Doctor of Philosophy in Public Health
- Admissions
- Dissertation Requirements
- Course Requirements
- Faculty
- Milestones and Sample Program of Study
- Qualifying Exams & Advancement to Candidacy
All students will undergo a written examination at the end of their first year in the program to evaluate their competency in the core elements of health services research and implementation science. The exam will be developed from questions submitted by instructors of the required first year courses. Two members of the core competency exam committee will independently grade each exam without knowledge of the student’s identity. Both readers will agree on the assignment of a numerical grade for each exam. If two readers disagree about the competency of a student, a third member of the preliminary exam committee will evaluate the exam.
Scoring of the exams will be on a 100-point scale. Students with a grade of 80% or higher will receive a “pass.” Students with a grade of 75% or lower will receive “fail.” The pass/fail status of students with a grade of 75% to 79% will be determined on an individual basis. For these students, the preliminary exam committee will review the student’s record and the items missed on the exam and determine whether the student will: 1) be given a pass conditional on taking additional coursework in weak areas; 2) be asked to answer additional questions in weak areas to determine pass/fail status; 3) be given a fail and be instructed to retake the entire exam the next time it is offered. Failure to pass the exam by the end of the second year will result in termination from the program.
The qualifying 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 third year of study.
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 two-week period, students are required to write an National Institutes of Health (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., prevention programs) 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. The chair is also responsible for informing the student and the committee of the timelines for completion of these activities.
Factors to consider in the proposal: These guidelines are to be used by the students and committee members.
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.
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. The committee chair will address discrepancies in feedback provided by the committee. A written critique will be provided to the student within one 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.
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 one 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.
Core competencies that will be assessed on the written qualifying exam are as follows:
Graduate Studies guidelines for PhD qualifying examinations apply. A student who passes the PhD qualifying exam is eligible for apply for advancement to candidacy for the PhD degree. Title and abstract of the PhD qualifying exam presentation will be distributed to all Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health faculty and students, who are invited to attend the presentation portion of the examination. The subsequent question period is a closed session between the student and the committee. The student must file the appropriate paperwork with the Office of Graduate Studies and pay the candidacy fee to be promoted to candidacy for the PhD degree.
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 even core competencies in the proposal. The committee, having reached a unanimous decision, shall inform the student of its decision as “pass” (no conditions may be appended to this decision), “not pass” (the chair’s report should specify whether the student is required to retake all or part of the exam, list any additional requirements, and state the exact timeline for completion of requirements to achieve a “pass”) or “fail.” If a unanimous decision takes the form of not pass or fail, the chair of the qualify exam committee must include in its report a specific statement, agreed to by all members of the committee, explaining its decision and must inform the student of its decision. Having received a not pass or fail, the student may attempt the qualifying exam one additional time. After a second exam, a vote of not pass is unacceptable; only pass or fail is recognized. Only one retake of the qualifying exam is allowed. A student who fails the qualifying exam on the second attempt will be recommended to the Dean of Graduate Studies for disqualification from the PhD program.
Upon successfully completing the written qualifying examination, the student will begin the process of advancement of candidacy. This will involve the following steps:
The first step is to identify a dissertation topic. The doctoral dissertation is an essential part of the PhD program. A topic will be selected by the student, under the advice and guidance of a major professor (thesis adviser) and a dissertation committee chaired by the major professor. Students are encouraged to begin some research activity as early as possible during the third year of their graduate studies, and to use the community engaged health research practicum rotations to assess potential thesis advisers. The dissertation must contain an original contribution of quality that would be acceptable for publication in the health services research or health policy literature that extends the theory or methodology of health services research and/or implementation science or extends health services research and/or implementation science methods to solve a critical problem in applied disciplines. The usual process is to prepare a brief (one page) description of the proposed dissertation project and consult with Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health faculty to refine ideas.
The dissertation committee will consist of a minimum of four members, including the chair. At least one committee member must be a tenured or tenure track member of the Herbert Wertheim School of Public Health faculty. The committee may include additional non-voting members, including non-UC San Diego faculty, as deemed necessary by the student with the consent of the committee chair. The student should begin selecting the committee as soon as appropriate and check with the PhD program director to ensure that the committee composition complies with all rules.
After the dissertation committee has been nominated and approved by the UC San Diego Office of Graduate Studies, the student will meet with all committee members to discuss a dissertation topic. This requires a written document presented to the dissertation committee 10 days before a scheduled oral presentation. Feedback from the dissertation committee will be verbal at the meeting but may include written comments that need to be addressed. The student should then present the revised written proposal to the committee for approval (this can be done by email). If dissertation committee members have major problems with the written proposal, then they should share these with the chair and the planned proposal defense should be postponed.
The PhD dissertation should consist of original health services and/or implementation 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 dissertation consisting of three peer-reviewed manuscripts or a traditional dissertation. 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 defense. 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.
Once the dissertation proposal is completed, the student can schedule an oral defense of the proposed research. After selecting a date when all of committee members can be present, the student will circulate a written proposal at least two weeks prior to the oral defense 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 to 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/they 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.
Please email hsris@health.ucsd.edu for more information.