benefits of MPH?

[collegechic2005]

---

Members do not see this ad.

I was looking at the different combined MD programs, and the MD-MPH program interests me... BUT you have to do an extra year of school. Does anyone know why a MPH is beneficial and if it is worth the extra year/money/suffering... etc.

Thanks!

 

[constructor]

it's beneficial because it fools many medical schools into thinking you know something useful when in fact you don't... it's a good deal.

 

[Athomeonarock]

If you are really interested in working in public health.( Say for a city or the state or some other large organisation) Then it is a worthwhile degree. It is also an OK degree to bump up your GPA in your year off after undergrad. But for most people who want to be physicians, it is unnessary to say the least

 

[acl3623]

from my limited knowledge, it seems that an MPH would only come in handy if you want to be an administrator somewhere down the line...of a hospital, clinic, blah, blah. or of course if youre going to put it to use for organizations that deal with community health and such...but i think most people that get MD/DO+MPH will use it to move up the administration ladder down the line...

 

[sdnstud]

Some schools allow students to obtain both a MD and a MPH degree in 4 years. For example, Mt. Sinai, NYMC, UCSF, UIC, etc.

MD/MPHs are in great demand right now. MPHs come in different flavors (Epid, toxicology, environmental sci, adminstrat, etc). I am interested in pursuing a MPH in Epid/toxicology. I believe public health is a practical field that allows us to understand diseases, not only as they are presented in patients, but also in terms of their origin, nature, course of infection, and most importantly, prevention. Medicine solves the problem once it is manifested. But knowledge in public health prevent the problem from happening in the first place.

 

[Zweihander]

I think an MPH is an excellent degree to have for anyone, no matter what it is you'll be going into. My masters coursework has completely transformed the way I look at healthcare and at my own future in it, and has given me a persepective on my career which I never could have gained simply by attending medical school. The MPH is an overview of the healthcare industry which, depending on your focus of study, can give you insights into the way healthcare as an industry functions both at home and abroad. It is particularly useful for administrative work, but it also can prepare you to become involved in public policy and epidemiological initiatives. Also, because public health is about understanding population patterns in medicine and because the financial crisis in healthcare is convincing policy makers that preventive medicine is an important way to prevent high crisis-care costs, the MPH as a degree has been gaining importance. For example, there are certain positions which you cannot get without a dual MD/MPH, such as (in certain places) health commissioner or residency program director.

All told, I would say that this degree is an excellent adjunct to a medical education, and even if one never "uses" it professionally I still think that it will impart a grasp of the healthcare field which it is important for all of us to have, given the dynamic and at times even unstable nature of the field we all are attempting to go in to.


Hope this helps.


peace

 

[dpill]

I think an MPH is an excellent degree to have for anyone, no matter what it is you'll be going into. My masters coursework has completely transformed the way I look at healthcare and at my own future in it, and has given me a persepective on my career which I never could have gained simply by attending medical school. The MPH is an overview of the healthcare industry which, depending on your focus of study, can give you insights into the way healthcare as an industry functions both at home and abroad. It is particularly useful for administrative work, but it also can prepare you to become involved in public policy and epidemiological initiatives. Also, because public health is about understanding population patterns in medicine and because the financial crisis in healthcare is convincing policy makers that preventive medicine is an important way to prevent high crisis-care costs, the MPH as a degree has been gaining importance. For example, there are certain positions which you cannot get without a dual MD/MPH, such as (in certain places) health commissioner or residency program director.

All told, I would say that this degree is an excellent adjunct to a medical education, and even if one never "uses" it professionally I still think that it will impart a grasp of the healthcare field which it is important for all of us to have, given the dynamic and at times even unstable nature of the field we all are attempting to go in to.


Hope this helps.


peace

Agreed! My MPH has broadened my entire outlook on medicine and I think this broader perspective will be beneficial no matter what I choose as my specialty. I just spent a month studying infectious disease in Bombay, India. In my opinion Public Health will always have an important place in medicine, especially given the global increase in multi-drug resistance organisms and increasing issues with access to care.

 

[caseofyou]

Plus, doc's with mphs are clearly the coolest and most oriented toward social justice...

 

[boardchic]

I think an MPH can be very valuable in clinical research, community health initiatives, and public policy. However, with regards to dual degree programs, I have been advised by multiple MD/MPH docs who I greatly respect, that it can be advantageous to wait and get your MPH after your MD, instead of simultaneously because: 1) you'll be more focused as far as what you're interested in and what you want to write your masters thesis on; 2) getting an MD is enough time and coursework on its own - if you want to pursue an MPH for the actual content and not just the letters, you may want to wait until you have time to focus on the coursework (and not overload yourself during med school); 3) most of the time, you have to pay to get an MPH during med school, whereas there's lots of funding and fellowships for independent MPH degrees.
That said, I'm considering MD/MPH dual degree programs (mainly 5 year programs...), but you usually don't even have to apply for the MPH part until your first or second year.

 

[BaLeavaMD]

it's beneficial because it fools many medical schools into thinking you know something useful when in fact you don't... it's a good deal.

DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AN MPH? Coming from someone who DOES...we have LOTS of knowledge and understanding of all factors that contribute to health. We have an understanding of how to prevent disease rather than just cure it.

 

[Wilbury]

I think an MPH can be very valuable in clinical research, community health initiatives, and public policy. However, with regards to dual degree programs, I have been advised by multiple MD/MPH docs who I greatly respect, that it can be advantageous to wait and get your MPH after your MD, instead of simultaneously because: 1) you'll be more focused as far as what you're interested in and what you want to write your masters thesis on; 2) getting an MD is enough time and coursework on its own - if you want to pursue an MPH for the actual content and not just the letters, you may want to wait until you have time to focus on the coursework (and not overload yourself during med school); 3) most of the time, you have to pay to get an MPH during med school, whereas there's lots of funding and fellowships for independent MPH degrees.
That said, I'm considering MD/MPH dual degree programs (mainly 5 year programs...), but you usually don't even have to apply for the MPH part until your first or second year.

I was given the same advise about possibly waiting to do the MPH until after the MD by a med student at Tulane who already had her MPH. Her reasoning was that often the combined degree cuts down on both units and field experience, which is the more challenging aspect of public health. That being said, if you just want the letters to help you get grants and administrative positions, then go for the dual degree.

 

[adamj61]

Ok, I have a botany/ecology/poli sci prof that smashes docs very hard, especially in arena of public health. He claims that docs tend to know way too much and cannot tell good narratives, and they are also not scientists because they do not collect data etc. He is right on, especially when he uses the example of public health with respect to the plague. It wasnt quarantine or knowing all of the answers that slowed the plague, it was public health...speading people out. The plague kept comming back in a delayed negative feedback loop...and the only reason it kept getting smaller was because of public health. It has also been public health (ie move the sewer out of the well) that has curbed more disease than we can traditionally treat. When 2nd world countries (Russia) with antibiotics and no control produce a disease that could be resistant tuberculosis combined with an HIV or similar features, we need to be able to prevent and solve this problem. Engineering inefficiency into the system is key...for example:

Which city is bigger, San Diego or San Antonio? Half of americans get this question wrong...where as forgeiners get it right 100 percent of the time. Why? Because they don't know that san antonio exists...simply knowing makes you interpret the information...and then sometimes make the wrong choice. We need to learn to manage the system as a whole Think about democracy, it is so inefficient that the slack in the system provides a stable structure. Churchill once said it was a horrible form of government, but better than all of the rest.

 

[Zweihander]

I think an MPH can be very valuable in clinical research, community health initiatives, and public policy. However, with regards to dual degree programs, I have been advised by multiple MD/MPH docs who I greatly respect, that it can be advantageous to wait and get your MPH after your MD, instead of simultaneously because: 1) you'll be more focused as far as what you're interested in and what you want to write your masters thesis on; 2) getting an MD is enough time and coursework on its own - if you want to pursue an MPH for the actual content and not just the letters, you may want to wait until you have time to focus on the coursework (and not overload yourself during med school); 3) most of the time, you have to pay to get an MPH during med school, whereas there's lots of funding and fellowships for independent MPH degrees.
That said, I'm considering MD/MPH dual degree programs (mainly 5 year programs...), but you usually don't even have to apply for the MPH part until your first or second year.

I agree! The dual degree program I am in (at NYMC) is good in that way because it is unabridged. I am taking four years to do it, and my program is no different from that of any of my classmates who aren't doing an MD.

 

[Sigma]

I was looking at the different combined MD programs, and the MD-MPH program interests me... BUT you have to do an extra year of school. Does anyone know why a MPH is beneficial and if it is worth the extra year/money/suffering... etc.

Thanks!

Well, I guess I'm going to be the one dissenter in the MPH crowd. I have an MS in biostats from a School of Public Health. (A very well respected SPH, by the way.) In biostats, you have the option to pursue an MS or an MPH. I went in thinking the same thing I've seen most of the people responding to you are thinking. You know, it will give you a "better understanding" of the health care crisis. It will allow you to understand "cost effectiveness". It will help you with clinical research.

After looking around for a couple of months, I went with the MS. I wasn't impressed with the substance of the classes in other departments. Everything just looked really fluffy. And to be honest, most of the people I've met both in my SPH, and those from other SPHs really didn't strike me as the type of people I thought would be able to obtain a position where they are affecting health policy. Moreover, I took some comfort in the thought that they wouldn't get in those positions, as they didn't strike me as the type of visionaries needed to make rational change.

You want a "better understanding"? What will give you more understanding of what patients have to deal with than actually seeing them day-in and day-out. I guess I believe that actually dealing with patients will give you a better understanding of what patients have to deal with than sitting in a classroom reading someone else's generalizations of what patients are like.

You want to understand "cost effectiveness"? Go into health services administration. You'll need an MBA. E.g. Kellogg, Wharton, UNC-Chapel Hill. An MD/MBA will be much more likely to be able to take the financial reigns and affect financial change than will an MD/MPH. The Northwestern, Penn, and UNC-CH programs have some of the best programs for health services specialization.

You want to be a better researcher? Go into biostats. The MS route. (Obviously, I have a big bias here.) Every class you'll take will be either teaching you the tools you'll need to analyze data, or teaching you how to apply those tools in basic science and/or clincial trial research. The scientific discipline that was beaten into me through my MS program has allowed me to walk into several basic science and clinical research organizations and obtain positions that were integral to every project I've worked on.

As an aside, my speculation is that the discipline that gets pounded into you as a stats guy is the reason that on average, those with stats degrees score higher on the MCAT than any other major (including biology, chem, and phys majors).

Again, I understand this isn't the pop opinion on this thread, but I thought it would be good for you to have a dissenting opinion. Again, if you really are interested in being able to do "more" than just see patients, I think there are more effective ways of achieving those goals.