Preliminary Results from a Mixed-Method Evaluation of a Dual Master of Social Work – Master of Public Health (MSW MPH) Degree Program

Background and Purpose.  Public health social work is a growing profession, and along with it is a growing interest in dual degree (MSW MPH) educational programs.  Approximately 37 dual degree programs currently operate in the US.  Limited literature exists, however, on student, graduate, and field instructor perceptions of MSW MPH programs.  A southern university recently implemented an MSW MPH program including 3 key features:  (1) an “integrated” program of study combining social work and public health coursework throughout the program, (2) an “integrated” field practicum that meets requirements for both programs, and (3) a shorter, more intense, 7 consecutive semester (91-credit) program of study.  Our objective was to determine the value of these 3 features from the perspectives of current students, recent graduates, and field instructors.

Methods.  A mixed-method evaluation was conducted including a focus group and on-line surveys.  A focus group with students mid-way through the program was audio-recorded and transcribed; recent graduates and their field instructors were invited to participate in an on-line survey.  Focusing on the 3 key features, descriptive analysis was conducted.  Transcripts and written survey comments were reviewed to identify themes relating to the key features, and all means were based on a 5-point Likert scale.  The project was reviewed by the university’s Institutional Review Board.

Results.  Eight students, 5 graduates, and 6 field instructors were invited to participate.  Eight students (100%) participated in the focus group; 5 (100%) graduates and 5 field instructors (83.3%) completed the on-line surveys.  Program graduates rated integrated coursework as important (M=4.8, SD=0.5), and expressed satisfaction with course sequencing (M=4.4, SD=0.6).  Focus group and written comments supported these findings, however, students expressed interest in further integrating MSW MPH coursework.  Graduates also felt the integrated field practicum was relevant to both fields (M=4.4, SD=0.6).  Field instructors agreed that students demonstrated social work (M=4.8, SD=0.5) and public health (M=4.6, SD =0.1) competencies in the integrated placement.  Qualitative comments included some confusion regarding expectations, and challenges in initially identifying placement sites.  The shorter program of study impacted students’ decisions to pursue the dual degree (M=4.8, SD=0.5).  Qualitative comments agreed with this finding, except for students who received tuition funding.  All graduates expressed strong satisfaction with pursuing MSW MPH degrees (M=5, SD=0).

Conclusions and Implications.  Preliminary findings suggest these features are valuable to MSW MPH students, despite some challenges in the program.  While the program works to address these challenges, findings also provide suggestions for the future of this and other MSW MPH programs.  First, strong and ongoing communication among field coordinators, faculty, and academic advisors in the 2 programs is imperative.  Second, an integrative course can assist students in developing a dual MSW MPH professional identity.  Third, ongoing evaluation is necessary to ensure the program continues to meet students’ learning needs.  Limitations of this preliminary evaluation are a very small sample size and limited ability to generalize findings across programs.  This evaluation still provides important insight to others who are planning or implementing an MSW MPH program.