Public availability of information from WFME-recognized accreditation agencies

Baniadam, Kahlo; Arfeen, Zakia; Rashid, Ahmed; Ho, Ming‐Jung; Tackett, Sean

doi:10.1186/s12960-021-00621-z

Cited by 5 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Results of the study showed the relatively unsatisfactory overall status of public availability of information from medical schools in China. The finding is consistent with Baniadam and colleagues’ study of 20 WFME-recognized agencies’ transparency, which revealed that while 12 agencies had over 90% of expected information elements related to accreditation standards, procedures, and processes available on agency websites, 6 agencies had less than 50% information elements accessible [ 12 ]. They indicated that some WFME-recognized agencies present significant barriers for stakeholders of accreditation due to a lack of transparency [ 12 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The finding is consistent with Baniadam and colleagues’ study of 20 WFME-recognized agencies’ transparency, which revealed that while 12 agencies had over 90% of expected information elements related to accreditation standards, procedures, and processes available on agency websites, 6 agencies had less than 50% information elements accessible [ 12 ]. They indicated that some WFME-recognized agencies present significant barriers for stakeholders of accreditation due to a lack of transparency [ 12 ]. Our result echoed Verkijika and De Wet’s finding in their accessibility evaluation of all 26 South African university websites that none of the websites met all the WCAG (Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) 2.0 accessibility criteria [ 18 ].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

“…The policy is shared with all stakeholders” [ 11 ] is clearly stated. Baniadam and colleagues have examined the public availability of information from WFME-recognized accreditation agencies as a marker of their transparency [ 12 ]. Information transparency is becoming increasingly important, as commitments are made to continuously enhance quality of medical education in addition to the challenges created by globalization [ 13 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Public availability of information from officially accredited medical schools in China

Su²,

et al. 2022

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Medical education accreditation in China has been conducted by the Working Committee for the Accreditation of Medical Education (WCAME) and 129 medical schools have completed accreditation by December 2021. Despite studies on the standards, process and effectiveness of accreditation, the actual information transparency of accredited medical schools in China has not been examined. The study investigated the status of publicly available information from WCAME-accredited medical schools in China, and whether public availability of information had significant differences among different types of universities. Methods The 129 medical schools’ official websites were reviewed for the 21 criteria of the WFME Global Standards for Quality Improvement: Basic Medical Education. Dichotomous method was used to record information as presence or absence. SPSS was utilized for descriptive and ANOVA analyses. Results The mean of the publicly available information on the 21 criteria was 13.77 ± 3.57, and only 5 (3.9%) accredited medical schools had all relevant information available. Publicly available information on Governance (100%) and Administration (100%) was the most, whereas information on Assessment in support of learning (16.3%) was the least. Public availability of information differed significantly among schools accredited with higher (18.15 ± 2.16), medium (13.69 ± 3.41) and lower results (12.79 ± 3.19) (F = 14.71, p < 0.05). Medical universities and comprehensive universities did not show significant differences in their overall information availability (F = 0.25, p > 0.05). Central government funded universities had a remarkably larger amount of publicly available information than local government funded universities (17.86 ± 1.98 vs. 12.75 ± 2.93, p < 0.05). Conclusion Public availability of information from the accredited medical schools in China needs to be improved to promote transparency and continuous quality improvement, especially with regard to information on curriculum, assessment and quality assurance. Explicit information availability requirements need to be considered to include in medical education standards, and further studies are warranted to explore which information elements should be made publicly available.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Public availability of information from officially accredited medical schools in China

Su²,

et al. 2022

BMC Med Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although accreditation protocols are often not publicly accessible [ 12 ], we searched accrediting organizations’ websites for documents describing their protocol. If that failed, we attempted to obtain the documents by contacting the organization and emailing our professional networks.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Consistency and quality in written accreditation protocols for pediatrician training programs: a mixed-methods analysis of a global sample, and directions for improvement

Coria,

Hassan,

Huang

et al. 2023

Hum Resour Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The World Federation for Medical Education (WFME) defines accreditation as 'certification of the suitability of medical education programs, and of…competence…in the delivery of medical education.' Accreditation bodies function at national, regional and global levels. In 2015, WFME published quality standards for accreditation of postgraduate medical education (PGME). We compared accreditation of pediatric PGME programs to these standards to understand variability in accreditation and areas for improvement. Methods We examined 19 accreditation protocols representing all country income levels and world regions. For each, two raters assessed 36 WFME-defined accreditation sub-areas as present, partially present, or absent. When rating “partially present” or “absent”, raters noted the rationale for the rating. Using an inductive approach, authors qualitatively analyzed notes, generating themes in reasons for divergence from the benchmark. Results A median of 56% (IQR 43–77%) of WFME sub-areas were present in individual protocols; 22% (IQR 15–39%) were partially present; and 8.3% (IQR 5.5–21%) were absent. Inter-rater agreement was 74% (SD 11%). Sub-areas least addressed included number of trainees, educational expertise, and performance of qualified doctors. Qualitative themes of divergence included (1) variation in protocols related to heterogeneity in program structure; (2) limited engagement with stakeholders, especially regarding educational outcomes and community/health system needs; (3) a trainee-centered approach, including equity considerations, was not universal; and (4) less emphasis on quality of education, particularly faculty development in teaching. Conclusions Heterogeneity in accreditation can be appropriate, considering cultural or regulatory context. However, we identified broadly applicable areas for improvement: ensuring equitable access to training, taking a trainee-centered approach, emphasizing quality of teaching, and ensuring diverse stakeholder feedback.

show abstract

“…Two related issues touched on in these articles could benefit from further exploration, including accreditation's role in increasing public availability of information and how quality assurance information is used, or not used, to evaluate institutions for the purpose of gatekeeping of international medical graduates (IMGs) throughout the world. Many accreditation systems and the WFME Recognition Program strive, albeit with some limited success, [5][6][7] to increase the amount and public availability of information on educational institutions so students can make informed choices. Just as the United States is only one of two countries (the other being New Zealand) that allow pharmaceutical companies to advertise regulated drugs directly to consumers, the medical education field in this country is encumbered by commercials for educational institutions with potentially misleading or incomplete information on the quality of education delivered, student success, and practice opportunities for physician graduates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%