Health Education Specialists: Professional Practice During a Pandemic.

Authors conducted survey research on Health Education Specialists' (HES) involvement in the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants (n = 1,837) completed questions on COVID-19 work and job responsibilities, use of the NCHEC Areas of Responsibility and Competencies in addressing the pandemic, education and training, work with populations at risk, and volunteer work related to COVID-19. The majority of respondents reported some work, either professional or personal associated with the pandemic, and the majority felt prepared to do this work, although it caused additional work responsibilities with no additional pay. Many had to work from home during the pandemic, using technology to accomplish their tasks. Most reported conducting education and prevention and designing and implementing communication strategies regarding the pandemic. Those with MCHES® certification were more likely to use the HESPA-II 2020 competencies in their work and more likely to perform listed COVID-19 activities, with the exception of contact tracing and direct care to COVID-19 patients, which were more likely conducted by CHES® certified HES. Results of this study show the significant level of involvement of HES in the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of roles and capacities, despite a challenging political landscape during the time the survey was administered. Many HES reported volunteer work in addition to their paid work, including donating money, distributing food, or making masks. Finally, HES welcomed more training on COVID-19 and use of technology. Results of the study may be used to document the roles of HES during the COVID-19 pandemic and to make recommendations for future emergency preparedness efforts.

CHES, MCHES, and/or CPH? Selecting the Best Credential for You.

The health education profession within the broader context of public health has chosen certification to grant recognition to individuals meeting certain standards, as well as optional accreditation of academic programs. Regarding certification options for health education professionals, those who qualify may sit for the exams to achieve one of the following certifications: Certified Health Education Specialist (CHES), Master Certified Health Education Specialist (MCHES), or Certified in Public Health (CPH). Some health education and other professionals may be familiar with the concept of certification but may not be aware of the value of certification for the profession, their options for certification, or the processes of certification. This article provides information on CHES, MCHES, and CPH certifications and compares and contrasts their requirements. While many professionals may choose one credential over another, others may decide to pursue CHES/MCHES and the CPH. Credentialing continues to be an important part of advancing the health education profession and ensuring that those practicing in the field are highly qualified.

Advocacy and Public Policy Perceptions and Involvement of Master Certified Health Education Specialists.

Master Certified Health Education Specialists (MCHES; n = 186) participated in a mail survey on advocacy and public policy. Over half of participants reported that they had contacted a public official or provided policy-related information to consumers or other professionals. Participants identified barriers and benefits to influencing public policy. The greatest benefit was identified as improving the health or welfare of the public while the greatest barrier was that they were busy with other priorities. Participants also described their level of involvement, knowledge, training in advocacy, and their self-efficacy in performing various advocacy activities. Most MCHES reported voting and other basic advocacy functions while far fewer had participated in more advanced advocacy activities. Although nearly 73% had formal training on advocacy and policy, only 26% received it through college coursework. Factors predictive of advocacy and policy involvement were determined through a stepwise regression analysis. Five independent variables predicted the total number of advocacy activities and when combined accounted for nearly 61% of the variance. Government-level health educators' misconception that they cannot participate in advocacy and public policy issues should be dispelled. Health education specialists with the MCHES credential need coursework and additional training on how to effectively influence public health policy.

An alcohol, tobacco, and other drug use comparison of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual undergraduate women.

BACKGROUND: Little research has focused specifically on alcohol, tobacco, and other drug (ATOD) use of lesbian and bisexual women in general or the college subgroup specifically. Previous research shows sexual minority women at increased risk when compared to their heterosexual counterparts. OBJECTIVES: The purpose of the current study was to compare ATOD use of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual undergraduate college women. METHODS: A secondary analysis of three fall semesters (2009-2011) of American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA-II) data was conducted. Women who self-identified as gay/lesbian (N = 538), bisexual (N = 1579), and heterosexual (N = 40,869) were compared on ATOD use. Chi-square Tests were used to analyze differences between the groups and logistic regression determined odds ratios of ATOD use. RESULTS: Bisexual women had greater odds of using alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana than heterosexual women and lesbians. They also had greater odds of using all illicit drugs (except steroids) and misusing prescription drugs than heterosexual women and greater odds of using amphetamines other than meth, sedatives, and ecstasy when compared to lesbians. Lesbians had greater odds of using tobacco, marijuana, sedatives, hallucinogens, other illegal drugs and misusing prescription drugs than heterosexual women. Conclusions/Importance: The study confirms increased ATOD use among sexual minority women as compared to their heterosexual counterparts with bisexual women having the highest use. This is the first study to examine misuse of prescription drugs among a large number of lesbian and bisexual college women, and contributes to the scant literature addressing college women's ATOD use by sexual orientation.

Substance use of lesbian, gay, bisexual and heterosexual college students.

OBJECTIVE: To compare self-identified lesbian, gay, and bisexual (LGB) college students to heterosexual peers and to each other on alcohol, tobacco and other drug (ATOD) measures and alcohol use consequences. METHODS: Preexisting data (Falls 2009-2011) from the American College Health Association-National College Health Assessment (ACHA-NCHA-II) were analyzed. RESULTS: Bisexual college students had greater odds of ATOD use than heterosexual and gay/lesbian students. Bisexual women had the highest levels of use. LGB students had more serious consequences due to alcohol use. CONCLUSIONS: ATOD use among LGB students was more prevalent than heterosexuals during the past 30 days, year, and life-time. LGB students report more negative alcohol consequences.

A comparison of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual female college undergraduate students on selected reproductive health screenings and sexual behaviors.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual college undergraduate women on selected reproductive health screenings. Associations between sexual orientation and preventive health screenings and sexual behaviors were made to determine if differences existed between the groups. METHODS: The study was a secondary analysis of three semesters of the American College Health Association's National College Health Assessment-II. FINDINGS: Bisexuals were 1.1 times as likely as heterosexuals to have a gynecological examination and perform a breast self-examination (BSE), and 1.5 times as likely to have an HIV test. Bisexuals also were 1.5 times as likely as lesbians to have a gynecological examination, 1.2 times as likely to perform BSE, and 1.4 times as likely to have an HIV test. Lesbians were 0.70 times as likely as heterosexuals to have a gynecological examination, but no different in BSE or HIV testing. Bisexuals were more likely to have anal intercourse than heterosexuals or lesbians (p < .001). Bisexuals were less likely to use condoms than heterosexuals for vaginal intercourse but more likely to use them for anal intercourse (p < .001). Most of the women (90%) used no barrier protection for oral sex. Bivariate tests found associations between sexual orientation and each of the preventive screenings and that those with more partners screened more frequently. CONCLUSIONS: Health educators should attend to the unique needs of each sexual orientation group when presenting sexual health information to college women. Health care providers should undergo diversity and sensitivity training to work more effectively with these groups.

Student perceptions and practices regarding carrying concealed handguns on university campuses.

OBJECTIVE: This multisite study assessed college student's perceptions and practices regarding carrying concealed handguns on campus. PARTICIPANTS: Undergraduate students from 15 public midwestern universities were surveyed (N = 1,800). METHODS: Faculty members distributed the questionnaire to students in general education classes or classes broadly representative of undergraduate students. RESULTS: Useable questionnaires were returned by 1,649 students (92%). The majority (78%) of students was not supportive of concealed handguns on campuses, and 78% claimed that they would not obtain a permit to carry a handgun on campus, if it were legal. Those who perceived more disadvantages to carrying handguns on campus were females, who did not own firearms, did not have a firearm in the home growing up, and were not concerned with becoming a victim of crime. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of students was not supportive of concealed handguns on campus and claimed that they would not feel safer if students and faculty carried concealed handguns.

A comparison of lesbian, bisexual, and heterosexual college undergraduate women on selected mental health issues.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate selected mental health characteristics of lesbians and bisexual undergraduate college women as compared with heterosexual college women. PARTICIPANTS: Self-identified lesbians and bisexual and heterosexual female college students who took part in the American College Health Association National College Health Assessment II (ACHA-NCHA-II) in Fall 2008, Spring 2009, and Fall 2009. METHODS: A secondary analysis of the ACHA-NCHA-II data set for 3 semesters was conducted. Comparisons of lesbians and bisexual and heterosexual female college students were made. RESULTS: Bisexual women reported the worst mental health status in all areas studied including anxiety, anger, depressive symptoms, self-injury, and suicidal ideation and attempts. Both bisexual women and lesbians had a far greater likelihood of having these mental health issues when compared with heterosexual women. Lesbians and bisexual women utilized significantly more mental health services (with the exception of clergy) than heterosexual women. CONCLUSIONS: College health professionals should recognize and address the mental health needs of bisexual and lesbian undergraduate college women.

Public policy involvement by health commissioners.

The purpose of this national study was to determine advocacy activities and level of involvement of health commissioners regarding public policy. Benefits, barriers, and perceived outcomes of advocacy efforts were also explored. A previously validated (Holtrop et al., Am J Health Behav 24(2):132-142, 2000) four-page survey was mailed to 700 health commissioners, who were randomly selected from the National Association of County and City Health Officials (NACCHO) database. A three-wave mailing was performed which yielded a 50% response rate. Of these respondents, the majority (70%) were female and (88%) Caucasian. Overall, 31% of health commissioners reported being involved in influencing public policy in the last 4 years. The most common reported activities engaged in by health commissioners included voting (84%), and providing policy information to consumers or other professionals (77%). Perceived barriers to influencing policy were time, (64%), and other priorities (46%). Perceived benefits to influencing policy included improving the health of the public (94%) and making a difference in others' lives (87%). Only 15% perceived their knowledge regarding the process of changing public policy was excellent. Although health commissioners are often spokespersons for health agencies and communities, their public policy involvement is marginal. Professional preparation programs and continuing education opportunities should focus on advocacy, public policy development, and removing barriers to action.