A comparative study on the function and structure of medical development education office in world's top universities
Soleiman Ahmady1, Shahram Yazdani1, Fakhrolsadat Hosseini1, Mohammad Mehdi Forouzanfar2, Ali Tabibi3, Fatemeh Ahmadinia4, Hoda Ahmari Tehran4, Noushin Kohan5, Heidar Mohammadi6
1 School of Medical Education, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Emergency Medicine, Shohadaye Tajrish Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Urology, School of Medicine, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Medical Education, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Medical Education Virual University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
6 Department of Occupational Health Engineering, School of Public Health, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Educational Development Center, Virtual University of Medical Sciences, Sarafraz Street, Shaheed Beheshti Avenue, Tehran
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
Purpose: It is essential to adjust the responsibilities and function of medical education offices (MEOs) in regard to the current societal requirements. Therefore, it is a good idea to learn lessons from the experiences about the establishment and function of these offices around the world. The aim of the present study was to carry out a comparative study to investigate the function and structure of MEOs at some of the medical universities from America, Europe, and Asia.
Subjects and Methods: This is a comparative, descriptive study that was conducted in 2015. Eleven offices around the world (in America, Europe, and Asia) were selected for the study. Expert group discussion and literature review were used in order to select research sample. The data were gathered using self-constructed checklists. Content and face validity of the checklist was assessed by gathering feedback from experts. The Kappa coefficient was used to determine the inter-rater reliability.
Results: All the 11 offices in our study (100%) dealt with the issues of faculty development and research and scholarship activities. Only one out of the 11 offices (27%) dealt with the issues of society and patient education. Five out of the 11 offices (36%) dealt with the continuing medical education and continuing professional development. Consultation services are provided at seven of the 11 offices (64%).
Conclusions: This study revealed both commonalities and differences in the function and structure of MEO among the 11 offices we examined. Based on this study, effective goals and strategies for MEO can be recommended.