ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE
FIGURE 3
Comparison of the Knowledge Assessment of Initial ( n = 129) and Long-Term Follow-Up ( n = 22) Survey Participants for the Environmental Health and Land Reuse Training, Module 2 Example
80
73
Long-Term
Initial
70
64
64
60
60
50
43
40
36
28
30
26
18
20
15
14
9
10
5
2
0
Specifically Useful for My Work
Quick Refresher
New Knowledge About Topic
Confidence to Increase Evaluation of Risk Skills
Motivated to Learn More About Land Reuse and Ways to Engage
Not Needed for My Work
None of the Above
Response Prompts
Note. Knowledge assessment questions asked: “In reference to the Evaluating Environmental and Health Risks module, please choose all that apply.”
Question 8 asked if there was one aspect of the EHLR training material that was most useful to respondents. Respondents then could opt to fill in an opinion response. All 22 (100%) respondents completed the question. Overall, participants had positive responses to this question and reported finding the training eective and useful. We grouped similar responses (Table 3) to represent the response categories as follows: • All useful/good overall: 7 of 22 respondents indicated that all aspects of the training were useful, the course overall was good, and everything was useful. Two respon- dents provided detailed comments such as using the materials and recommending the program; they also reported finding the land reuse content to have good subject matter and knowledge skills to advance concepts. • Useful in a particular area: 8 of 22 respon- dents indicated that specific aspects of the training were useful. Useful aspects include public communication, community engage-
ment, having information about brownfields funding, connecting with resources, evalu- ating environmental and health risks, and applicability to environmental scenarios. • Complete or comprehensive: 2 of 22 respondents indicated that the training was complete and convenient or complete and comprehensive. • Not applicable or no areas were most useful: 4 of 22 respondents indicated the training was not applicable or did not find a specific area most useful. One respondent elaborated on the latter point: “Not really. All the materials interrelate in my opin- ion,” which could be interpreted as either not applicable or equally applicable. • Negative response: One respondent com- mented that they did not remember taking the training. Discussion and Conclusion Environmental health professionals are uniquely qualified to address community
concerns about contamination and the nega- tive health eects associated with land reuse sites. They may, however, need specialized training to communicate, evaluate, and miti- gate risks related to land reuse. We designed the EHLR training specifically for environ- mental health professionals, who can play a pivotal role in land reuse and reducing adverse health outcomes in communities. We also included urban and community plan- ners and the future environmental health and urban and community planning workforces (i.e., students) as potential participants. Environmental health professionals often need annual or other regularly scheduled training to maintain their professional cre- dentials. Thus, ATSDR and NEHA developed the EHLR Classroom Training and asynchro- nous courses to address an observed gap in the education of environmental health pro- fessionals. We grounded our work on the results of a 2016 NEHA survey of 92 local health department professionals that detailed
36
Volume 88 • Number 2
Powered by FlippingBook