Journal of Education and Health Promotion

Evaluation of health experts’ education program for becoming multiprofessionals (family health caregiver) regarding health system transformation plan: An application of CIPP model

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

. Tahereh Moghadas‑Dastjerdi
. Athar Omid
. Nikoo Yamani

Department of Medical Education, Medical Education Research Center, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to evaluate the health experts and
professionals’ education program in order to become multiprofessionals regarding health system
transformation plan by a descriptive and educational evaluation method based on the context, input,
process, and product (CIPP) evaluation model in 2018.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: The statistical population included managers and experts of health
deputy (13 people), managers and authorities in health networks (32 people), teachers (251 people),
and learners (1914 people). Data were collected by four researcher‑made questionnaires based on
the CIPP model and evaluation checklist of facilities and equipment. The view of experts was used to
measure the face validity and content validity of the questionnaire, and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient
was used to determine reliability. Data were entered into SPSS 23 software, and data were provided
using descriptive statistics (frequency, mean, and standard deviation).
RESULTS: The evaluation indicators of the educational course in the field of context were
evaluated desirable by province’s managers and experts (95% questions), city managers (100%
questions), teachers (95% questions), and health caregivers (80% questions). In the field of input,
it was evaluated desirable by managers and experts’ input of province (60% questions) and city
managers (70% questions) and it was evaluated semi‑desirable by teachers (78.95% questions)
and health caregivers (88.24% questions). In the field of process, it was evaluated desirable by
province’s managers and experts (73.68% questions) and city managers (66.67% questions) and
it was evaluated semi‑desirable by teachers (66.67% questions) and health caregivers (94.4%
questions). In the field of product, it was evaluated semi‑desirable by managers and experts of
province (63.63% questions), teachers (81.81% questions), and health caregivers (100% questions)
and it was evaluated desirable by city managers (72.72% questions).
CONCLUSION: Holding initial service education course of health caregivers has been necessary, and
the public health, family, and midwifery disciplines needed to be educated in a university appropriate
to the description of tasks of health caregivers.

Keywords

Context
health caregiver
input
process
product
1. Shariati M. Reform the health system, Why and how? J Knowl
Health 2015;5:12‑9.
2. Ministry of health and medical education DOH. The program
provides and promotes. primary health care in the form of
expanding and strengthening the healthcare network in urban
areas, network management center: 2018.
3. Rahbar N, Azargoon A, Faez N. Internal evaluation of obstetrics
and gynecology department of Semnan university of medical
sciences in year 2002. Koomesh 2004;5:27‑32.
4. Bazargan A, [evaluation of education quality improvement in
Higher education with emphasis on medical education]. Tehran:
Ministry of health and medical education secretariat monitoring
and evaluation and development of medical sciences university’s
1996: 7. (in Persian)
5. Scriven, M. The logic of evaluation. In H.V. Hansen, et. al. (Eds),
Dissensus and the Search for Common Ground, CD-ROM ().
Windsor, ON: OSSA. 2007.p. p. 1-16. Available from: https://
scholar.uwindsor.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1390&contex
t=ossaarchive. [Last accessed on 2020 Jan 22].
6. Bharvad AJ. Curriculum evaluation. International Research
Journal. 2010;1:72-4.
7. Bazargan A, Mirkamali S, Naderi A. Report of internal evaluation
of management and planning educational group: Sanjesh
Organization and Ministry of Science, Research and Technology
Reports. Tehran: Sanjesh publication. 2007:3-4.
8. StakeR.The countenance of educational evaluation: Citeseer; 1997.
9. Stufflebeam DL, Coryn CL. Evaluation theory, models, and applications: John Wiley and Sons; 2014.
10. Stufflebeam DL. CIPP Evaluation Model Checklist. Western
Michigan University. The Evaluation Center; 2007.
11. Tseng KH, Diez CR, Lou SJ, Tsai HL, Tsai TS. Using the Context,
input, process and product model to assess an engineering
curriculum. World Transact Eng Technol Educ 2010;8:256‑61.
12. McLemore, A. "The CIPP model." American Chronicle 23.3 (2009):
35-41.
13. Abdi M, Ehsanpor S, Yamani N, Kohan S. Evaluation of Iranian
Fertility Doctoral Program Based on SIP Model in 2013. MSc thesis
in Isfahan University of Medical Sciences; 2013. p. 27‑42.
14. Rezapour Mirasal Y, Atri Ardakani SA, Behjati Ardakani F.
Educational performance evaluation in Ardakan university based
on the CIPP model. Higher Educ Letter 1395;9:7‑30.
15. Gall MD, BorgWR, GallJP. Educational research: An introduction:
Longman Publishing; 1996.
16. Mohebbi N, Akhlaghi F, Yarmohammadian M H ,
Khoshgam M. Application of CIPP model for evaluating
the medical records education course at Master of Science
level at Iranian medical sciences universities. Procedia Soc
Behav Sci 2011;15:3286‑90.
17. Kabir MJ, Ashrafian Amiri H, Rabiei SM, Momtahen R,
Zafarmand R, Nasrollahpour Shirvani SD. Educational needs of
family physicians. Biannual J Med Educ 2018;6:13‑21.
18. Mohammadpour A, Matlabi M. The survey of the Gonabad
medical sciences students views on their educational needs and
improving theoritical and clinical education program (2001‑2002).
Iran J Med Educ 2002;2:41.
19. Aziz A, Kazi A, jahangeer A, Fatemi Z, Knowledge and skills
in community oriented medical education (COME) selfratings
of medical undergraduates in Karachi. J Pak Med Assoc.
2006:56(7):313‑7.
Journal of Education and Health Promotion
Volume 10, Issue 9
September 2020
Pages 1-7

Home

Guide for Authors

Submit Manuscript

Reviewers

Contact Us