Integrating a New Model of Community-Based Education in the General Medicine: An Evaluation Study Publisher



Omid A¹ ; Avizhgan M² Show Affiliations
Source: Journal of Health System Research Published:2024

Abstract

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. © 2024, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences(IUMS). All rights reserved.