Promoting innovation and creativity in epidemiology for the 21st century

Competencies acquired in epidemiology doctoral programs

PURPOSE

The purpose of the study was to compile and describe the range of competencies imparted by doctoral programs in epidemiology using publicly available information.

METHODS

Through the Council on Education for Public Health database, institutions conferring doctoral (PhD, ScD, DrPH) degrees in epidemiology were identified. The competencies listed on the corresponding institutions' websites were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

Forty-eight PhD and thirteen DrPH institutions indicate that their graduates will gain 11 common competencies. The most frequently noted competency for both PhD (93.7%) and DrPH (100%) degrees is related to the communication domain, reflecting the need for graduates to be able to effectively communicate epidemiologic information to others (epidemiology peers, other scientists, policy makers, students).

CONCLUSIONS

Although variations in the listed competencies exist among doctoral programs in epidemiology, there are common competencies across programs. Further examination of these programs is required to capture information beyond that conveyed on the websites. This preliminary report, along with those findings presented in previous reports on doctoral education, may stimulate further discussion with a group of faculty teaching at the doctoral level, employers of doctoral graduates, and/or the Association of Schools and Programs of Public Health representatives.

Transdisciplinary approaches enhance the production of translational knowledge

The primary goal of translational research is to generate and apply knowledge that can improve human health. Although research conducted within the confines of a single discipline has helped us to achieve this goal in many settings, this unidisciplinary approach may not be optimal when disease causation is complex and health decisions are pressing. To address these issues, we suggest that transdisciplinary approaches can facilitate the progress of translational research, and we review publications that demonstrate what these approaches can look like. These examples serve to (1) demonstrate why transdisciplinary research is useful, and (2) stimulate a conversation about how it can be further promoted. While we note that open-minded communication is a prerequisite for germinating any transdisciplinary work and that epidemiologists can play a key role in promoting it, we do not propose a rigid protocol for conducting transdisciplinary research, as one really does not exist. These achievements were developed in settings where typical disciplinary and institutional barriers were surmountable, but they were not accomplished with a single predetermined plan. The benefits of cross-disciplinary communication are hard to predict a priori and a detailed research protocol or process may impede the realization of novel and important insights. Overall, these examples demonstrate that enhanced cross-disciplinary information exchange can serve as a starting point that helps researchers frame better questions, integrate more relevant evidence, and advance translational knowledge more effectively. Specifically, we discuss examples where transdisciplinary approaches are helping us to better explore, assess, and intervene to improve human health.

Epidemiology today: Mitigating threats to an ecosystem

Ecosystems comprise all the living and non-living things in a particular area (e.g., rain forest, desert), which interact and maintain equilibrium. Loss of equilibrium (e.g., clear-cutting trees in a rain forest) can mean the decline of the ecosystem, unless it is able to adapt to the new circumstances. The term "knowledge ecosystem" describes an approach to managing knowledge in a particular field; the components of this system include the people, the technological skills and resources, and information or data. Epidemiology can be thought of as a knowledge ecosystem and, like ecological systems, its existence can be threatened, from both internal and external forces that may alter its equilibrium. This paper describes some threats to the epidemiology knowledge ecosystem, how these threats came about, and what responses we can make that may serve to mitigate those threats.

Charting a future for epidemiologic training

PURPOSE

To identify macro-level trends that are changing the needs of epidemiologic research and practice and to develop and disseminate a set of competencies and recommendations for epidemiologic training that will be responsive to these changing needs.

METHODS

There were three stages to the project: (1) assembling of a working group of senior epidemiologists from multiple sectors, (2) identifying relevant literature, and (3) conducting key informant interviews with 15 experienced epidemiologists.

RESULTS

Twelve macro trends were identified along with associated actions for the field and educational competencies. The macro trends include the following: (1) "Big Data" or informatics, (2) the changing health communication environment, (3) the Affordable Care Act or health care system reform, (4) shifting demographics, (5) globalization, (6) emerging high-throughput technologies (omics), (7) a greater focus on accountability, (8) privacy changes, (9) a greater focus on "upstream" causes of disease, (10) the emergence of translational sciences, (11) the growing centrality of team and transdisciplinary science, and (12) the evolving funding environment.

CONCLUSIONS

Addressing these issues through curricular change is needed to allow the field of epidemiology to more fully reach and sustain its full potential to benefit population health and remain a scientific discipline that makes critical contributions toward ensuring clinical, social, and population health.

Is epidemiology correcting its vision problem? A perspective on our perspective: 2012 presidential address for American College of Epidemiology

Epidemiology, like all disciplines, exists within and is shaped by a culture that frames its ways of understanding. In the last 60 years epidemiology as a discipline and scientific approach has undergone major transition, but remains challenged by vestiges of the limiting frameworks of our origins which shape the way we approach questions, and even the questions we choose to investigate. A part of the current transformation is a reframing of our perspective and a broadening of our methods to encourage creativity and to encompass new types of evidence and new approaches to investigation and interpretation. Epidemiologists are developing innovative ways to approach increasingly complex problems and becoming more open to multi-disciplinary approaches to solving epidemiologic challenges.