Search

Higher education institutions can play an essential role in preparing students to participate in movements for just and sustainable food systems change. For the past two decades, many United States land-grant universities (LGUs) have developed food systems education (FSE) courses. This study examined the extent to which FSE courses employ four capacities deemed crucial by the FSE literature: multidimensional approaches, interdisciplinarity, centering equity, and training students to take action in food systems. The syllabi of 171 undergraduate courses at 20 LGUs were obtained by contacting instructors, and their course descriptions and learning outcomes were analyzed. This subset of LGUs were identified from the membership list of the Menus of Change University Research Collaborative (MCURC), a nationwide network of colleges using campus dining halls and classrooms as living laboratories for food systems change. Most course descriptions and learning outcomes exhibited multidimensional approaches and interdisciplinarity. However, many failed to incorporate teaching content and practices that help students critically examine equity and social justice issues in food systems, or engage in transformative change. LGUs have both the resources and urgent responsibility to empower students to be part of movements to transform unjust, unsustainable food systems. The findings of this study, and an accompanying open-access syllabus website, aim to accelerate the development of FSE curricula that prepare students to change food systems.

BackgroundAnesthesiology education has undergone profound changes over the past century, from a pure clinical apprenticeship to novel comprehensive curricula based on andragogic learning theories. Combined with institutional and regulatory requirements, these new curricula have propagated professionalization of the clinician-educator role. A significant number of clinician-educator anesthesiologists, often with support from department chairs, pursue formal health professions education (HPE) training, yet there are no published data demonstrating the benefits or costs of these degrees to educational leaders. ObjectiveThis study aims to collect the experiences of anesthesiologists who have pursued HPE degrees to understand the advantages and costs of HPE degrees to anesthesiologists. MethodsInvestigators performed a qualitative study of anesthesiologists with HPE degrees working at academic medical centers. Interviews were thematically analyzed via an iterative process. They were coded using a team-based approach, and representative themes and exemplary quotations were identified. ResultsSeven anesthesiologists were interviewed, representing diverse geographic regions, subspecialties, and medical institutions. Analyses of interview transcripts resulted in the following 6 core themes: outcomes, extrinsic motivators, intrinsic motivators, investment, experience, and recommendations. The interviewees noted the advantages of HPE training for those wishing to pursue leadership or scholarship in medical education; however, they also noted the costs and investment of time in addition to preexisting commitments. The interviewees also highlighted the issues faculty and chairs might consider for the optimal timing of HPE training. ConclusionsThere are numerous professional and personal benefits to pursuing HPE degrees for faculty interested in education leadership or scholarship. Making an informed decision to pursue HPE training can be challenging when considering the competing pressures of clinical work and personal obligations. The experiences of the interviewed anesthesiologists offer direction to future anesthesiologists and chairs in their decision-making process of whether and when to pursue HPE training.

Background: Every year, Puerto Rico faces a hurricane season fraught with potentially catastrophic structural, emotional and health consequences. In 2017, Puerto Rico was hit by Hurricane Maria, the largest natural disaster to ever affect the island. Several studies have estimated the excess morbidity and mortality following Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico, yet no study has comprehensively examined the underlying health system weaknesses contributing to the deleterious health outcomes.Methods: A qualitative case study was conducted to assess the ability of the UPR health system to provide patient care in response to Hurricane Maria. An established five key resilience framework and inductive analysis was used to identify factors that affected health system resilience. Thirteen Emergency Medicine Physicians, Family Medicine Physicians, and Hospital Administrators in a University of Puerto Rico (UPR) Community Hospital were interviewed as part of our study.Results: Of the five key resiliency components, three domains were notably weak with respect to UPR's resiliency. Prior to the Hurricane, key personnel at the UPR hospital were unaware of the limited capacity of back-up generators at hospitals and were ill-prepared to transfer ICU patients to appropriate hospitals. Post Hurricane, the hospital faced self-regulation challenges when triaging the provision of Hurricane-related emergency services with delivering core health services, in particular for patients with chronic conditions. Finally, during and after the Hurricane, integration of patient care coordination between the UPR hospital ambulances, neighboring hospitals, and national and state government was suboptimal. The two remaining resiliency factors, addressing diverse needs and system adaptiveness in a time of crisis, were seen as strengths.Conclusions: Hurricane Maria exposed weaknesses in the Puerto Rican health system, notably the lack of awareness about the limited capacity of backup generators, poor patient care coordination, and interruption of medical care for patients with chronic conditions. As in other countries, the current COVID epidemic is taxing the capacity of the Puerto Rico health system, which could increase the likelihood of another health system collapse should another hurricane hit the island. Therefore, a resilience framework is a useful tool to help health systems identify areas of improvement in preparation for possible natural disasters.

Abstract Introduction Intimate partner violence (IPV) affects the physical and psychological health of survivors and their children; however, to our knowledge, no comprehensive health curriculum exists for this population. As a partnership between a transitional housing program (THP) and an academic medical center, we developed a health education curriculum for female IPV survivors using the principles of community-based participatory research (CBPR). Methods After partnering with a community-based organization, and recruiting participants (IPV survivors), the curriculum is then taught by health trainees. The materials needed to facilitate the 10 workshops are provided and include: a facilitator's guide; workshop materials, including PowerPoint slides and handouts; a training guide for a community partner to teach facilitators about IPV; a sample focus group guide for curricular evaluation that aligns with CBPR methodologies; a sample time line for curricular implementation; and CBPR resources. Results The curriculum was implemented for two 9-month periods between September 2014 and June 2016. During the first session, 80% of women attended at least one workshop and during the second session, 65% of women did the same. Participants and staff at the THP found the curriculum engaging and requested that it be implemented yearly. Discussion The community-academic partnership offered prehealth and health trainees the opportunity to learn effective methods of delivering health education and to understand some of the challenges associated with surviving IPV. Such education can be provided to trainees at any stage and across multiple specialties (e.g., medical, nursing, public health, or social work). There is potential to replicate this mutual learning curriculum in a wide variety of other settings serving mothers and children.