PhD or DrPH? How Program Reformation Can Create Expert Research-to-Policy Translators

PhD or DrPH? How Program Reformation Can Create Expert Research-to-Policy Translators

Sarah Boland, MPH

In graduate school, I’ve been taught that good research translates to good policies and good health. If you can only just gather enough evidence, surely those in power will make the choice that is best for our community. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has made clear the shortcomings of this belief. Despite the growing scientific evidence and death count, some policymakers remain resistant to mask and vaccine recommendations (1). A potential solution to this evidence and policy divide may lie in a less common but critical academic degree, the applied doctorate in public health (DrPH). However, DrPH programs across the U.S. prepare future public health professionals with applied skills, such as policy translation, to varying degrees and are less common than traditional research doctorate (PhD) programs (2,3). The key to improving research-to-policy translation is multifold. We must address curriculum inconsistencies to ensure that all DrPH graduates possess strong skills in policy, management, and communication, and we must simultaneously increase investment in and appreciation of DrPH programs.

To better equip this new generation of public health translators, I propose greater attention to DrPH curriculum and final project requirements so that each program is in alignment with accreditation requirements and practice-based skills.

Last year, researchers from San Jose State University Department of Public Health and Recreation interviewed DrPH Program Directors across the U.S. and found that program requirements and training vary significantly from school to school (3). Some programs are administered by departments while others are offered school-wide (3). DrPH program websites also present stark variations in course requirements and final project (dissertation) requirements. My university, for instance, trains DrPH students more like research scientists than policy specialists or communication specialists. Whereas, at other universities, the curriculum differs more clearly from a research-focused degree (PhD), with substantial training in leadership development, applied public health, and policy analysis. Only by coordinating the structure and experience of DrPH programs can we train this important segment of public health professionals to translate good research into good health.

Regarding curriculum, Program Directors and their Dean of Students must prepare students to communicate with diverse audiences and to navigate political systems. This includes mandatory classes in communication and policy development alongside hands-on experience with advocacy organizations and policymakers. DrPH programs need more applied final project options that go beyond a traditional dissertation. Top schools like Tulane University (4), Boston University (5), and Columbia (6) allow students to choose from a variety of final project formats that deviate from traditional research dissertations (such as writing a case study, developing a legislative brief, or designing their own public health program). For example, students can develop case studies that look at how an organization, city, or state has implemented a policy or program. Case studies are commonly used in business and policy settings to decide how a successful strategy can be replicated. Given that the final project ideally prepares DrPH students to communicate with leaders of diverse backgrounds, it does not make sense to restrict students to academic journal writing.

To properly equip DrPH students with the communication skills they will require to be successful research-to-policy translators, we need more instructors and faculty with applied backgrounds. A second study from San Jose State University, which combined quantitative assessment of DrPH handbooks and qualitative assessment of DrPH program directors, highlights the limited faculty support available to DrPH students (7). Interviewees mentioned mismatches between PhD faculty and DrPH students—the purpose of the DrPH degree is not clear to all faculty and lack an understanding of how to best prepare their students for non-academic careers (7). Part of the issue, according to Program Directors, is that university leadership does not prioritize hiring nontraditional faculty. Instead, professionals with applied backgrounds are brought on as adjunct or part-time faculty (7). In my own experience, faculty from governmental, nonprofit, and corporate sectors play a key role in public health training, as they bring outstanding skills and case examples to the classroom, drawing from their non-academic work experiences. Their presence is greatly needed in DrPH programs.

I call on accreditation institutions and leading programs to hold other universities accountable in providing an applied education as advertised on their webpages. Schools of public health are accredited by one common organization, the Council on Education for Public Health, which establishes accreditation requirements, yet each school has its own interpretations of these requirements. For example,, my school advertises the DrPH program as preparing students for “leadership, management, and advocacy,” yet there are no required courses in communications or policy. Instead, there are plenty of required courses in research methods and a traditional dissertation requirement. This seems misaligned with the fact that over half the required competencies, or skills developed, in DrPH programs are focused on leadership, management, and policies.

The public health community needs more professionals with an applied, versus solely research perspective, so I invite public health professionals to consider what a DrPH degree offers. The aforementioned study by San Jose State found that almost three-quarters of the DrPH program directors interviewed were eager to see the degree get the appreciation it deserves (3). Yet these critical translators are scarce with small programs scattered across the country. Though all the major schools of public health, such as Johns Hopkins and Harvard, have a DrPH program, these institutions represent less than a third of all public health institutions (7). The same is not true of more traditional research training programs like the PhD, where we see twice as many PhD programs as DrPH programs (2). With fewer programs and peers to look to, DrPH students and alumni have formed a national movement called the DrPH Coalition which amplifies DrPH voices and purpose (8).

This disconnect between the spirit of a DrPH and training realities is ultimately a disservice to our communities and their wellbeing. Research articles and presentations fall short in addressing health issues without the implementation and application pieces. We need to invest in training public health leaders with both research and policy knowledge. By increasing attention to DrPH programs and by creating more academic consistency in training, we increase the likelihood that data will reach the people and places that need it most; thus, increasing the chance that good research translates to good health.