Training for Interdisciplinary Research in Population Health Science



Training programs that produce scientists with the competencies needed for population health science are in short supply. Some related programs have emerged within schools of public health, public policy, health professional schools, and liberal arts programs, but most are limited in cross-disciplinary range, health outcomes considered, and attention to cross-disciplinary skills and skills for knowledge translation and exchange. The one postdoctoral program explicitly targeted to produce population health scientists closed in 2016. At the same time, complex global health challenges and soaring health care costs, persistent health disparities, and lagging health indicators for the U.S. have triggered a rapidly increasing demand for population health science and the solutions it can offer for improving population health. The recommendations and model training program advanced by a distinguished group of scientists and practitioners provide a foundation for moving forward. This vision provides a path for ensuring that training in cross-disciplinary population health science not only remains available, but also benefits from lessons learned in earlier programs and becomes increasingly responsive to the needs of knowledge users. Through building creative partnerships around this vision, we can ensure a robust future pipeline of leaders with the scientific and translational skills to improve the health of our population.


Population Health Training Evaluation Competencies Recommendations Interdisciplinary 


  1. Bachrach CA, Robert S, Thomas Y. Training in interdisciplinary population health science: current successes and future needs. Washington DC: Institute of Medicine Roundtable on Population Health Improvement; 2015.
  2. Bachrach C, Moody J, Sheble L, et al. Effects of an interdisciplinary postdoctoral program on interdisciplinary science. In: Science of Team Science (SciTS) 2017 Conference. Clearwater Beach, FL; 2017.
  3. Bland CJ, Taylor AL, Shollen SL, Weber-Main AM, Mulcahy PA. Faculty success through mentoring. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education; 2009.Google Scholar
  4. Brint SG, Turk-Bicakci L, Proctor K, Murphy SP. Expanding the social frame of knowledge: interdisciplinary, degree-granting fields in American colleges and universities, 1975–2000. Rev High Educ. 2009;32(2):155–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Canadian Academy of Health Sciences. The benefits and barriers to interdisciplinary research in the health sciences in Canada: framework document. 2005.Google Scholar
  6. Chang MJ, Cerna O, Han J, Saenz V. The contradictory roles of institutional status in retaining underrepresented minorities in biomedical and behavioral science majors. Rev High Educ. 2008;31(4):433–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. Issues in linkage and exchange between researchers and decision makers. 1999. Accessed 29 Mar 2015.
  8. Crisp G, Nora A, Taggart A. Student characteristics, pre-college, college, and environmental factors as predictors of majoring in and earning a STEM degree: an analysis of students attending a Hispanic serving institution. Am Educ Res J. 2009;46(4):924–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Darity WA, Sharpe RV, Swinton OH. The state of blacks in higher education. 2009. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
  10. Grimshaw JM, Eccles MP, Lavis JN, Hill SJ, Squires JE. Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci. 2012;7:50. Scholar
  11. Guise JM, Geller S, Regensteiner JG, Raymond N, Nagel J, Building Interdisciplinary Research Careers in Women’s Health Program Leadership. Team mentoring for interdisciplinary team science: lessons from K12 scholars and directors. Acad Med. 2017;92(2):214–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kindig D. Is population medicine population health? Improving population health: policy, practice, research. 2012. Accessed 14 Nov 2013.
  13. Kindig DA, Stoddart G. What is population health? Am J Public Health. 2003;93:380–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lavis JN, Robertson D, Woodside JM, McLeod CB, Abelson J. How can research organizations more effectively transfer research knowledge to decision makers? Milbank Q. 2003;81:221–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lomas J. The in-between world of knowledge brokering. BMJ. 2007;334:129–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mishra L, Banerjee AT, MacLennan ME, Gorczynski PF, Zinszer KA. Wanted: interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and knowledge translation and exchange training for students of public health. Can J Public Health. 2011;102(6):424–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nash JM. Transdisciplinary training: key components and prerequisites for success. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35:S133–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. NRC, IOM. U.S. health in international perspective: shorter lives, poorer health. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2013.Google Scholar
  19. National Science Foundation. Survey of doctorate recipients, 2013. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics; 2014.. Scholar
  20. Pfund C, House SC, Asquith P, Fleming MF, Buhr KA, Burnham EL, Eichenberger Gilmore JM, Huskins WC, McGee R, Schurr K, Shapiro ED, Spencer KC, Sorkness CA. Training mentors of clinical and translational research scholars: a randomized controlled trial. Acad Med. 2014;89(5):774–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Realmuto L, Daniel S, Weiss L, Moody J, Sheble L, Bachrach C. The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Health and Society Scholars: A structured evaluation. Report to the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, February 17. 2017.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maryland Population Research Center, University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  2. 2.School of Social Work, University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Department of Population Health ScienceUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  4. 4.Maryland Population Research Center, University of MarylandCollege ParkUSA
  5. 5.American Association of GeographersWashingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations