PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 14606182

Public health workforce development: progress, challenges, and opportunities.

Abstract

The public health workforce is key to strengthening public health infrastructure. National partners have articulated a vision of a sustainable and competent workforce prepared to deliver essential public health services. Six strategic elements provide a framework for action: monitoring workforce composition; identifying competencies and developing related curriculum; designing an integrated life-long learning delivery system; providing individual and organizational incentives to ensure competency development; conducting evaluation and research and assuring financial support. Partners convened in January 2003 to review progress and to re-evaluate strategies in light of the recently released Institute of Medicine reports on infrastructure and workforce issues. Although significant challenges remain, there is convergence on priorities for competency development, research questions to be addressed and next steps in the national dialogue on certification and credentialing in public health.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Maureen Y Lichtveld, Joan P Cioffi. Public health workforce development: progress, challenges, and opportunities.. https://doi.org/10.1097/00124784-200311000-00003

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Evaluation of two commercially available portal monitors for emergency response.

The Human Monitoring Laboratory has compared two types (the P3 and the MiniSentry) of portal monitors that can be field deployed in response to an emergency. They can be used to screen persons for internal or external radioactive contamination by fission activation products (neither unit is capable of detecting alpha or beta radiation, and the amount of material required to alarm the monitors is unacceptably high for low energy x rays or gamma rays) following an incident involving the release of radioactive material (accidental or intentional). It was found that the P3 benefits from simplicity but requires slightly more activity to alarm than the MiniSentry, although for emergency response, the amount of activity that can be detected is far below a level where significant health effects will occur. The MiniSentry was found to have more capability than the P3, but these benefits also bring their own disadvantages. It was also found that the MiniSentry would be difficult to deploy in an outdoor setting whereas the P3 is well designed for a field setting. Despite the differences found, the HML has concluded that both have a distinct place in emergency monitoring. In the future, the HML plans to have both instruments ready for field deployment.

Disaster Planning↗