NEHA September 2025 Journal of Environmental Health

ADVANCEMENT OF THE PRACTICE

community interactions. In addition, one par- ticipant reported incorporating course learn- ings into their daily routine, including improv- ing their community engagement skills. One strength of our evaluation of the long- term survey was our use of mixed methods to assess participant responses. Questions 1–7 used quantitative measures, which allowed us to compare the dierent responses. We compared the percentage of responses of the initial knowledge assessment with the long- term knowledge assessment. Question 8 used a qualitative approach and asked participants to fill in their opin- ions on what they found most useful in the EHLR training. This question provided more detailed insights into how participants felt about the EHLR training. Answers were gen- erally positive, with one negative response. Our long-term follow-up EHLR train- ing survey, which provided some lessons learned, also had some limitations. One les- son learned would be to expand Question 8 or add a separate question to ask, “How have you used knowledge gained from this course in your work?” This question would provide more insight into one goal of the assessment, which was to assess the eect of the training up to 12 months post-training. One limitation of the evaluation was the low response rate, which could lead to non- response bias. We do not know the views of the people who did not respond. They might not have learned much from the training and therefore chose not to respond. Alternatively, they might not have found the course useful for their profession. Regardless, the initial knowledge assessment responses, which had a much higher response rate, correlated with the long-term survey responses returned by 22 respondents months after the course was completed. This correlation indicates that

the results are likely valid despite the low response rate. Another limitation is not knowing the professional background of the participants who indicated that the “course was not needed for my work.” Because environmen- tal health professionals and public health students were grouped together as a cohort entity in the long-term survey, we do not know who specifically answered that ques- tion. It could be inferred that this response was from a student who may not be work- ing in the field yet. To address this limita- tion in the future, we might add an assess- ment question asking why participants took the course and also add a question asking whether the respondent is a student or cur- rently works in environmental health. An additional limitation is that respondents might already have a high opinion of ATSDR and NEHA, so they completed the survey. For example, they may have received funding or participated in previous trainings or activities sponsored by either ATSDR or NEHA. Overall, participant responses showed that they had a positive view of the training. These findings are useful to ATSDR and NEHA. The EHLR Classroom Training can build capac- ity in the environmental health field because our survey results show that professionals are using what they learned from the training up to 1 year later. This finding demonstrates that the training can help strengthen the environ- mental health workforce. The training is also helpful in teaching individuals about com- munity engagement, environmental health, and land reuse issues. Editor’s Note: This article is the second in a series of three that describe the development, launch, and evaluation of the EHLR Certificate Training content. ATSDR and NEHA collabor-

atively developed the EHLR Certificate Train- ing program. The training program consists of 1) the EHLR Basic Training, which is a 5-mod- ule short course, and 2) the EHLR Immersion Training, which is an expansion of the first three modules of EHLR Basic. The first article described the development and delivery of EHLR Classroom Training and the pilot of the EHLR Immersion Train- ing (Berman et al., 2024). The second article describes the long-term eectiveness of the training. The third article will present the evaluation of EHLR Training content, focusing on training eectiveness, training modalities, and participant feedback. ATSDR and NEHA wrote this series of manuscripts related to the EHLR Training to promote the accessibility of free training for environmental health profes- sionals and their partners to build skills and capacity to address concerns related to envi- ronmental contamination. Disclaimer: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the o˜cial position of the Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention (CDC) and ATSDR. Acknowledgments: Huda Shareef participated in this project through partial support from the Research Participation Program at CDC. This program is administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) through an interagency agreement between the U.S. Department of Energy and CDC. Corresponding Author: Sharon D. Unkart, PhD, Associate Director, Entrepreneurial Zone, National Environmental Health Asso- ciation, 1400 South Colorado Boulevard, Suite 325, Denver, CO 80222-9998. Email: sdunkart@neha.org

References

Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. (2024). Environ- mental health and land reuse class training overview . https://www. atsdr.cdc.gov/land-reuse-health-program/php/classroom-training/ index.html Berman, L., DeFlorio-Barker, S., & Whitehead, S. (2019). Integrating public health in land reuse and redevelopment—Part 2: Assessing local health agency capacity to integrate environmental health and land reuse work. Journal of Environmental Health , 81 (9), 36–39.

Berman, L., Unkart, S., Lewin, M., Labbo, R., Bare, G., Wooden, A., Erdal, S., Bing, L., Casteel, S., Amar, O., Jones, T., & Begay, L. (2024). Development, evaluation, and long-term outcomes of environmental health and land reuse training—Part 1: Develop- ing environmental health and land reuse trainings for the environ- mental health workforce and their community partners. Journal of Environmental Health , 86 (10), 16–22.

38

Volume 88 • Number 2

Powered by