Screening Process

Screening Process

Screening ProcessA wide range of materials are continually reviewed for the MCH Navigator website and social media avenues, from just-in-time modules, tutorials, and webinars to courses, institutes, and certificate programs. 

Project faculty and advisory group members utilize the de Beaumont Foundation's Pubic Health Workforce Continuing and Professional Education (CPE) Quality E-Learning Standards (1/20/16 draft), a set of 8 general standards adapted with permission from the Quality Matters CPE Rubric, and Quality Standards for Training Design and Delivery v. 1.0: Online Learning Edition, developed in collaboration with the Public Health Learning Network, as a basis to vet learning opportunities. They then employ a three-pronged approach to determine whether materials are accurate and applicable to MCH professionals and students in a variety of settings.

The MCH Navigator team invites members of the Title V workforce and broader MCH community to review and provide feedback on new learning opportunities that we've identified for inclusion in this website and on new products developed to address the needs of public health professionals in the field. Your comments are invited and most welcome!

Three-Pronged Approach to Vetting

1. Utilize Quality Protocols

In addition to the de Beaumont Foundation's quality standards, use these protocol questions when vetting or creating learning opportunities:

Protocol questions to ask when linking to existing high-quality content:

  • How does the training fit into MCH conceptual models, MCH topic areas, MCH Training Goals, and life course/social determinants theory?
  • Who was the author; when was it produced (1–2 years old; 3–5 years old); what was the funding source; are there commercial partners?
  • Is the training engaging for the learner?
  • Does the training deal with data, epidemiology?
  • Are leadership/management/communication topics addressed?
  • What are the learning modalities of the training (mixed methodologies, synchronous or asynchronous, instructor or student feedback)?
  • Are there existing reviews (professional or student) on the training?
  • What is the level of training (introductory, intermediate, advanced), time required, and format of training?
  • Is there credit offered?
  • What is the reading level of the training? Is it Section 508 compliant? Is there a lengthy registration required?
  • Are there related materials that would be useful for learners?

Protocol questions to ask when developing content where gaps exist:

  • Is there a gap related to one or more MCH and/or Public Health competences?
  • Does this gap appear in the current MCH literature or by identification of primary audiences?
  • Is there commercially available content available through professional membership organizations (American Academy of Pediatrics or American Academy of Family Physicians) to adapt? Similar content material to adapt?
  • What informational/non-training resources exist on the topic?
  • Would an information brief on the topic fulfill need, just-in-time training, mini module?
  • Could collaborative social media address the need, podcast, blog entry, MCH Wiki?
  • Is there content expertise on staff for this training, among the MCH Faculty Learning Collaborative? Are other MCH Training grantees currently working on this topic?

2. Consider Special Criteria for Inclusion

Specific criteria used to identify learning opportunities for posting are as follows:


  • Are the presentations/learning objectives clearly articulated?
  • Does course content support the presentation/learning objectives?
  • Is the material presented current, accurate and relevant?
  • Is the content applicable to a range of MCH professionals?  If discussing particular examples of programs, does it inform the audience of its application in other settings?


  • Is the content (presentations, ideas, materials) well-organized and reasonably easy to follow (in an intuitive manner)?
  • If there are resources to complement the materials presented, are they logically related, clear?


  • Is the video/audio of high quality?
  • Does the presenter speak clearly and at a reasonable pace, are they understandable?
  • Absence of technical problems, including those related to any registration process?

3. Include Preferred and Prioritized Learning Opportunities

Pay particular attention to learning opportunities that highlight or include:

  • Engaging speaker
  • Interactive components
  • Additional resources, workbooks, exercises are included
  • CE credits
  • Availability in more than one language
This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UE8MC25742; MCH Navigator for $180,000/year. This information or content and conclusions are those of the author and should not be construed as the official position or policy of, nor should any endorsements be inferred by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.