Building Professionalism Through Management Training: New England Public Health Training Center's Low-Cost, High-Impact Model.

CONTEXT: Evolving practices, accreditation, and priorities established in Public Health 3.0 are adding to the long-identified need for management training among public health practitioners. PROGRAM: The New England Public Health Training Center is addressing this need with a flexible, open-source, 16-topic training program. The program is designed to build competencies for current and future managers, preparing them for their day-to-day tasks and for the kinds of adaptation suggested by Public Health 3.0 advocates. IMPLEMENTATION: The training program uses live expert instructors for 10 webinars and 2 in-person trainings. Experts have also created the content for multiple self-paced E-Learnings that trainees undertake in addition to the instructor-led sessions. A webinar platform with breakout rooms and an advanced learning management system allows for online discussion and mentor interaction. The course has now been offered, evaluated, and modified 3 times, and the materials are available for noncommercial use by the public health community. EVALUATION: Using the Kirkpatrick training evaluation model, the recent cohort was satisfied (87.5%) with the training, reported identifying actions to apply information learned to their work (85.8%), and experienced statistically significant knowledge gains. Earlier trainees reported work-related behavior change. DISCUSSION: Management training offers the hope of increasing professionalism; creating better, more effective workplaces and programs; and preparing practitioners for an evolving public health landscape. Early results indicate that NEPHTC's program, Managing Effectively in Today's Public Health Environment, is a useful tool in realizing that hope.

Transmission of influenza A viruses between pigs and people, Iowa, 2002-2004.

BACKGROUND: Triple-reassortant (tr) viruses of human, avian, and swine origin, including H1N1, H1N2, and H3N2 subtypes, emerged in North American swine herds in 1998 and have become predominant. While sporadic human infections with classical influenza A (H1N1) and with tr-swine influenza viruses have been reported, relatively few have been documented in occupationally exposed swine workers (SW). METHODS: We conducted a 2-year (2002-2004) prospective cohort study of transmission of influenza viruses between pigs and SW from a single pork production company in Iowa. Respiratory samples were collected and tested for influenza viruses from SW and from pigs under their care through surveillance for influenza-like illnesses (ILI). Serial blood samples from study participants were tested by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) for antibody seroconversion against human and swine influenza viruses (SIV), and antibody seroprevalence was compared to age-matched urban Iowa blood donors. RESULTS: During the first year, 15 of 88 SW had ILI and were sampled; all were culture-negative for influenza. During the second year, 11 of 76 SW had ILI and were sampled; one was culture-positive for a human seasonal H3N2 virus. Among 20 swine herd ILI outbreaks sampled, influenza A virus was detected by rRT-PCR from 17 with 11 trH1N1 and five trH3N2 virus isolates cultured. During both years, HI geometric mean titers were significantly higher among SW compared to blood donor controls for three SIV: classical swine Sw/WI/238/97 (H1N1), tr Sw/IN/9K035/99 (H1N2), and trSw/IA/H02NJ56371/02 (H1N1)] (P < 0·0001). CONCLUSIONS: SW had serologic evidence for infection with both swine and human influenza viruses and were exposed to diverse influenza virus strains circulating in pigs. Influenza virus surveillance among pigs and SW should be encouraged to better understand cross-species transmission and diversity of influenza viruses at the human-swine interface.