Innovative epidemiology instruction for promoting population health thinking in occupational therapy doctoral students

IF 3 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Annals of Epidemiology Pub Date : 2025-03-19 DOI:10.1016/j.annepidem.2025.03.009
Emily M. D’Agostino , Cambey Mikush , Denise M. Nepveux , Barb Hooper
{"title":"Innovative epidemiology instruction for promoting population health thinking in occupational therapy doctoral students","authors":"Emily M. D’Agostino ,&nbsp;Cambey Mikush ,&nbsp;Denise M. Nepveux ,&nbsp;Barb Hooper","doi":"10.1016/j.annepidem.2025.03.009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Purpose</h3><div>Recent shifts toward population-based health care and research in health science training programs are vital to reducing health disparities, although students need stronger education in this area. This study aimed to determine if innovative epidemiology research instruction is associated with improved science literacy skills, a core objective of population health curricula, for occupational therapy doctoral students.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We used the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS) to determine change in student science literacy skills based on change in performance from baseline. Multilevel repeated measures models were run clustering by student and cohort, adjusted for demographics and prior research courses.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>The sample included 166 students (91 % female, 57 % Non-Hispanic White, 14 % Hispanic, 19 % Non-Hispanic Black, 10 % Asian; 83 % ≤25 years old). Model estimates showed improvements in science literacy skills (β=0.39 [95 %CI:0.10, 0.67]) relative to baseline. Interaction models showed greater improvements from baseline for students who identified as Hispanic (β=0.82 [95 %CI:0.10, 1.63]) and Non-Hispanic White (β=0.55 [95 %CI:0.16, 0.94]). Additional interaction models did not show differences in the time-TOSLS association by student characteristics.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Innovative epidemiology instruction may be an appropriate method for supporting health sciences student development of science literacy skills to foster population health thinking, research, and practice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":50767,"journal":{"name":"Annals of Epidemiology","volume":"105 ","pages":"Pages 26-31"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annals of Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1047279725000596","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose

Recent shifts toward population-based health care and research in health science training programs are vital to reducing health disparities, although students need stronger education in this area. This study aimed to determine if innovative epidemiology research instruction is associated with improved science literacy skills, a core objective of population health curricula, for occupational therapy doctoral students.

Methods

We used the Test of Scientific Literacy Skills (TOSLS) to determine change in student science literacy skills based on change in performance from baseline. Multilevel repeated measures models were run clustering by student and cohort, adjusted for demographics and prior research courses.

Results

The sample included 166 students (91 % female, 57 % Non-Hispanic White, 14 % Hispanic, 19 % Non-Hispanic Black, 10 % Asian; 83 % ≤25 years old). Model estimates showed improvements in science literacy skills (β=0.39 [95 %CI:0.10, 0.67]) relative to baseline. Interaction models showed greater improvements from baseline for students who identified as Hispanic (β=0.82 [95 %CI:0.10, 1.63]) and Non-Hispanic White (β=0.55 [95 %CI:0.16, 0.94]). Additional interaction models did not show differences in the time-TOSLS association by student characteristics.

Conclusions

Innovative epidemiology instruction may be an appropriate method for supporting health sciences student development of science literacy skills to foster population health thinking, research, and practice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
创新流行病学指导促进职业治疗博士生人群健康思维。
目的:最近转向以人口为基础的卫生保健和健康科学培训计划的研究对减少健康差距至关重要,尽管学生需要在这方面加强教育。本研究旨在确定创新的流行病学研究指导是否与职业治疗博士生提高科学素养技能有关,科学素养技能是人口健康课程的核心目标。方法:我们使用科学素养技能测试(TOSLS)来确定学生科学素养技能的变化,这是基于基线成绩的变化。多水平重复测量模型按学生和队列进行聚类,并根据人口统计学和先前的研究课程进行调整。结果:样本包括166名学生(91%女性,57%非西班牙裔白人,14%西班牙裔,19%非西班牙裔黑人,10%亚裔;83%≤25岁)。模型估计显示,相对于基线,科学素养技能有所提高(β=0.39 [95%CI:0.10, 0.67])。交互模型显示,西班牙裔学生(β=0.82 [95%CI:0.10, 1.63])和非西班牙裔白人学生(β=0.55 [95%CI:0.16, 0.94])较基线有更大的改善。其他交互模型没有显示出学生因素在时间- tosls关联方面的差异。结论:创新性流行病学研究教学是支持健康科学学生科学素养技能发展的一种合适方法,可促进人口健康思维、研究和实践。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Annals of Epidemiology
Annals of Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
1.80%
发文量
207
审稿时长
59 days
期刊介绍: The journal emphasizes the application of epidemiologic methods to issues that affect the distribution and determinants of human illness in diverse contexts. Its primary focus is on chronic and acute conditions of diverse etiologies and of major importance to clinical medicine, public health, and health care delivery.
期刊最新文献
Population-based clustering of co-occurring social determinants: an application of unsupervised machine learning. Towards reliable feature interpretation in machine learning-based longevity prediction. Validity and Reliability learning module: Zubizarreta et al. (2025), context matters: Validity and reliability of a sociopolitical concerns measure for use in population health research on discrimination and health. Epidemiology beyond averages: Reflections on civic responsibility and contextually structured individual heterogeneity. Spatiotemporal trends of birth defects in North Carolina, 2003-2015.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1