نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناس ارشد، مدارک پزشکی، پژوهشگر مرکز تحقیقات مدیریت و اقتصاد سلامت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
2 استاد، مدیریت خدمات بهداشتی درمانی، مرکز تحقیقات مدیریت و اقتصاد سلامت، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران
چکیده
مقدمه: ارزشیابی فرایندی نظامدار برای جمع‌آوری، تحلیل و تفسیر اطلاعات به منظور بررسی میزان عملی شدن هدف‌ها است. در نظام آموزشی دانشگاهی منظور از آموزش، ایجاد تغییرات مناسب و روزافزون، در حاصل این سیستم یعنی دانشجویان می‌باشد و هدف از ارزشیابی، ارتقای کیفیت در آموزش، پژوهش، بهداشت و درمان است. این پژوهش به تدوین و شناسایی شاخص‌های ارزشیابی دوره‌ی کارشناسی ارشد فن‌آوری اطلاعات سلامت براساس الگوی سیپ، در پنج دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران، شهید بهشتی، اصفهان، شیراز و کاشان در سال 1391 پرداخت. روش بررسی: پژوهش از نوع کاربردی و توصیفی بود و جامعه‌ی آماری آن را مدیران گروه، اساتید، مسؤولان کتابخانه و دانشجویان دوره‌ی کارشناسی ارشد فن‌آوری اطلاعات سلامت پنج دانشگاه علوم پزشکی تهران، شهید بهشتی، اصفهان، شیراز و کاشان در سال 1391 (مجموعاً 130 نفر) تشکیل دادند. ابزار گردآوری داده‌ها چهار پرسشنامه براساس مقیاس رتبه‌بندی لیکرت بود که روایی آن به وسیله‌ی مشاوره با صاحب‌نظران و متخصصان رشته تایید و پایایی پرسشنامه‌های مدیران گروه، اساتید، دانشجویان و مسؤولان کتابخانه از طریق ضریب آلفای کرونباخ (Cronbach's Alpha) به ترتیب 74/0، 93/0، 98/0 و 80/0 برآورد شد. تحلیل داده‌ها با استفاده از آمار توصیفی و نرم‌افزار SPSS صورت گرفت. یافته‌ها: در مجموع 139 شاخص براساس سه عامل زمینه، درونداد، و فرایند در حیطه‌های نیروی انسانی متخصص، خدمات علمی- تخصصی مورد نیاز جامعه، دانشجویان، مدیران گروه، اعضای هیأت علمی، برنامه‌ی درسی، بودجه، امکانات و تجهیزات، فعالیت‌های تدریس و یادگیری و علمی- پژوهشی دانشجویان و اساتید و فعالیت‌های کتابخانه تعیین و مورد بررسی واقع شد. نتیجه‌گیری: نتایج نشان‌دهنده‌ی وضعیت نسبتاً مطلوب دوره‌ی کارشناسی ارشد فن‌آوری اطلاعات سلامت بود، اما تلاش برای اصلاح و بهبود آن و ادامه‌ی فرایند ارزشیابی ضروری است. برای رسیدن به سطح ایده آل، نیاز به تجدید نظر و تغییرات لازم جهت ارتقای کیفیت وجود دارد. واژه‌های کلیدی: شاخص‌ها؛ ارزشیابی؛ فن‌آوری اطلاعات سلامت
کلیدواژه‌ها
عنوان مقاله [English]
Develop Evaluation Indicators of Health Information Technology Course at Master's Degree in Selected Medical Sciences Universities
نویسندگان [English]
- Nooshin Mohebbi 1
- Mohammad Hossein Yarmohammadian 2
1 Medical Records Education and Health Information Management, Researcher of Health Management and Economics Research Center (HMERC), Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Professor, Health Management and Economics Research Center (HMERC), Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction: Evaluation is a systematic process for collecting, analyzing and interpretation of the obtained information for the purpose of investigating how many the objectives in mind can be achieved. Education in an academic educational system means bringing about proper and increasing changes that affect the outcome of this system, that is affecting the students, and the aim of such evaluation was promotion of the quality of an education process. This study developed and reviewed the evaluation criteria of health information technology course at Master of Science level in Tehran, Shahid Beheshti, Isfahan, Shiraz and Kashan medical sciences universities in 2012 based on CIPP model. Methods: This was an applied and descriptive research with statistical population included faculty members, students, graduates and library staff of health information technology course at Master of Science level in Tehran, Shahid Beheshti, Isfahan, Shiraz and Kashan medical sciences universities in 2012 (130 people in total). In order to collect data four questionnaires were used based on Likert scale rating. Questionnaires' validity was confirmed by consulting with experts and questionnaires' reliability of directorates, faculty, students and library staff through the Coronbach's Alpha coefficient formula calculated α= 0.74, α= 0.93, α= 0.98, α= 0.80, respectively. SPSS software for data analysis and descriptive statistics were used. Results: 139 indicators were determined and then evaluated which associated with this course based on three factors of context, input, process in the areas of human recourses professional, academic services which are required for the society, students, directors, faculty, curriculum, budget, facilities, teaching- learning activities and scientific research activities of students and faculty, and the activities of the library staff. Conclusion: Results showed that in total the health information technology course at Master of Science level is relatively well, but trying to improve and correct it in some areas, and continuing of evaluation process seems necessary. Keywords: Indicators; Evaluation; Health Information Technology
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
- Indicators
- Evaluation
- Health Information Technology
- Worthen BR, Sanders JK. Educational evaluation Alternative approaches & practical guidelines. New York, Long man press. 1987 P:102.
- Popham WJ. Educational evaluation. New York, Hall Press. 1975 P: 61.
- Chitty KK. Professional Nursing: Concepts and Challenges. 4th ed. New York: Saunders; 2004.
- Wolf RM. Evaluation in education: Foundations of competency assessment and program review. 3 th ed.
- New York: Praeger Publishers; 1990.
- Farzianpour F. Assessment of educational program quality in Tehran University of Medical Sciences and Health Services. Tehran, EDC Press. 2004 P:10. [Persian].
- Bazargan A. Introduction to assessing quality in higher medical education. Quality in Higher Education 1999; 5: 61-68. [Article in Persian].
- Stufflebeam D. Evaluation Checklists Project. June 2007. Available from: http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
- Courier university management. Educational Journal of University Management. Ministry of Health and Medical Education, Department of Education and Academic Affairs. Tehran: Secretariat of Council planning in Medical Sciences; 2001.
- Sheikhi M H, Oveyssi N, Heidari M R, Iqbal A A. Review process of evaluating dental school departments. Green Journal, Journal of Medical Education Forum, Special Issue Proceedings of National Congress of Medical Education 2009; 6: 111-120. [Article in Persian].
- Halacher M. Making a Difference with Health Information. Journal of American Health Information Management Association 2000; 71(9) :92-93.
- Ball M. New Roles, New Responsibilities. Journal of American Health Information Management Association 1999; 70(2) :22-26.
- Mahmoudi Z. Evaluation of Master's Dgree Program of Medical Records from Viwe Point of Graduates [Thesis in Persian]. Tehran University, School of Psychology and Educational Sciences; 2004.
- Westbrook JI, Callen J, Lewis M. A glimpse into the future: a survey of the expectations and ambitions of Australian health information management students. Top Health Inf Manage 1997; 18(2): 77-86.
- Yarmohammadian MH, Kalbasi A. Internal Evaluation of Departments in the School of Management and Medical Information, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences. Iranian journal of medical education 2006; 6(1): 25-34.
- Azizi F. Medical Education: mission, vision & challenges. Tehran: Ministry of Health and Medical
- Education; 2002. [Persian].
- Bazargan A. Educational Evaluation. Tehran: SAMT; 2009. [Book in Persian].
- Bazrafshan A. Evaluation inputs of education program in MSc of medical Library and information sciences based on the cipp model in Iran’s University of Medical Sciences in 2010. [Thesis in Persian]. Tehran University of medical sciences, School of management and information Sciences; 2010.
- Skurka M. Health Information Management Education in USA: Curriculum & Competencies in Conjunction with the 21st Century. Proceedings of the 13th International Health Records Congress in Conjunction with the 21st Conference of HIMAA; 2000 Oct 2-6; Melbourn, Australia; 2000.
- Tessema M, Ready K, Yu W. Factors Affecting College Students’ Satisfaction with Major Curriculum: Evidence from Nine Years of Data. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science 2012; 2(2): 34-44.
- Mohebbi N, Akhlaghi F, Yarmohammadian MH, Khoshgam M. Application of CIPP Model for Evaluating the Medical Records Education Course at Master of Science Level at Iranian Medical Sciences Universities. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 2011; 15: 3286–3290.
- Pakdaman A, Soleimani Shayesteh Y, Kharazi fard MJ , Kabosi R. Evaluation achievement of training objectives of Periodontics and Oral Health training groups of Tehran University from view point of dental students based on CIPP evaluation model. Dental Journal, Tehran university of medical sciences 2011; 24 (1): 20-25. [Article in Persian].
- Yarmohammadian MH, Mozaffary M, Saghaeiannejad Esfahani S. Evaluation of quality of education in higher education based on Academic Quality Improvement Program (AQIP) Model. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 2011; 14: 2917-22.
- Lagrosen S, Seyyed-Hashemi R, Leitner M. Examination of the dimensions of quality in higher education. Quality Assurance in Education 2004; 12(2): 61–9.
- The board of regent of the University of Wisconsin system. Clinical investigator preparatory program [Online], 2005. Available from: URL: http://www.medicine.wisc.edu/mainweb/
- Furnham A. Student Attitudes University Education. Higher Education Review 2004; 36(2): 29-38.
)