Data from: Graduate health professions education programs as they choose to represent themselves: A website review
Schermerhorn, Janse (2023), Data from: Graduate health professions education programs as they choose to represent themselves: A website review, Dryad, Dataset, https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.0zpc86725
Introduction: In an age of increasingly face-to-face, blended, and online Health Professions Education, students have more selections of where they will receive a degree. For an applicant, oftentimes, the first step is to learn more about a program through its website. Websites allow programs to convey their unique voice and to share their mission and values with others, such as applicants, researchers, and academics. Additionally, as the number of Health Professions Education programs rapidly grows, websites can share the priorities of these programs.
Methods: In this study, we conducted a website review of 158 Health Professions Education websites to explore their geographical distributions, missions, educational concentrations, and various programmatic components.
Results: We compiled this information and synthesized pertinent aspects, such as program similarities and differences, or highlighted the omission of critical data.
Conclusion: Given that websites are often the first point of contact for prospective applicants, curious collaborators, and potential faculty, the digital image of HPE programs matters. We believe our findings demonstrate opportunities for growth within institutions and assist the field in identifying the priorities of HPE programs. As programs begin to shape their websites with more intentionality, they can reflect their relative divergence/convergence compared to other programs as they see fit and, therefore, attract individuals to best match this identity. Periodic reviews of the breadth of programs, such as those undergone here, are necessary to capture diversifying goals, and serve to help advance the field of Health Professions Education as a whole.
Our team deduced that most HPE programs would have a website, and that this would serve as a representation of how individuals within the program choose to view themselves and hope to be viewed by others. Further, our team determined that these websites would be an efficient means of collecting programmatic information for the purposes of learning more about program growth, diversity, and values. We conducted the website review from August 2021 to April 2022 using a list of worldwide Health Professions Education programs, which was acquired from the Foundation of Advancement of International Medical Education and Research’s (FAIMER’s) website. FAIMER was chosen as the origin source of programs studied due to its use in another published study evaluating HPE programs. Each master's degree in HPE offered by a university was counted separately, allowing us to note the differences in course and time requirements across all programs. Only HPE master's programs were selected for this study. Certificate and Ph.D. programs were excluded.
Next, we developed a data extraction tool. Categories were jointly identified for data collection by three of our authors (JS, SW, and HM). JS, SW, and HW worked independently through a set of three HPE programs, obtaining the data for our selected categories. Afterward, we cross-checked each other's work for verification purposes. For example, if JS obtained the information, SW or HM, who were blinded to JS’s findings, would independently find the answers to the same questions/ topics. This was performed until an agreement between pre and post-review information was above 95%. There was no discovered information that was not agreed upon after discussion. Once 100% agreement was reached with this method, the total number of HPE programs analyzed was split between JS and SW, and the raw data was obtained for the same categories.
This data then underwent a review by the other two researchers to ensure high accuracy. This review consisted of information verification on individual program websites where it was originally obtained. For example, if JS found the information about a program, SW and HM (now not blinded) would both have to independently find the same information. Any identified discrepancies were rectified through discussion, and three-way agreement was mandatory for the team to move on to the next program.
Microsoft Excel, or, Google Sheets is best used, however there are likely other programs that could be used to view the information