PHDA testimonials

I was looking for more training after MPH degree and came across PopDataBC’s free training webinars first, including GIS. I wanted more hands-on experience with data analysis to keep skills sharp while looking for job, so I applied and enrolled in the certificate program. After I began the program I was hired by a non-profit organization. My supervisors were also supportive of my continued studies which was great.

The GIS courses, PHDA 03 Population Health and GIS and PHDA 04 Spatial Epidemiology and Outbreak Detection provided the greatest benefits. They were excellent and introduced brand new skills for me. Prior to taking these courses I had some brief exposure to GIS within my Master’s program and through the free online PopData courses. The PHDA 03 and PHDA 04 course labs were very detailed and instructional, offering good balance between theory and practice. The courses generally had enough materials I could take away to continue working independently.

The Working with Administrative data PHDA 01 course was also very good. I got to work directly with administrative data early in the program and had a chance to become more familiar with strengths and limitations of data that is collected.

The PHDA 01 and PHDA 02 Epidemiological Statistics course also used SAS software which was very helpful to keep my skills sharp.

The PHDA 05 Longitudinal Analysis and Multilevel Modeling course allowed me to learn new skills in multilevel analyses.

The PHDA 06 Health Services Program Monitoring and Evaluation course was a bit different as it did not have an SRTL lab component. I had taken a very similar course within my Master’s degree but it wasn’t as applied as the PHDA 06 course which had a very practical project component. I found the instructor’s experience and feedback as well as the peer review work really enabled me to get a lot out of the course evaluation project I completed.

Two major takeaways from GIS courses: 1. Thinking spatially – mapping service needs and approaches based on geographical, spatial, and ecological features, including planning promotional efforts, targeting underserved areas; 2. Concrete tools such as ArcMap and especially free programs such as QGIS and R – use in workplace with little organizational investment

I’m also developing some ideas to do research on mental health service utilization in primary health care, potentially as part of my work.

The Secure Research Training Lab (SRTL) was the best. It was a bit complicated to start with for the first time, but I quickly got used to logging on and working in the environment. It’s well worth the effort to be able to do hands-on work with data, with peer and instructor support, and very good technical support (the few times I needed it).

Another strength of the program is being able to work with motivated and knowledgeable peers, learn from one another through well-moderated forum discussions and collaboration. Having dedicated and clear instructors who are patient with distance ed/online format was also a major advantage. Although you are only required to take four courses to achieve the certificate, I took all six courses available.  I felt all courses were very positive experiences for me, with top notch students and teachers who were very engaged and supportive.

Yes, I have actually recommended the PHDA program to a few people. The population health data analysis certificate program is an excellent professional development opportunity for new analysts, public health professionals, and anyone with an interest in building on epidemiology and statistics basics. You will learn practical and marketable analysis skills through working directly with a variety of data sources including administrative, survey, and environmental datasets. I would highly recommend that individuals entering the program have their own research questions in mind or be open to exploring. You also need to be prepared to dig deep and manage your time so you can do the required work. The many hours you will spend in the SRTL will be well worth the effort!

I learned of the Professional Specialization Certificate in Pop Health Data Analysis through a couple of sources, including the Canadian Evaluation Society and the BC Centre for Excellence in Women’s Health. One of the program postings included information about a CIHR funding opportunity for eligible students. After looking into the program details as well as the CIHR funding, I decided that it would be a good program for my professional development. I have a master’s in Public Health, and while taking the program, I worked for a non-profit social and health policy research organization where I could apply the skills I learned. One of the areas which I felt I could build on was the use of quantitative and administrative health data; this program was a perfect fit.

The courses which provided the greatest benefit were also the ones where I developed my skills the most. Population Health and GIS (PHDA 03) and Epidemiological Statistics (PHDA 02) were both challenging courses but very informative. Prior to taking the program, I had zero knowledge or experience with GIS. The PHDA 03 course involved a steep learning curve and required a significant amount of time investment. However, by the end of the course, I found I had a basic understanding of how public health and geography intersect and the benefits of GIS applications to public health issues. I also have a basic understanding and use of the GIS software program ArcGIS, which I found very valuable.  In addition, the PHDA 02 course was a great refresher for advanced statistics using sample data sets and applied examples.

At the time of starting the certificate program, I had intended to apply the skills and knowledge I learned to my work on an evaluation of a health program in BC. However, I have recently re-located to Nova Scotia with my family. While I am not currently using the skills and knowledge I gained, I expect that I will use them in my future work.

For a program that is delivered completely online, each course was organized and delivered very well. Most of the instructors were very quick with their replies to questions from students. All of the courses used practical examples to explain the material which I found really helpful for understanding how to apply the concepts in practice. In the Working with Administrative Data (PHDA 01) course, the instructors were extremely helpful, and I found the 15 minute phone meeting near the start of the course really nice. It was so much easier to go through several questions/concerns at once on the phone with person rather than through several online posts.

The PHDA 03 course involved a lot of work, but was structured in a way that it was easy to work through each module. The instructor provided step by step instructions for each module about how to use ArcGIS. By the end of the course, I went from someone with zero experience in GIS to someone who can understand how to interpret maps, basic tools in ArcGIS, and how to apply GIS to public health issues.

I went into the program with few expectations, and wasn’t sure how challenging the courses would be. I was initially surprised, but then thankful, that all of the courses were very comparable to graduate level studies. Even though each course required a bit more work and time commitment than I initially planned for, I felt each of them challenged me and taught me new concepts and skills that I can take away and use immediately in my work.

I would recommend this program to anyone working in the public health field and handling or interpreting data that is looking to update or acquire new skills. The students in my classes had various backgrounds, some with prior education or experience in public health, and some with limited education or experience but who are now working in the field. Even with the various student backgrounds, I felt the courses were appropriate for anyone at an introductory or intermediate level. The courses were of high quality and good value. For anyone planning to enroll in the program, while working full time, I would recommend taking only one course per semester. On average, I spent 10-12 hours each week on course readings, activities, online forums and assignments each week. The CIHR funding was also a significant factor in my decision to enroll and a great benefit to me. Without this funding I would have likely chosen a few of the courses I felt I needed and completed them over a longer period of time.

Overall I felt taking the courses and the certificate were worth it and I am confident that I will be able to use the skills and knowledge I learned in my work in the future.

Overall I enjoyed the courses I took (PHDA01, 02, 03 and 06). For the most part the instructors structured the course work and modules well.

I was looking at programs that were more data-oriented because my data skills were not quite high enough to get a good data-centric job. So, while I was finishing my MA, I figure PHDA would serve me well. Plus, the tuition was much lower because I was a student!

I found the Working with Administrative Data (PHDA 01) was a good course. It was less intensive and slower paced than the other PHDA courses. I took this course last because of my time frame for completing four courses. It would probably have been better to take this course earlier on.  The Population Health and GIS (PHDA 03) course was the most interesting course I took. The labs were easy to follow and I enjoyed the final project.  When I first enrolled in the program, I thought that PHDA 01 and PHDA 03 would be the most valuable courses for my skill development but in the end it was the Health Evaluation and Program Monitoring (PHDA 06) course that really helped me land a job after graduation. PHDA 06 was different from the other PHDA courses. It felt a bit like a satellite course in the program as it included a health evaluation project rather than data analysis lab work. I learned a lot from the peer review process we used.

I just started working after graduation, but so far, I have applied evaluation skills that I learned from the Health Evaluation and Program Monitoring (PHDA 06), including logic models, evaluation methodology, gantt charts and interview guides. My current role, as an Evaluation Lead, will also include some data analysis, so the Working with Administrative Data (PHDA 01) and Epidemiological Statistics (PHDA 02) courses will be helpful for that too.

I think the BC-specific focus is the main strength. I came out understanding more about the data available to help with BC-specific health policy. Perhaps, this doesn’t help attracting students outside of BC, but is great for our province’s capacity for good health decision making.

I have recommended this program to others. However, I also warned them that it was a lot of work – especially Epidemiological Statistics (PHDA 02). I think my estimated hours per week for this course were at least 15.  I also found the group work in PHDA 02 more time consuming than the other PHDA courses.  The work in the Secure Research Training Lab (SRTL) can also increase the amount of time you need to spend on the courses depending on group work or your knowledge of the subject matter.

My MSc supervisor recommended them based on the learning goals I had for my Master’s degree. UBC doesn’t offer anything like it, so we needed to look for partner institutions.

I completed the PHDA 03 Population Health and GIS and PHDA 04 Spatial Epidemiology and Outbreak Detection courses. By taking these courses, I developed an understanding of how to overlay multiple sources of data onto a geographic region (from city, to country, to continent). I developed an understanding of questions to consider in how I represent this information to the audience, so that bias in how it is represented is minimized. I developed an understanding of not only how descriptive statistics can be geographically interpreted, but also how inferential statistics can be geographically interpreted. It taught me how to begin thinking spatially in-terms of patterns of health outcomes – neighbourhood make up, neighbourhood location, infrastructure, environmental concerns, etc.

As part of my thesis.

The labs and the access to the SRTL were the biggest strengths of these courses. The SRTL had all the software, and all the data, and was really easy to access, and was well maintained and organized. The SRTL and labs made the hands-on learning REALLY effective and stress free. The labs were applied, and had very tangible learning outcomes associated with them. They were practical in purpose, and effective in implementation via the SRTL. The labs were very smooth and impactful.

Yes. I would say that future students should explore the labs as much as possible. To really forefront the learning that you get out of that. The lecture material and prep material is abstract, but if you can focus most of your time on the labs, you can experiment and learn a lot.