Perspectives From the Field

Ste-Rose, Suzie Pierre; Medina, Rosalinda; Leal, Monica; Garcia, Sarai; Mata, Holly

doi:10.1177/1524839915598501

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Taking time to understand potential barriers and providing residents with multiple opportunities to share their concerns and questions helped the partners overcome barriers once HACEP implemented their smoke-free policy in 2015 (HACEP, 2019), several years before HUD mandated smoke-free housing at all PHAs. Common barriers to policy implementation in PHAs have included equitable enforcement among property managers, length of time to address complaints, misconceptions that smoking is a protected "right," and limited access or availability of health care, tobacco cessation, and/or transportation resources (Minnesota Department of Health, 2016); these were also relevant in our community (Garcia et al, 2015;Mata et al, 2013;Pierre Ste-Rose et al, 2015) as reflected in resident input.…”

Section: > > Applying An Equity Lensmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Our Homes, Our Health: Strategies, Insight, and Resources to Support Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing

Ortega

Mata

2020

Health Promotion Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Tobacco use remains the single most preventable cause of disease, disability, and death in the United States. Almost 500,000 people die every year in the United States because of tobacco use; approximately one in eight of those deaths are attributable to secondhand smoke exposure. Significant disparities exist in terms of which groups bear the greatest burden of tobacco-related illness and mortality. Reducing tobacco use and exposure in groups most affected and most at risk is a national public health priority. Tobacco control advocates can promote health equity by prioritizing policies that are likely to decrease tobacco use and secondhand smoke exposure and improve access to tobacco cessation resources among populations most at risk for tobacco-related disparities, including people who live in subsidized multiunit housing. In this article, we share the context, process, key milestones, and lessons learned as stakeholders in El Paso, Texas explored and implemented smoke-free policy in subsidized public housing. Partners including the local housing authority, a nonprofit health foundation, the local public health department, and a local university facilitated a thoughtful and community-engaged process that acknowledged the right of residents to breathe clean air in their own homes, potential challenges residents who choose to smoke may face in adapting to smoke-free policy, and the need for support for those who choose to quit. We conclude with five key lessons learned and share resources for other communities, health professionals, and coalitions advocating for and supporting smoke-free housing policy in their communities.

show abstract

Section: > > Applying An Equity Lensmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Local health departments are key partners in all aspects of smoke-free housing advocacy, policy development, and implementation (Pierre Ste-Rose et al, 2015; Ruhe, 2019). If you are not already collaborating with your local county or city health department, start now!…”

Section: Lessons Learned: Resources and Implications For Practitionersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Our Homes, Our Health: Strategies, Insight, and Resources to Support Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing

Ortega

Mata

2020

Health Promotion Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Faculty Perceptions of Certifications in Health Education and Public Health: Implications for Professional Preparation

Blavos

Kerr

Hancher-Rauch

et al. 2020

Pedagogy in Health Promotion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Leaders in the fields of public health and health education/health promotion have been advocating for required credentialing for almost two decades. Recently, some have questioned whether increasing the number of certified professionals could help better differentiate properly trained health educators and public health professionals from others seeking to fill jobs in this professional area. The purpose of this article is to determine how the CHES/MCHES (Certified Health Education Specialist/Master Certified Health Education Specialist) and CPH (Certified in Public Health) credentials are regarded and promoted within the field of health education/health promotion. A cross-sectional survey research design was employed to determine program directors’ ( N = 90) views of credentialing issues. The health belief model and the transtheoretical model were used to determine perceived barriers, benefits, and self-efficacy with regard to promoting credentialing and readiness to require the CHES or CPH exam as part of the undergraduate curriculum. Ninety undergraduate programs completed the survey with the majority reporting that they do not require credentialing of faculty and students as part of their program of study. More than 70% of respondents, however, indicated that they thought credentialing in the fields of public health and health education/health promotion is an important issue. Most program directors indicated there is value in having students credentialed in health education or public health, yet few programs required the CHES or CPH exam as part of their curriculum or exit assessment. There are opportunities to use credentialing both in assessing program curriculum alignment with competencies and student mastery of said competencies.

show abstract

Perspectives From the Field

Cited by 2 publications

References 2 publications

Our Homes, Our Health: Strategies, Insight, and Resources to Support Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing

Our Homes, Our Health: Strategies, Insight, and Resources to Support Smoke-Free Multiunit Housing

Faculty Perceptions of Certifications in Health Education and Public Health: Implications for Professional Preparation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About