CONTEXT: Well-trained epidemiologists are a vital part of the nation's public health workforce, supporting preparedness and response to health threats at home and abroad. PROGRAM: The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Epidemic Intelligence Service (EIS) is a 2-year fellowship that trains clinicians and scientists in applied epidemiology. Postfellowship, we expect EIS alumni to join the public health workforce and serve as leaders in public health and epidemiology. IMPLEMENTATION: In 2023, we conducted a survey among EIS alumni to understand the postfellowship positions that alumni hold 1, 3, and 5 years after the fellowship. The alumni survey included questions about type of work, career advancement, and leadership responsibilities of alumni. EVALUATION: Among the 200 alumni in the three surveyed classes, 78% completed or partially completed the survey (156/200). Among those who responded, 98% (153/156) reported being employed full-time or being employed and furthering their education simultaneously. Ninety-three percent of employed respondents (143/153) were primarily working in public health. Among employed alumni, 69% (106/153) were working in the US federal government, such as CDC, and 13% (20/153) were working at a US state, tribal, local, or territorial health agency. Most often, alumni working in public health described their current work as assessment (eg, epidemiology surveillance) and communicable disease control. Regarding career advancement, approximately half (66/143) described having supervisory responsibilities, and 86% (123/143) reported some kind of career progression post-EIS (eg, obtaining a promotion). DISCUSSION: Most EIS alumni continued to work in the US public health workforce, supporting federal, state, and local epidemiologic capacity. Monitoring EIS alumni is essential to characterize long-term contributions of the fellowship to the field of public health.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Juma et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: