Health Behavior Track Handbook

Welcome to the Joint Doctoral Program (JDP) in Public Health (Health Behavior track), a collaborative effort of two academic institutions, San Diego State University (SDSU) and the UC San Diego (UCSD). This graduate training program enrolled its first students in 2004. The California Master Plan for Higher Education limits the power of the California State University system in the area of doctoral programs and this has led to numerous joint doctoral degrees between SDSU and UCSD. However, the JDP in public health is unique as it draws on faculty from both the School of Medicine and the Graduate School of Public Health with complementary areas of expertise.

Both Universities have Offices of Graduate Studies and, to graduate from this JDP program, you must meet the requirements of each University. It is your responsibility to check that you are meeting these requirements. Your faculty advisors, and this manual, can be very helpful in offering guidance. However, it is your degree and you are strongly advised to independently check all the rules at the following websites: UCSD Graduate Division and SDSU’s Division of Graduate Affairs.

As a student in the Health Behavior Track of the JDP in public health, you are required to complete residency requirements at both institutions. These include a full year of coursework at each University prior to advancement to candidacy and at least a full year at either University after advancement to candidacy. The Health Behavior Track has a Director from each University as listed below. These Directors are responsible for ensuring that you are meeting your program milestones in a timely manner. They are assisted by Graduate Coordinators within each University.

The goal of this program is to prepare graduates for careers in public health research, practice, and teaching. Upon completion of Health Behavior track coursework, students should be able to:

1. Evaluate and apply the major influential theories and models of health behavior change.
2. Analyze best practices for measuring health behaviors and related risk factors, and apply psychometric principles to develop new reliable and valid measurement instruments.
3. Use mixed research methods to formulate and evaluate health behavior research questions.
4. Design effective interventions to motivate a change in population health behavior.
5. Design studies that examine the effectiveness of theoretically based interventions in health behavior.
6. Evaluate the effectiveness of interventions in promoting healthy behavior.
7. Create research proposals that would be competitive at the National Institutes of Health and comparable funding organizations.

The course of study should take into consideration: (1) required courses; (2) required practical experience; (3) courses that would assist in passing the written qualifying examination and the formal defense of a dissertation; and (4) courses that provide expertise in public health research principles.

Students who do not have an M.P.H. or M.A. in health-related behavioral science are required to take Epidemiology and other public health related courses at the discretion of the co-directors.

Students who have earned a Masters Degree or have completed equivalent coursework will complete the first year of core coursework at SDSU and the second year of coursework at UCSD. Students must complete a one-year residency requirement (specified as completed course credits) at each institution. Additional coursework may be taken at either campus during the first two years. In the third year, students will be in residence at the campus that provides the faculty expertise for completing the dissertation. Please note: There is an additional UCSD residency requirement: students must complete at least 3 academic quarters after advancement to candidacy.

This is described in greater detail in the later section entitled Dissertation Defense and Submission.

For students who have earned an MPH in Health Promotion/Health Behavior or an MA in a health-related behavioral or social science, the PhD program requires a minimum of one (1) year of coursework at SDSU and one (1) year at UCSD. At SDSU, which operates on a semester schedule, students must complete at least 24 units to fulfill the residency requirement. UCSD, which follows a quarter system, requires a minimum of 36 units, equivalent to one year of study. Throughout the program, students are also required to maintain concurrent enrollment at both institutions. The Graduate Coordinators will provide guidance and detailed instructions to ensure proper enrollment and compliance with requirements at each university.

Required Units – Year 1, SDSU — minimum 12 units/semester

*PH 627: If you have already taken an equivalent course, please contact Dr. Corliss to determine an appropriate alternative
*PH 629: It is recommended to SAS while you are also taking PH 627 - the two course compliment one another. If you prefer R, you may take PH 700A in the Fall or Spring.
**PH 820A: If you have completed an advanced Epidemiology course before, it is recommended for you to take this course. If not, PH 623 (offered in Spring) is better suited for students who have had no or basic epidemiology coursework.

Electives: Please discuss potential electives with your advisor/track director. This helps to ensure you take courses better aligned with your focus in the program.
*Only one (1) Computer Laboratory course is required for the year. If you took PH 629 or PH 700A in the Fall semester, this is optional.

Required Core Units – Year 2, UCSD

Note: Units below are presented as semester units for SDSU and quarter units for UCSD.

UCSD quarter units x 2/3 = SDSU semester units.

* Paperwork to create this new course is in process.

In addition to the core courses, students will achieve their course requirements by completing electives available at each campus. Electives will generally be agreed upon with the Advisory Committee. The choice of electives should be included in the yearly plan (if done) and performance will be assessed by the Advisory Committee on the progress report.

Suggested Elective Courses – Year 1, SDSU

Suggested Elective Courses – Year 2, UCSD

1 unit per semester x 2 semesters ** Equivalent to 1-quarter units x 3 quarters

OPTIONAL TEACHING IN HEALTH BEHAVIOR (6 units)

While a teaching requirement is not mandatory in the program, students are strongly encouraged to seek such an experience if they intend to pursue careers in academia. Students interested in such an experience should contact the SDSU coordinator for possible Teaching Assistant positions or guest lecture opportunities in the Graduate School of Public Health.

The faculty advisor, assigned upon entry into the program, will assist the student in organizing an Advisory Committee during the first year of study. The committee will be comprised of three members: the student’s primary faculty advisor (committee chair) and two other faculty members approved by the advisor. At least one member of the committee must be from SDSU and one from UCSD. The Advisory Committee works with the student to shape the educational experience (including choice of electives) and also monitor program progress regularly to ensure that advancement to candidacy proceeds in a timely manner. The chair is also available to assist the student with problems affecting relationships with faculty, colleagues or the department as a whole. The student is responsible for seeking meetings, as needed, with his/her advisory chair. Once the student has advanced to candidacy, the Dissertation Committee assumes the above roles. Please note that no Joint Doctoral form is needed to organize your Advisory Committee. Do, however, contact both SDSU and UCSD coordinators with the names of your committee members. The Advisory Committee typically (but not always) will form the basis of the larger Dissertation Committee.

In the 2nd year of the program, students will take the Practicum in Health Behavior in all three quarters.  Students will spend 100 hours over the course of the year engaged in learning about and observing health behavior interventions. The first quarter, under the supervision of the practicum faculty, the student will focus on health behavior interventions and R01 grant writing. The second quarter will involve the mentor providing the student with a data base and the student proposing research questions and undertaking analyses. The third quarter will be focused on writing and presentation skills.

For the health behavior intervention experience requirement, students will be expected to complete many of the following: have met and discussed the project with the PI; attended intervention meetings; learned how to implement the intervention; participated in or observed data collection; and met with project managers, data managers, counselors, other notables in the intervention.

The student will study the theory related to the intervention, “live the intervention,” and learn about its obstacles and procedures. As a general guide for evaluation, primary relevant items to address are described below.

1. Summary of the intervention, its goals, and protocol.
2. How one can apply the theory learned to the intervention? Or, how does the intervention demonstrates the theory?
3. Activities observed and/or participated in. Describe any planning, decision making, problem solving, field sampling participated in.
4. Meetings attended and any input the student provided.
5. Summary of interviews with intervention investigators/staff.
6. Any additional experience the student has been exposed to.
7. Any obstacles encountered and possible solutions.
8. Any improvements, additions or future development in the intervention that can be suggested.
9. Describe important aspects that future students should be involved in/exposed to in the intervention.

These criteria can also include specific requirements or questions raised by the PI of the intervention. The open-ended questions allow elaborate answers and descriptions and should be analytical in nature to reflect a PhD candidate level and reflect the practical experience of the student.

Please refer to the syllabus of the practicum for complete details. Prior to the quarter starting, students need to email their choice for the faculty member they would like to complete the intervention and analysis with.

The goal of this policy is to encourage students to complete their doctorates and to stimulate faculty to guide students so they can advance to candidacy and complete dissertations of high quality in a timely manner. Students will receive a letter from the Graduate Education and Postdoctoral Affairs (GEPA) explaining their time limits.  This policyu apples to all students in the Doctoral programs.

Each docotral program has three (3) time limits:

• Pre-candidacy Time Limit (PCTL) - Maximum registered time in which a student must advance to doctoral candidacy.

• Support Time Limit (SUTL) - Maximum time during which a doctoral student is eligible for financial support.

• Total Registration Time Limit (TRTL) - Maximum registered time in which a student must complete all doctoral requirements.

Please note: The Support Time Limit is not the same as the tuition waiver policy. This time limit refers to the maximum time a student is able to receive financial support through UCSD (i.e. GSR, TA, fellowship, etc.)

The qualifying (qual) exam has two components: one is a grant proposal at the end of the second year of coursework, and the second is the oral defense of the dissertation proposal. Both components can be completed by the student at any time after completion of the required coursework. However, it is expected that the quals would be completed no earlier than the end of the second year of study.

Part I: Written

Process and Content

1. The goal of the written qual exam is to have the student produce an original proposal in response to an RFA/PA. Specifically, over a 2-week period, students are required to write an NIH-style proposal (12 pages single-spaced in addition to a specific aims page). The student will pick three to five NIH PAs or RFAs on a topic that is of interest to the student. The PAs or RFAs must propose a behavioral intervention. The chair and the committee will select one of the three announcements (with modification of the topic as deemed appropriate by the committee). The scope of the proposal topic could be within the R21 or R01 mechanism.

   It is important that the topic and approach not overlap completely with the area of training/expertise of the student. The student may request the general research area (e.g., physical activity) of the qualifying exam, but the committee will determine the parameters of the research approach. For example, the student may be knowledgeable about promoting physical activity in a group using a specific approach (e.g., tailored print). The committee may choose the topic of physical activity but require the student to propose a different approach to promote physical activity.

   It is the responsibility of the chair to send the following documents to the student at the start of his/her exam: 1) Selected RFA/PA, 2) sample excel budget sheet, and 3) budget planning sheet. The chair will also send the NIH review criteria sheet to the rest of the committee and a core competencies sheet (attached sheet). The chair is also responsible for informing the student and the committee of the timelines for completion of these activities.

2. Factors to consider in the proposal: These guidelines are to be used by the students and committee members.

   1. There should be multiple aims.
   2. The background literature and rationale, while important, are not the focal point of this exam (limit to 3 pages).
   3. The following sections are required: aims, significance, innovation, approach.
   4. A preliminary data section is not required.
   5. Students are strongly encouraged to include an overall study design figure.
   6. Students should be clear on the elements of the proposed health behavior change model on which they plan to intervene.
   7. Students should describe the target population, the proposed setting, and if applicable (organization, community), how the population will be recruited.
   8. A justification for the use of measures (e.g., validity, reliability) to address the aims should be included. The student is strongly encouraged to use the best possible “state of the science”       measures appropriate to address the aims.
   9. A detailed data analyses section is required that outlines how each of the aims will be addressed.
   10. The analyses section should include a power calculation (although statistical consultation is allowed, a statistician cannot write or edit this section).
   11. A human subjects section (and DSMB) should be included.
   12. A study timeline diagram and description should be included.
   13. A detailed budget and budget justification should be included (use sample excel sheet).
   14. References should be included (formatted using AMA or APA manual style).

3. The proposal must be an original document that is written independently without the assistance of fellow students, consultants, editors, other researchers or project managers. Note that the student is not allowed to use text from previous grants that he/she was involved in or any text that was written or prepared by someone else.

4. This proposal will be reviewed by the three members of the Advisory Committee as if it were a formal NIH peer review, paying particular attention to the required core competencies (see attached scoring sheet). The committee chair will address discrepancies in feedback provided by the committee. A written critique will be provided to the student within 1 month of the completion of the proposal. The committee members may choose to give feedback in track changes, in addition to the written NIH critique form.

   Written Qualifying Exam Scoring Sheet 

5. The student will respond to the reviewers’ critique in a written, point-by-point NIH-style (Introduction to Revised Application), not to exceed three pages. The student will also revise the proposal (bolding the text that involves the changes). The student will submit both documents to the full committee no later than 1 month after the student receives the initial review. If necessary, the student may meet with a member of the committee to help clarify a point/critique.

6. The student will pass the written qualifying exam if the Advisory Committee agrees that the student has adequately responded to the critiques and met the 7 core competencies (see below) in the proposal. In the event the student does not pass, the student may appeal to the JDP Health Behavior Steering Committee who will then determine the outcome.

   Core Competencies that will be assessed on the written qualifying exam are as follows:

   1. Ability to critically review research in an area
   2. Skill/knowledge of research design
   3. Knowledge of appropriate measurement techniques, including quantitative and qualitative
   4. Knowledge of appropriate statistical analysis techniques
   5. Ability to ground the proposal in an appropriate theory
   6. Ability to design an appropriate health behavior intervention
   7. Knowledge of appropriate research ethics

 Sample Time Line –Start July 5th

Part II: Advancement to Candidacy - Oral Proposal Defense

Upon successfully completing the written qualifying examination, the student will begin the process of Advancement of Candidacy. This will involve the following steps:

• Identifying a dissertation topic area.
• Meeting with the Advisory Committee to determine the additional members of the Dissertation Committee; it is expected that the chair of the Advisory Committee will be either the chair or a member of the Dissertation Committee.
• Writing the dissertation proposal with guidance and oversight from the chair of the committee.
• Orally defending the dissertation proposal in front of the Dissertation Committee (i.e., the oral qualifying exam).

Step 1: Identifying a Dissertation Topic Area

The first step is to identify a dissertation topic. The usual process is to prepare a brief (one page) description of the proposed dissertation project and consult with JDP faculty to refine ideas.

Step 2: Identify a Dissertation Committee

The table on the Doctoral Committee Membership Rules shows the titles of faculty that UCSD will allow to be involved in the Dissertation Committee. If a particular faculty is not currently on the Approved JDP Faculty List, a student (and their Advisor) should work with their respective Graduate Coorindator to seek the formal approval. The appendix lists faculty members from UCSD and SDSU who are currently eligible to serve on JDP – Health Behavior dissertations as internal members. The student should begin selecting the committee as soon as appropriate and check with the Co-Directors of the Health Behavior concentration to ensure that the committee composition complies with all rules.

After identifying the possible committee, the student must complete JDP Committee Composition Form (JDP-2) to formalize the nomination of the Dissertation Committee. After the Dissertation Committee has been nominated and approved by the graduate deans of both universities, the student will meet with all committee members to discuss a dissertation topic.

Step 3: Write the Dissertation Proposal

The PhD dissertation should consist of original health behavior science research that adds significantly to the existing state of knowledge. The project should include original data collection, although the Dissertation Committee may waive this requirement provided that the student has had significant experience with original data collection through other projects.

At the discretion of the Dissertation Committee, each student has the option of submitting a traditional dissertation or a dissertation consisting of three peer-reviewed manuscripts. Students should present their choice of method as part of the presentation of the dissertation proposal. If the committee agrees to this peer-reviewed manuscript option, students must also present a discussion of each of the proposed manuscripts as part of the oral exam. Any changes in papers that have been successfully defended (even those requested by peer-reviewers) must be approved by the chair of the committee.  If it is a major change, including a change in paper topic, the full committee needs to approve it.

For both options, all students must conduct a formal defense of the completed dissertation.

Option 1: The traditional dissertation typically includes the following sections or chapters: introduction, literature review, methods, results, and discussion. Appropriate appendices, i.e. data collection instruments and informed consent forms, should be included.

Option 2: The alternative dissertation includes: 3 or more published or submitted empirical manuscripts accompanied by a short introduction and discussion as well as a comprehensive set of appendices. All manuscripts should relate to the central theme of the dissertation. The role of the Dissertation Committee is to review these manuscripts for evidence that the research in the dissertation proposal had been satisfactorily completed. The student must be first author on these manuscripts and co-authorship will be subject to the rules now standard in the field. It could be expected that Dissertation Committee members may provide reviewer comments to the manuscript if they are concerned that the manuscript is not of publishable quality. In such cases, the student, the committee chair, and the concerned committee member will meet to discuss changes that need to be made to the manuscript to improve its chances of publication. This will not occur if the manuscript has been accepted for publication in a reputable journal in the health behavior area. Appropriate appendices are data collection instruments, informed consent forms, etc.

If choosing Option 2, prior to scheduling the final defense, students need to send a letter to the Dean of Graduate Studies at UCSD which outlines the proposed papers and provides evidence of co-authors permission to submit the manuscript/paper as evidence of independent work for the purposes of a dissertation.

Step 4: Orally Defend the Dissertation Proposal (Successful defense leads to advancement to candidacy) (complete JDP Form 3)

Once the dissertation proposal is completed, the student can schedule an oral defense of the proposed research. After selecting a date when all of your committee members can be present, make sure to circulate your written proposal at least two (2) weeks prior to the oral exam date. At the oral defense, the student will present the dissertation proposal and answer questions from committee members. Typically, a PowerPoint presentation is prepared to highlight key elements of the proposed research. The presentation should not last longer than 30-45 minutes to allow sufficient time for questions. Successful completion of the proposal defense will allow advancement to candidacy. If the committee feels that the student is not adequately prepared to conduct the proposed project, he/she will be advised of committee concerns and may be asked to re-defend the proposal at a later time. Unanimous agreement among Dissertation Committee members is required for passing.

Students should take the JDP Form 3 “Report of the Qualifying Exam and Advancement to Candidacy” (see Forms) to the proposal defense. All committee members will sign this form indicating that the student has passed this milestone. When this form has been completed and processed, the doctoral student is considered a doctoral candidate.