A G-CHAM program and policy development curriculum using simulated executive review in undergraduate public health nursing education

BackgroundPublic health nurses in Japan commonly work in administrative settings and are expected to translate community health assessment findings into feasible programs and policies through organizational decision making, negotiation, and budgeting. However, undergraduate public health nursing education provides limited opportunities for students to experience this administrative program and policy development process. This study describes a G-CHAM program and policy development curriculum using simulated executive review and presents an initial assessment of changes in students’ self assessed competency.MethodsThe curriculum was implemented in a fourth year undergraduate public health nursing course. Before this section, students had completed G-CHAM activities including QGIS based community assessment, digitally supported windshield survey fieldwork, and identification of community health issues. The program and policy development section included introductory instruction, preparation of a program planning document and one page proposal visual, and a 90 min simulated executive review session incorporating structured debriefing. Four administrative staff members with public sector experience participated as an executive review panel. Outcomes were assessed immediately before and after the section using seven self assessment items based on the 2024 revised Model Core Curriculum for Public Health Nursing Education in Japan.ResultsNineteen students participated, and 18 provided linkable pre and post responses. The median total self assessed competency score increased from 9.50 to 26.50. All seven item scores increased significantly after Holm correction. Before the section, no students reached level 4 or higher on any item; after the section, the proportions reaching level 4 or higher ranged from 50.0 to 83.3%.ConclusionStudents reported higher self assessed competency after completing the G-CHAM program and policy development section. The findings should be interpreted as short term perceived learning from a single group educational evaluation rather than evidence of objective competency improvement or a causal effect of the simulated executive review alone. Future studies should incorporate objective performance measures, comparison groups, and longer term follow up.