Evaluation of effectiveness of training programme on health related research for medical students

Abstract

Introduction: Training on health related research, the Health Research Programme (HRP), is compulsory part of the undergraduate MBBS Year 3 curriculum under the School of Public Health (SPH), Li Ka Shing (LKS) Faculty of Medicine. The effectiveness of all undergraduate programmes is evaluated using the University of Hong Kong (HKU) Students’ Evaluation of Teaching and Learning (SETL) questionnaire; however such evaluation is not specific enough for public health purposes. The main objective of this report was to evaluate HRP effectiveness using more structured HKU University Grants Committee requirements (UGC) framework. Methods: Each guiding principle in the UGC framework was assessed using multiple criteria: 1/ Aligning HRP outcomes with HKU Educational Aims and SPH OBASL; 2/ Aligning resources with achievement of educational aims; 3/Fostering self-reflection and peer review, and providing room for bottom-up initiatives; 4/ Promoting collaboration and exchange of good practice amongst teachers; 5/ Focusing on student learning experience supported by evidence; 6/ Engaging internal and external benchmarking. Both self-reported and objective data from 2012-2013 MBBS year 3 cohort was used for effectiveness evaluation. Results: The HRP OBASL research competences partially aligned with the HKU, but their acquisition was only evaluated immediately after the HRP completion without monitoring long term impact on future health research. The students’ bottom-up initiatives and achievements of research milestones were often delayed. Evidence focusing on student learning experience showed that all group assignments’ marking scores were above the passing threshold, but none achieved distinction. Students’ self-perceived rating showed a large effect of the HRP on acquisition of research competences; however differences might exist between individual standardized learning and group learning with division of labor. Students perceived that HRP tutors’ guidance and availability was less effective in comparison with other programmes. Conclusions: The HKU UGC framework used in this HRP evaluation provided a structured approach for HRP effectiveness evaluation and enabled identification of weaknesses that would remain unrecognised if only the conventional framework for undergraduate programme evaluation was used. Recommendations: Areas for improvement of the health related research training programme exist such as providing much better guidance, monitoring division of labour in each group and adopting measures to encourage each student’s contribution to research on a topic of public health importance.