Dear Editor. (Letters to the Editor).

In "Australia's University Courses: Are They Meeting the Educational Expectations of the National Environmental Health Strategy?" (Journal of Environmental Health, September 2001), authors Peach and Barnett have drawn very general conclusions about Australian university programs in environmental health, based on the expectations of the National Environmental Health Strategy, but have used an inadequate survey design. That design is too superficial to permit the conclusions presented to be reasonably drawn. In particular, the conclusion that "Australia's universities are not meeting all the educational expectations of its National Environmental Health Strategy" does not adequately take into account the content of topics offered within university programs. The authors are correct in listing the environmental health subjects that should be included in courses in environmental health, but they support their conclusions by a flawed method. Peach and Barnett examined the World Wide Web and university handbooks to d etermine whether the 33 subject areas identified were covered in university programs. It would, however, be very unusual for any degree program to include such a large number of discrete subjects. Rather, much of the material may be embedded within topics of a more general title. In the Bachelor of Environmental Health offered at Flinders University, areas such as rural and indigenous issues, global issues, and sustainability are discussed in the first-year topic, Environmental Health, History and Policy Similarly, it would be difficult to justify, on purely educational terms, presenting topics titled "Critical Appraisal" or "Decision Making." These concepts and skills are best taught in an integrated manner, within several subjects in which the teaching format permits skills to be developed and reinforced. In our degree, we use self-directed learning and problem-solving approaches to teaching, in addition to the more traditional didactic forms of instruction. Within these formats, we provide guidance through the use of example material to assist students to become critical thinkers and to decide their own strategies for learning. We also require students to complete a research project in their final year, representing one-third of a year's effort, in which they must demonstrate these and other high-level skills in order to achieve a passing grade.

University handbooks are, by their nature, limited in the extent of information they can provide about the numerous courses and subjects available for study. Student booklets, providing information about specific subjects within their chosen degree, are more detailed and would give a clearer picture of the content, delivery mode, and assessment formats for subjects. The authors did not approach us for this information about the Bachelor of Environmental Health at Flinders University, nor did they contact the program coordinator or the head of department to seek this information; the result is a distorted perception of the teaching program.

Programs offered by Australian universities are required to be accredited by the Australian Institute of Environmental Health (AIEH) at intervals of five years. The course content, delivery modes, student intake profiles, and outcome measures (including pass rates, retention, and progression) are examined in detail. These forms of review also are required by university administrations at similar intervals. In June 2001, the Bachelor of Environmental Health at Flinders University underwent its second external review, including review by AIEH. The conclusions of this review were highly favorable and include the recommendation that the program be re-accredited.

Regarding postgraduate programs, a different set of criteria must apply, since students will be expected to have completed a degree, perhaps in another discipline, prior to admission. Criteria applied to undergraduate programs may not apply to postgraduate programs since many of the skills (critical appraisal, communication, decision making, etc.) will already have been obtained during earlier study The role of many postgraduate programs is to provide "top-up" skills in specific areas rather than an overall understanding of environmental health matters that would be more appropriate for practicing environmental health officers.

In conclusion, Peach and Barnett have over-interpreted the limited data they have obtained from a defective survey design. This survey design has been based on the erroneous premises that topic titles limit the content of topics and, more naively, that subjects (such as critical appraisal and decision making) are not taught outside the didactic framework of named topics. In doing so, they have done a disservice to the universities that have developed and deliver excellent programs in environmental health, that meet the aims of the national strategy, and that are internationally competitive in environmental health education.

Sincerely,

H.J. Fallowfield, N. Cromar, R. Bentham, and J.W Edwards Department of Environmental Health, Flinders University Adelaide, South Australia