Volume 20, Issue 3 (10-2024)
J Health Syst Res 2024, 20(3): 246-256 |
Back to browse issues page
Research code: 299056
Ethics code: IR.MUI.RESEARCH.REC.1400.040
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Omid A, Avizhgan M. Integrating a New Model of Community-Based Education in the General Medicine: An Evaluation Study. J Health Syst Res 2024; 20 (3) :246-256
URL: http://hsr.mui.ac.ir/article-1-1610-en.html
URL: http://hsr.mui.ac.ir/article-1-1610-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Medical Education Research Center AND Department of Medical Education, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2- Assistant Professor, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
Abstract: (754 Views)
Background: Social accountability and educational justice is one of the important subjects of the comprehensive program of justice, excellence, and productivity emphasizing early exposure and training in appropriate areas of society. This study was conducted to evaluate the new model of community-based education in general medicine.
Methods: The present study was an evaluation using the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model conducted in 2021 at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. The study population included all students who had completed this course, and convenience sampling was used. The data collection tool was a researcher-developed questionnaire based on the CIPP evaluation model, which was used after validation and reliability testing. The data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed at two levels: descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation (SD), and inferential statistics, including one-sample t-test and paired t-test.
Findings: Holding this course was necessary from the learners’ viewpoint (6.26 ± 3.63 from 10). The mean evaluation score in the context field was 2.97 ± 1.20, in the input 2.96 ± 0.87, in process 3.05 ± 1.05, and in the output was 2.85 ± 1.19, which were not significantly different from the average. The highest average in the context field was "Course objectives did not overlap with other courses" (3.24 ± 1.17), in the input was "The cooperation of the staff of the health centers in each comprehensive educational health service center was appropriate" (3.63 ± 1.18), in the process was "The presence of learners in comprehensive health service centers does not disrupt the process of providing services to clients" (4.27 ± 1.19), and in the output was "After completing the course, I realized that my job isn’t only to treat patients" (3.06 ± 1.39).
Conclusion: The subjects rated the status of all four areas as moderate. The design of the course was above average, the execution and evaluation of the course was considered average, and revision was considered necessary. The findings suggest that evaluations should be done continuously, and actions should be taken to address weaknesses and enhance strengths.
Methods: The present study was an evaluation using the context, input, process, and product (CIPP) model conducted in 2021 at Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran. The study population included all students who had completed this course, and convenience sampling was used. The data collection tool was a researcher-developed questionnaire based on the CIPP evaluation model, which was used after validation and reliability testing. The data obtained from the questionnaire were analyzed at two levels: descriptive statistics, including mean and standard deviation (SD), and inferential statistics, including one-sample t-test and paired t-test.
Findings: Holding this course was necessary from the learners’ viewpoint (6.26 ± 3.63 from 10). The mean evaluation score in the context field was 2.97 ± 1.20, in the input 2.96 ± 0.87, in process 3.05 ± 1.05, and in the output was 2.85 ± 1.19, which were not significantly different from the average. The highest average in the context field was "Course objectives did not overlap with other courses" (3.24 ± 1.17), in the input was "The cooperation of the staff of the health centers in each comprehensive educational health service center was appropriate" (3.63 ± 1.18), in the process was "The presence of learners in comprehensive health service centers does not disrupt the process of providing services to clients" (4.27 ± 1.19), and in the output was "After completing the course, I realized that my job isn’t only to treat patients" (3.06 ± 1.39).
Conclusion: The subjects rated the status of all four areas as moderate. The design of the course was above average, the execution and evaluation of the course was considered average, and revision was considered necessary. The findings suggest that evaluations should be done continuously, and actions should be taken to address weaknesses and enhance strengths.
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
education health and promotion
Received: 2023/07/25 | Accepted: 2023/10/14 | Published: 2024/10/6
Received: 2023/07/25 | Accepted: 2023/10/14 | Published: 2024/10/6
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
