A somewhat widespread belief holds that injury prevention courses should be targeted primarily at those workers already active in the field. A contrary view is that, if more workers in fields other than injury prevention had been introduced to injury prevention principles in their training, injury prevention specialists would have fewer problems making themselves understood. Thus, it has been argued that some level of injury prevention training should be incorporated into training courses for health-sector disciplines such as medicine, nursing, health promotion and public health, at undergraduate and postgraduate levels, as well as in training for professions such as engineering, architecture, building, design, etc. It has been suggested that, at the moment, no real market exists for injury prevention courses. This has been countered, however, by the belief that if the supply were properly set up, the market would materialise.
Funding is clearly a crucial consideration.
Although some very worthwhile training options are already available, a solid injury training infrastructure doesn't yet exist. For some, this signals the need to lobby for a substantial allocation of funds to build the necessary infrastructure. But others argue that we should not sit back and wait for our complaints about lack of national infrastructure in injury control to produce the required funds. The National Public Health Partnership Group is in the process of developing terms of reference for a Working Group on Workforce Development. A very basic response could be for the AIPN to simply compile a list of all available courses and make this available to its membership.