↓ Skip to main content

Process-oriented evaluation of an international faculty development program for Asian developing countries: a qualitative study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Education, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
57 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Process-oriented evaluation of an international faculty development program for Asian developing countries: a qualitative study
Published in
BMC Medical Education, December 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12909-017-1101-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Do-Hwan Kim, Jong-Hyuk Lee, Jean Park, Jwa-Seop Shin

Abstract

Non-English-speaking developing countries in Southeast Asia have been provided only limited opportunities for faculty development in the education of health professions. Although there exist a few programs that have been shown to be effective, they are frequently presented with few explanations on how and why the programs work due to their outcome-oriented nature. This study explores the process of the Lee Jong-Wook Fellowship for Health Professional Education, an international faculty development program designed for capacity building of educators of health professions in Southeast Asian developing countries. Fellows were from Cambodia, Myanmar, and Laos. Qualitative data were collected from two types of semi-structured interviews - group and individual. Thematic analysis was conducted to explore the factors related to the effectiveness of the program, framed by four components of faculty development, which included context, facilitators, program, and participants. From the thematic analysis, the authors identified a total of 12 themes in the four components of faculty development. In the context domain, the resource-poor setting, a culture that puts emphasis on hierarchy and seniority, and educational environment depending on individual commitment rather than broad consensus emerged as key factors. In the facilitators domain, their teaching methods and materials, mutual understanding between teacher and learner, and collaboration between facilitators mainly influenced the learning during the fellowship. In the program domain, the key advantages of the fellowship program were its applicability to the workplace of the fellows and enough allowed time for practice and reflection. Finally, in the participants domain, Fellows valued their heterogeneity of composition and recognized cognitive as well as non-cognitive attributes of the participants as essential. This process-oriented evaluation reveals the diverse factors that contributed to achieving the intended outcomes of the fellowship. Although much evidence from best practices in faculty development are still valid, the findings suggest that the selection strategies, learning environment, and English communication should be given more consideration when organizing a program targeting these people and cultures. A comprehensive understanding of the process would contribute to developing tailored strategies for educators of health professions in developing countries in similar settings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 57 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 57 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 8 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 7%
Lecturer 4 7%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 11 19%
Unknown 21 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 12%
Social Sciences 5 9%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 5%
Arts and Humanities 3 5%
Other 8 14%
Unknown 21 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 December 2017.
All research outputs
#17,923,510
of 23,012,811 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Education
#2,633
of 3,367 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#308,735
of 440,658 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Education
#89
of 103 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,012,811 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,367 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.3. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 440,658 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 103 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.