Dataset Information

How Do Masters of Public Health Programs Teach Monitoring and Evaluation?

ABSTRACT: The health systems in developing countries face challenges because of deficient monitoring and evaluation (M&E) capacity with respect to their knowledge, skills, and practices. Strengthening M&E training in public health education can help overcome the gaps in M&E capacity. There is a need to advance the teaching of M&E as a core element of public health education.To review M&E teaching across Masters of Public Health programs and to identify core competencies for M&E teaching in South Asian context.We undertook two activities to understand the M&E teaching across masters level programs: (1) desk review of M&E curriculum and teaching in masters programs globally and (2) review of M&E teaching across 10 institutions representing 4 South Asian countries. Subsequently, we used the findings of these two activities as inputs to identify core competencies for an M&E module through a consultative meeting with the 10 South Asian universities.Masters programs are being offered globally in 321 universities of which 88 offered a Masters in Public Health, and M&E was taught in 95 universities. M&E was taught as a part of another module in 49 institutions. The most common duration of M&E teaching was 4-5 weeks. From the 70 institutes where information on electives was available, M&E was a core module/part of a core module at 42 universities and an elective at 28 universities. The consultative meeting identified 10 core competencies and draft learning objectives for M&E teaching in masters programs in South Asia.The desk review showed similarities in M&E course content but variations in course structure and delivery. The core competencies identified during the consultation included basic M&E concepts. The results of the review and the core competencies identified at the consultation are useful resources for institutions interested in refining/updating M&E curricula in their postgraduate degree programs. Our approach for curriculum development as well as the consensus building experience could also be adapted for use in other situations.

SUBMITTER: Negandhi H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5481308 | biostudies-other | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background1) To elicit the opinions of the Public Health alumni of the MPH program; 2) To assess the applicability of the knowledge and skills acquired; 3) To identify the frequency of the public health competencies that the alumni performed.MethodsWe requested 187 graduates to complete a self-administered questionnaire and conducted in-depth interviews with 8 alumni as well as a focus group discussion with 14 alumni.ResultsIn total 79.1% (148) of the MPH graduates completed and returned the questionnaire. Most alumni (91%) agreed that the MPH curriculum corresponded with the working requirements of public health professionals; and nearly all were satisfied with what they have learnt (96%). Most respondents said that the MPH program enabled them to develop relevant professional skills (95%) and that they were satisfied with the curriculum (90%). Notably fewer respondents (73%) felt that the MPH program structure was balanced and well designed. Most alumni (64.3%) were satisfied with Hanoi School of Public Health (HSPH) full-time lecturers; but even more (83%) were satisfied with visiting lecturers. The most commonly selected of the 34 pre-identified public health competencies were: applying computer skills (66.4%), planning and managing health programs (47.9%), communicating with the community and/or mobilizing the community to participate in health care (43.2%). Overall, the MPH alumni felt that HSPH emphasized research methods at the expense of some management and operational competencies. The most important challenges at work identified by the alumni were insufficient skills in: data analysis, decision making, inter-sectoral cooperation development, English language and training.ConclusionThe training program should be reviewed and revised to meet the needs of its graduates who enter diverse situations and positions. English language skills were identified as top priority for further emphasis. The training program should comply with a more advanced accreditation system and standards.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been increased demand for greater public accountability and transparency of private sector-led global health partnership programs. This study critically reviews and pilot tests the World Health Organization (WHO) medicine program checklist as a framework for public reporting and assessing of programs.MethodsWe reviewed each question on the WHO checklist for clarity and usability. Next, we pilot tested the subset of checklist questions focused on program assessment. We extracted and analyzed publicly available information on one randomly selected program from each of the 20 largest research-based biopharmaceutical companies. For each program, we assessed whether publicly available information allowed for an assessment of each relevant question in the checklist.ResultsChecklist questions fit in four main categories: [1] national health and development plans, needs, capacity, laws and policies; [2] financial, performance, and public accountability; [3] risk management and mitigation strategies; and [4] long-term sustainability. Nearly all (21 of 22) questions in the checklist require information best provided by companies; one question requires information best provided by governments.Programs frequently reported on the public health needs of their programs (100%), program objectives and activities (100%) and the actual or expected program outputs (95%). There was less information on program alignment with country plans and capacity (50%), detailed program monitoring and evaluation plan (20%), risks mitigation strategies (5%), program needs assessment (5%), and additional resources required from or contributed by government (0%).ConclusionThe WHO checklist of key considerations for evaluating proposals for access to medicine programs could be a useful framework for public reporting of program information as most of checklist questions ask for data that should be available to those leading the program. Further revisions of the WHO checklist will help refine it to improve clarity and content validity.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the emergence of app evaluation tools, there remains no well-defined process receptive to diverse local needs, rigorous standards, and current content. The need for such a process to assist in the implementation of app evaluation across all medical fields is evident. Such a process has the potential to increase stakeholder engagement and catalyze interest and engagement with present-day app evaluation models.ObjectiveThis study aimed to develop and pilot test the Technology Evaluation and Assessment Criteria for Health apps (TEACH-apps).MethodsTailoring a well-known implementation framework, Replicating Effective Programs, we present a new process to approach the challenges faced in implementing app evaluation tools today. As a culmination of our experience implementing this process and feedback from stakeholders, we present the four-part process to aid the implementation of mobile health technology. This paper outlines the theory, evidence, and initial versions of the process.ResultsThe TEACH-apps process is designed to be broadly usable and widely applicable across all fields of health. The process comprises four parts: (1) preconditions (eg, gathering apps and considering local needs), (2) preimplementation (eg, customizing criteria and offering digital skills training), (3) implementation (eg, evaluating apps and creating educational handouts), and (4) maintenance and evolution (eg, repeating the process every 90 days and updating content). TEACH-apps has been tested internally at our hospital, and there is growing interest in partnering health care facilities to test the system at their sites.ConclusionsThis implementation framework introduces a process that equips stakeholders, clinicians, and users with the foundational tools to make informed decisions around app use and increase app evaluation engagement. The application of this process may lead to the selection of more culturally appropriate and clinically relevant tools in health care.

Dataset Information

How Do Masters of Public Health Programs Teach Monitoring and Evaluation?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets