. o Bad objective: The main objective is to measure the sodium intake of adults. Your hypothesis will be based on the preliminary literature review you have done to select your research topic. Make sure to cite sources where appropriate.
Assignment 3: Introduction/ Background in point form
Describe the magnitude of the problem worldwide (e.g., how much does the factor you are addressing contribute to disease burden and related cost worldwide?): The goal is to help reviewers see that you are addressing a significant global problem. Do this in a few sentences. Describe the magnitude of the problem in Canada. How prevalent is the problem? What diseases, and how much of the total disease burden, is associated with this problem? What are the direct healthcare costs? What are the larger costs in productivity and other societal costs? The aim here is to convey to the reviewer that you are addressing a problem that really matters, so your work is important. This should be documented specifically, but at a high level to give a clear and compelling sense of the "big picture."
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 6
Describe how the problem is being addressed in Canada. What action is being taken by government? What action is being taken by NGOs? What structures or strategies have been developed to deal with the problem? For instance, there are federal and provincial tobacco strategies to deal with tobacco control across the country, led by government and supported by NGOs through advocacy and programs in support of strategies; the Joint Consortium for School Health has been created under the auspices of provincial and federal Ministers and Deputy Ministers responsible for portfolios related to health and education to deal with youth health, particularly tobacco, physical activity, nutrition, and obesity as priorities. In some cases, the private sector may be playing a role in contributing to, or creating solutions for, the problem you are studying. The aim is to convey to the reviewer who is implementing policies or programs to address the problem you are dealing with. Again, this should be brief but specific. Describe progress that has been made. In established areas (e.g., tobacco control), there has been significant progress (e.g., warning labels, taxation, banning smoking in indoor spaces, etc.); in emerging areas, such as youth health, the policy/program agenda is still taking shape. Be brief. The aim is to convince reviewers that your research will inform the next phase of the policy/program agenda. Describe the current state of knowledge. What is already known about intervening to address the problem you are seeking to ameliorate? How will your study advance knowledge? The aim is to convince reviewers that you have a full grasp of the science and state of knowledge in your field. Do not simply describe what is reported in papers, but critically assess the evidence that has been presented. Is it strong evidence, or weak evidence? For instance, some policy studies may be cross-sectional (i.e., such studies may look at policies in place at community or provincial levels in relationship to youth health behaviour patterns, to see if there is an association between the policies and the behaviour of youth as a population): such studies are useful, but not definitive. There may be one or two longitudinal studies that show that after a policy was implemented, youth behaviour changed at a population level: this would represent stronger evidence than the cross-sectional studies. Your job is to convey to the reviewer what findings are solid (based on strong evidence) and what findings are more provisional (based on evidence from studies using weaker designs). In doing this, you are also conveying to the reviewer that you have some methodological sophistication. Focus this section quite specifically so that it is relevant to your study (e.g., do not review everything that is known about tobacco control, but do review what is known about the area you are particularly studying, such as banning smoking in outdoor spaces). This section of the introduction is relatively detailed, although focused. Reviewers will want to know that you have found all the relevant studies, and drawn reasonable conclusions from them. Then indicate how your study will generate evidence that will be useful to those responsible for implementing policies or programs that address the problem, while at the same time advancing the state of scientific knowledge. Conclude by describing the broad goal of your study (e.g., to assess the value of a specific approach to increasing physical activity among young people as a population), and presenting specific study objectives. Be concise. Every word counts. Eliminate all unnecessary ideas or words. Your writing will be clearer, and your logic more compelling, as you eliminate distracting ideas and verbiage.
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 7
Be specific. It is more informative and compelling to give specific numbers rather than making general statements (e.g., the latest data available, from 2007, suggest that only 8% of Canadian males aged 15 – 19 are physically active for an average of at least 30 min. per day; versus most youth are inactive). Document claims. Cite specific sources to back up your claims. Be sure to include the most recent sources to demonstrate that you are up to date. Develop a compelling and logical argument. Think of each paragraph being a building block of your argument. The first sentence of each paragraph should summarize the point you are making in that paragraph, and provide a link to the preceding paragraph to show the logical relationship between the two. For instance, you might say there are four lines of evidence supporting x. First, a series of cross-sectional studies have been conducted. These might be summarized quickly: in brief, five of the seven studies (with citations) demonstrate a relationship between X and Y, while two studies were inconclusive, perhaps because of small sample sizes. Second, three longitudinal studies (citations) all provided evidence of a relationship between X and Y. Two of these studies involved only women. The third involved both men and women, and found no difference in the impact of the policy across genders. In short, the relationship between X and Y appears to be found reliably among women, and the evidence to date suggests it also exists among men. Third, there have been two quasi-experimental studies which involved "controlled" observations across jurisdictions. These studies also…. However, not all threats to internal validity were addressed in these studies. There is still some question about the extent to which xxx may have been a confounding factor which contributed to the change the authors attribute to the policy (if the authors themselves note study limitations, it is appropriate and elegant to recognize this in your presentation, with words like "the authors themselves are careful to point out that…."). Finally, there has been one randomized trial that shows that X leads to Y. Comment on the internal inextricable validity of the study. Then summarize the findings. For instance, you may say "In short, evidence from five cross-sectional studies, three longitudinal studies, two quasi experimental studies and one randomized controlled trial suggests that X causes Y. The critical outstanding question at this juncture is….. The study proposed addresses this question."
Assignment 4: Methods in point form
Refer back to the objectives set out in your introduction when designing your methods. These will guide what needs to be measured and the specific study design. For complex study designs, figures and tables can be an effective way to clearly communicate your study plan. However, use these tools sparingly since you have limited space in your proposal (12 pages). Grants typically support studies that are 1 to 5 years in length. The timeline for your study will depend on the research question, the design, and the primary outcome of interest. Some outcomes (e.g. perceptions or knowledge) may only take a few days to change, while others (e.g. smoking prevalence) may take a few years.
Assignment 5: Written draft of Introduction and Methods
Develop the point form from Assignments 3 and 4 into proper sentences and paragraphs.
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 8
Incorporate the feedback received from your instructor.
Assignment 6: Draft of remaining sections
Write the remaining sections that have not been developed up until this point (i.e. Project team, resources, and environment; and Plan for dissemination and capacity building). You do not need to include a budget, timeline, the CV modules, or any other granting agency application forms.
University of Alberta Calendar Section 23.4 Regulations and Information for Students Evaluation Procedures and Grading System The University of Alberta Grading System The University of Alberta uses a letter grading system with a four-point scale of numerical equivalents for calculating grade point averages. Grades reflect judgments of student achievement made by instructors. These judgments are based on a combination of absolute achievement and relative performance in a class. Some instructors assign grades as intervals during the course and others assign marks (e.g. percentages) throughout the term and then assign a letter grade at the end. Instructors must adapt their approaches to reflect the letter grading system. Grade distribution should reflect those shown in this document. (EXEC 03 FEB 2003) Descriptor Excellent
Good Satisfactory Failure
Academic Integrity
Grading in Graduate Courses Letter Grade Grade A+ A AB+ B BC+ C CD+ D F
Point Value 4.0 4.0 3.7 3.3 3.0 2.7 2.3 2.0 1.7 1.3 1.0 0.0
Plagiarism is a serious offence. The University of Alberta is committed to the highest standards of academic integrity and honesty. Students are expected to be familiar with these standards regarding academic honesty and to uphold the policies of the University in this respect. Students are particularly urged to familiarize themselves with the provisions of the Code of Student Behaviour (online at www.ualberta.ca/CodeofStudentBehaviour) and avoid any behaviour which could potentially result in suspicions of cheating, plagiarism,
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 9
misrepresentation of facts and/or participation in an offence. Academic dishonesty is a serious offence and can result in suspension or expulsion from the University. University of Alberta policy about course outline can be found in Section 23.4(2) of the University Calendar. (GFC 29 SEP 2003)
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 10
Reading List for SPH 622 Theory and Practice of Health Promotion Interventions Week 1: Introduction to Grant Writing PHIRIC working group activities: peer review criteria. Retrieved from http://www.cihrirsc.gc.ca/e/47222.html Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Peer review manual – Project Scheme. Retrieved from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/49564.html Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Guidebook for new principal investigators. Retrieved from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/27491.html Office of Research Services, McMaster University. Elements of a successful proposal. Retrieved from http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/healthresearch/guide_proposal.html Lovejoy, T. I., Revenson, T.A., & France, C. R. (2011). Reviewing manuscripts for peer-review journals: A primer for novice and seasoned reviewers. Annals of Behavioural Medicine, 42 (1), 1-13. Retrieved from http://www.springerlink.com/content/v8086x6r543083u4 Introduction to Population Health Intervention Research Objective: 1. To understand the rationale for population intervention for chronic disease prevention. PHIRIC Publications & Resources. Retrieved from http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41349.html Ashbury, F. D., Little, J., Ioannidis, J. P., Kreiger, N., Palmer, L. J., Relton, C., & Taylor, P. (2014). A vision for chronic disease prevention intervention research: Report from a workshop. Can J Public Health, 105(2), e150-e153. Di Ruggiero, E., Rose, A., & Gaudreau, K. (2009). Canadian Institutes of Health Research support for population health intervention research in Canada. Can J Public Health, 100(1), I15-I19. Hawe P, Potvin L. What Is Population Health Intervention Research? Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2009;100(1):I8. Hawe, P., Di Ruggiero, E., & Cohen, E. (2012). Frequently asked questions about population health intervention research. Can J Public Health, 103(6), e468-e471. Riley BL, Stachenko S, Wilson E, Harvey D, Cameron R, Farquharson J, Donovan C, Taylor G. Can the Canadian Heart Health Initiative Inform the Population Health Intervention Research Initiative for Canada? Canadian Journal of Public Health. 2009;100(1):I20.
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 11
Week 2: Concepts and Frameworks for Population Intervention Research Objectives: 2. To analyze the theoretical foundations of and conceptual models for population health interventions. 3. To examine the evidence base supporting population health interventions.
Frohlich, K. L. (2014). Commentary: What is a population-based intervention? Returning to Geoffrey Rose. International journal of epidemiology, dyu111. Glasgow, R. E., Vinson, C., Chambers, D., Khoury, M. J., Kaplan, R. M., & Hunter, C. (2012). National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: current and future directions. American Journal of Public Health, 102(7), 1274-1281. Hawe, P., Shiell, A., & Riley, T. (2009). Theorising interventions as events in systems. American Journal of Community Psychology, 43(3-4), 267-276. Lobb, R. & Colditz, G.A. (2013). Implementation Science and Its Application to Population Health. Annual Review of Public Health, 34, pg. 235-251. Richard, L., Gauvin, L., & Raine, K. (2011). Ecological models revisited: their uses and evolution in health promotion over two decades. Annual Review of Public Health, 32, 307-326. Finegood, D. T., Merth, T. D., & Rutter, H. (2010). Implications of the foresight obesity system map for solutions to childhood obesity. Obesity, 18(S1), S13-S16. Swinburn B, Gill T, Kumanyika S. Obesity prevention: a proposed framework for translating evidence into action. Obes Rev. 2005;6(1):23-33. Week 3: Context and Population Intervention Objective: 4. To identify how context influences the design, implementation and evaluation of population interventions. Biglan, A. (2004). Contextualism and the development of effective prevention practices. Prevention Science, 5(1), 15-21. Kreuter, M.W. de Rosa, C., Howze, E.H., & Baldwin, G.T. (2004). Understanding wicked problems: A key to advancing environmental health promotion. Health Education and Behaviour, 31(4): 441-454. McLaren, L., Ghali, L.M., Lorenzetti, D., & Rock, M. (2007). Out of context? Translating evidence from the North Karelia project over place and time. Health Education Research, 22(3): 414-424. Nykiforuk, C., Schopflocher, D., Vallianatos, H., Spence, J.C., Raine, K.D., Plotnikoff, R.C., et al. (2013). Community Health and the Built Environment: Examining Place in a Canadian Chronic Disease SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 12
Prevention Project. Health Promotion International, 28(2), 257-268. Poland, B., Frohlich, K., Cargo., M. (2008). Context as a fundamental dimension of health promotion program evaluation. In Potvin, L., McQueen, D.B., (editors). Health promotion evaluation practices in the Americas: values and research. New York, NY: Springer, 299-318. Viehbeck, S., Viehbeck, S., Di Ruggiero, E., & Edwards, N. (2015). 1. G. Round table: Context matters: Exploring the role of context in public health intervention research. European Journal of Public Health, 25, 3. Week 4: Inequality: An Example of How Values Influence Intervention Deering, K. N., Lix, L. M., Bruce, S., & Young, T.K. (2009). Chronic disease and risk factors in Canada’s northern populations: Longitudinal and geographic comparisons. Cdn J Public Health, 100(1), 14-17. McLaren L, McIntyre L, & Kirkpatrick S. (2009) Rose’s population strategy of prevention need not increase social inequalities in health. International Journal of Epidemiology, 39(2):372-377. http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/39/2/372.long Rang, R., Kmetic, A., & Drasic, L. (2009). Disparities in chronic disease among Canada’s low income populations. Prev Chronic Dis, 6(4). Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/pcd/issues/2009/oct/08_0254.htm WHO commission on Social Determinants of Health. Closing the gap in a generation. Health equity through action on social determinants of health. Executive summary. 2008. Geneva: WHO Press. Weeks 5 & 6 : Methodological Approaches Objective 5. To debate diverse methodological approaches relevant to population health interventions.
Anderson, R. A., Crabtree, B. F., Steele, D. J., & McDaniel, Jr., R. R. (2005). Case study research: the view from complexity science. Qualitative Health Research, 15(5), 669-685. Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Moore, L., Riggs, E., Cuervo, L. G., Lumbiganon, P., & Hawe, P. (2008). Improving the reporting of public health intervention research: advancing TREND and CONSORT. Journal of Public Health, 30(1), 103-109. Brownson, R. C., Fielding, J. E., & Maylahn, C. M. (2009). Evidence-based public health: A fundamental concept for public health practice. Annual Review of Public Health, 30, 175-201.
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 13
Craig, P., Cooper, C., Gunnell, D., Haw, S., Lawson, K., Macintyre, S., ... & Thompson, S. (2012). Using natural experiments to evaluate population health interventions: new Medical Research Council guidance. Journal of epidemiology and community health, jech-2011. Craig, P., Dieppe, P., Macintyre, S., Michie, S., Nazareth, I., & Petticrew, M. (2008). Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Bmj, 337. Moore, G., Audrey, S., Barker, M., Bond, L., Bonell, C., Cooper, C., ... & Wight, D. (2013). Process evaluation in complex public health intervention studies: the need for guidance. Journal of epidemiology and community health, jech-2013. Raine, K. D., Plotnikoff, R., Schopflocher, D., Lytvyak, E., Nykiforuk, C. I., Storey, K.,Wild, T. C. (2013). Healthy Alberta Communities: Impact of a three-year community-based obesity and chronic disease prevention intervention. Preventive Medicine. Raine, K. D., Plotnikoff, R., Nykiforuk, C., Deegan, H., Hemphill, E., Storey, K., Ohinmaa, A. (2010). Reflections on community-based population health intervention and evaluation for obesity and chronic disease prevention: the Healthy Alberta Communities project. International Journal of Publc Health, 55(6), 679-686. Smith, G. C. S. & Pell, J. P. (2003). Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: Systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ, 327, 1459-1461. Wallerstein, N and Duran B. Community-Based Participatory Research Contributions to Intervention Research: The Intersection of Science and Practice to Improve Health Equity. American Journal of Public Health: April 2010, Vol. 100, No. S1, pp. S40-S46. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2009.184036 Week 7: Ethics in Population Intervention Objective 7. Examine ethical and organizational issues pertinent to population health interventions.
Anderson, E.E, Solomon, S., Heitman, E., Dubois, J. M., Fisher, C. B. et al. (2012). Research Ethics Education for Community-Engaged Research: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 7(2), 3–19. CIHR, NSERC and SSHRC. Tri-Council Policy Statement: Ethical Conduct for Research Involving Humans, December 2014. (http://www.pre.ethics.gc.ca/eng/policy-politique/initiatives/tcps2-eptc2/Default/) Week 8: Population Health Intervention and the Canadian Context Public Reports: Centre for Chronic Disease Prevention: Strategic Plan 2016–2019 Improving Health Outcomes - A Paradigm Shift http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/cd-mc/assets/pdf/ccdpSPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 14
strategic-plan-2016-2019-plan-strategique-cpmc-eng.pdf Keon, W. J., & Pépin, L. (2009). A healthy, productive Canada: A determinant of health approach [pdf document]. Retrieved from http://www.parl.gc.ca/40/2/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/popu-e/repe/rephealth1jun09-e.pdf
Weeks 9 & 10: Knowledge Translation and Exchange Objective: 6. To examine knowledge translation exchange approaches with promise for population health interventions.
Armstrong, R., Waters, E., Dobbins, M. Anderson, L., Moore, L., Petticrew, M. et al. (2013). Knowledge translation strategies to improve the use of evidence in public health decision making in local government: intervention design and implementation plan. Implementation Science, 8,121. Best, A. and Holmes, B. (2010) ‘Systems thinking, knowledge and action: towards better models and methods’, Evidence & Policy, 6 (2): 145–59. Chambers DA, Glasgow RE, Stange KC (2013). The dynamic sustainability framework: addressing the paradox of sustainment amid ongoing change. Implementation Science, 8: 117 doi: 10.1186/1748-59088-117 Hobin EP, Hayward S, Riley BL, Di Ruggiero E, Birdsell J. (2012). Maximizing the use of evidence: exploring the intersection between population health intervention research and knowledge translation from a Canadian perspective. Evidence & Policy, 8(1): 101-20. Kitson, A., Powell, K., Hoon, E., Newbury, J., Wilson, A. & Beilby, J. (2013). Knowledge translation within a population health study: how do you do it? Implementation Science, 8, 54. Moore, G., Redman, S., Haines, M. and Todd, A. (2011). What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: a review. Evidence & Policy, 7(3), 277–305.
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 15
Schedule at a Glance Date Jan 5 Jan 12 Jan 19
Topic Introduction to the Grant Writing Process Introduction to Population Health Intervention Research Concepts and Frameworks for Population Intervention Research Context and Population Intervention (guest lecture)
Jan 26
Inequality: An Example of How Values Influence Intervention
Feb 2 Feb 9
Methodological Approaches I Methodological Approaches II
Feb 16 Feb 23
Reading week – no classes Ethics in Population Intervention
March 1
Population Health Intervention and the Canadian Political Context Knowledge Translation and Exchange I
March 8
March 15 March 22
Knowledge Translation and Exchange II Integrating Concepts, Methods, and Knowledge Translation
March 29 April 5 April 12
Free Class to work on final proposals Presentations Final Proposal
SPH 622 [2016] Course Syllabus
Assignment Due
Weight (%)
Assignment 1: Proposed Intervention and Outcome Assignment 2: Draft Goals, Objectives, Hypotheses, Research Questions
5
Assignment 3: Point form outline of Introduction.
5
Assignment 4: Methods in point form
10
Assignment 5: Written draft of Introduction and Methods sections
10
Assignment 6: Draft remaining sections
10
Presentation
10 45
5
University of Alberta, School of Public Health Page 16
