1887
Research Open Access
Like 0

Abstract

Introduction

Most evaluations of field epidemiology training programmes (FETP) are limited to process measures, but stakeholders may need evidence of impact.

Objective

To ascertain if the United Kingdom (UK) FETP met its objectives to: (i) strengthen capacity and provision of national epidemiology services, (ii) develop a network of highly skilled field epidemiologists with a shared sense of purpose working to common standards and (iii) raise the profile of field epidemiology through embedding it into everyday health protection practice.

Methods

The evaluation consisted of: (i) focus groups with training site staff, (ii) individual interviews with stakeholders and (iii) an online survey of FETP fellows and graduates. Findings were synthesised and triangulated across the three evaluation components to identify cross-cutting themes and subthemes.

Findings

Eight focus groups were undertaken with 38 staff, ten stakeholders were interviewed and 28 (76%) graduates and fellows responded to the survey. Three themes emerged: confidence, application and rigour. FETP was perceived to have contributed to the development, directly and indirectly, of a skilled workforce in field epidemiology, increasing stakeholders’ confidence in the service. Graduates applied their learning in practice, collaborating with a wide range of disciplines. Fellows and graduates demonstrated rigour by introducing innovations, supporting service improvements and helping supervisors maintain their skills and share good practice.

Conclusion

The UK FETP appears to have met its three key objectives, and also had wider organisational impact. FETPs should systematically and prospectively collect information on how they have influenced changes to field epidemiology practice.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.36.1900013
2019-09-05
2019-09-17
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.36.1900013
Loading
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/eurosurveillance/24/36/eurosurv-24-36-4.html?itemId=/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.36.1900013&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

References

  1. World Health Organisation (WHO). International Health Regulations (2005). 2nd Edition. Geneva: WHO; 2008.
  2. Lubogo M, Donewell B, Godbless L, Shabani S, Maeda J, Temba H, et al. Ebola virus disease outbreak; the role of field epidemiology training programme in the fight against the epidemic, Liberia, 2014. Pan Afr Med J. 2015;22(Suppl 1):5. PMID: 26779298 
  3. Heymann DL, Chen L, Takemi K, Fidler DP, Tappero JW, Thomas MJ, et al. Global health security: the wider lessons from the west African Ebola virus disease epidemic. Lancet. 2015;385(9980):1884-901.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60858-3  PMID: 25987157 
  4. Health Protection Agency (HPA). Review of Epidemiology in the Health Protection Agency A Report for the Health Protection Agency Board. London: HPA; 2008. Available from: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140714114951/http:/www.hpa.org.uk/webc/HPAwebFile/HPAweb_C/1225441610156Accessed 08/06/2019
  5. Scarlett HP, Nisbett RA, Stoler J, Bain BC, Bhatta MP, Castle T, et al. South-to-North, cross-disciplinary training in global health practice: ten years of lessons learned from an infectious disease field course in Jamaica. Am J Trop Med Hyg. 2011;85(3):397-404.  https://doi.org/10.4269/ajtmh.2011.10-0524  PMID: 21896794 
  6. Hoy D, Durand AM, Hancock T, Cash HL, Hardie K, Paterson B, et al. Lessons learnt from a three-year pilot field epidemiology training programme. Western Pac Surveill Response J. 2017;8(3):21-6.  https://doi.org/10.5365/wpsar.2016.7.4.005  PMID: 29051838 
  7. Schneider D, Evering-Watley M, Walke H, Bloland PB. Training the Global Public Health Workforce Through Applied Epidemiology Training Programs: CDC’s Experience, 1951-2011. Public Health Rev. 2011;33(1):190-203.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03391627 
  8. Dick VR, Masters AE, McConnon PJ, Engel JP, Underwood VN, Harrison RJ. The CDC/Council of state and territorial epidemiologists applied epidemiology fellowship program: evaluation of the first 9 years. Am J Prev Med. 2014;47(5) Suppl 3;S376-82.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.07.022  PMID: 25439260 
  9. Andze GO, Namsenmo A, Illunga BK, Kazambu D, Delissaint D, Kuaban C, et al. Central African Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program: building and strengthening regional workforce capacity in public health. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;10(Supp 1):4. PMID: 22359692 
  10. López A, Cáceres VM. Central America Field Epidemiology Training Program (CA FETP): a pathway to sustainable public health capacity development. Hum Resour Health. 2008;6(1):27.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-6-27  PMID: 19087253 
  11. Bhatnagar T, Gupte MD, Hutin YJ, Kaur P, Kumaraswami V, Manickam P, et al. NIE FETP team (by alphabetical order). Seven years of the field epidemiology training programme (FETP) at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India: an internal evaluation. Hum Resour Health. 2012;10(1):36.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-10-36  PMID: 23013473 
  12. van Loock F, Rowland M, Grein T, Moren A. Intervention epidemiology training: a European perspective. Euro Surveill. 2001;6(3):37-43.  https://doi.org/10.2807/esm.06.03.00218-en  PMID: 11682713 
  13. Ammon A, Hamouda O, Breuer T, Petersen LR. The Field Epidemiology Training Program (FETP) in Germany. Euro Surveill. 2001;6(3):43-5.  https://doi.org/10.2807/esm.06.03.00219-en  PMID: 11682714 
  14. Martinez Navarro JF, Herrera D, Sanchez Barco C. Applied field epidemiology programme in Spain. Euro Surveill. 2001;6(3):46-7.  https://doi.org/10.2807/esm.06.03.00220-en  PMID: 11682715 
  15. Lee MS, Kim EY, Lee SW. Experience of 16 years and its associated challenges in the Field Epidemiology Training Program in Korea. Epidemiol Health. 2017;39:e2017058.  https://doi.org/10.4178/epih.e2017058  PMID: 29370686 
  16. Halm A, Seyler T, Mohamed S, Ali Mbaé SB, Randrianarivo-Solofoniaina AE, Ratsitorahina M, et al. Four years into the Indian ocean field epidemiology training programme. Pan Afr Med J. 2017;26:195.  https://doi.org/10.11604/pamj.2017.26.195.10358  PMID: 28674588 
  17. Subramanian RE, Herrera DG, Kelly PM. An evaluation of the global network of field epidemiology and laboratory training programmes: a resource for improving public health capacity and increasing the number of public health professionals worldwide. Hum Resour Health. 2013;11(1):45.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1478-4491-11-45  PMID: 24053689 
  18. André AM, Lopez A, Perkins S, Lambert S, Chace L, Noudeke N, et al. Frontline Field Epidemiology Training Programs as a Strategy to Improve Disease Surveillance and Response. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(13).  https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2313.170803  PMID: 29155657 
  19. Kirkpatrick DL, Kirkpatrick JD. Evaluating training programs. San Francisco: Berett-Koehler; 1994.
  20. Wall D. Evaluation: improving practice, influencing policy. In: Understanding medical education: evidence, theory and practice. Swanick T, editor. Chichester: Wiley Blackwell and The Association for the Study of Medical Education; 2010.
  21. Lillo-Crespo M, Sierras-Davó MC, MacRae R, Rooney K. Developing a framework for evaluating the impact of Healthcare Improvement Science Education across Europe: a qualitative study. J Educ Eval Health Prof. 2017;14:28.  https://doi.org/10.3352/jeehp.2017.14.28  PMID: 29203760 
  22. Kirkpatrick partners. The official site of the Kirkpatrick model. [Accessed: 9 Jun 2019]. Available from: https://www.kirkpatrickpartners.com/Our-Philosophy/The-Kirkpatrick-Model
  23. Ritchie J, Spencer L, O’Connor W. Carrying out qualitative analysis. In: Qualitative Research Practice: a Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. Ritchie J, Lewis J, editors. London: Sage Publications; 2003.
  24. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341(sep17 1):c4587.  PMID: 20851841 
  25. Senkomago V, Duran D, Loharikar A, Hyde TB, Markowitz LE, Unger ER, Saraiya M. CDC Activities for Improving Implementation of Human Papillomavirus Vaccination, Cervical Cancer Screening, and Surveillance Worldwide. Emerg Infect Dis. 2017;23(Supplement 1): S101-107.
  26. Wu S, Roychowdhury I, Khan M. Evaluating the impact of healthcare provider training to improve tuberculosis management: a systematic review of methods and outcome indicators used. Int J Infect Dis. 2017;56:105-10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2016.11.421  PMID: 27979785 
  27. Berndt A, Murray CM, Kennedy K, Stanley MJ, Gilbert-Hunt S. Effectiveness of distance learning strategies for continuing professional development (CPD) for rural allied health practitioners: a systematic review. BMC Med Educ. 2017;17(1):117.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-017-0949-5  PMID: 28701199 
  28. Mutabaruka E, Sawadogo M, Tarnagda Z, Ouédraogo L, Sangare L, Ousmane B, et al. The West Africa Field Epidemiology and Laboratory Training Program, a strategy to improve disease surveillance and epidemic control in West Africa. Pan Afr Med J. 2011;10(Supp 1):10. PMID: 22359698 
  29. Moolenaar RL, Thacker SB. Evaluation of field training in the epidemic intelligence service: publications and job choices. Am J Prev Med. 2004;26(4):299-306.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2003.12.014  PMID: 15110056 
  30. Volkov B, MacDonald G, Herrera D, Jones D, Patel M. Evaluating Application of Knowledge and Skills: The Use of Consensus Expert Review to Assess Conference Abstracts of Field Epidemiology Training Participants. J Multidiscip Eval. 2014;10(23):44-50. PMID: 28659726 
  31. Bates R. A critical analysis of evaluation practice: the Kirkpatrick model and the principle of beneficence. Eval Program Plann. 2004;27(3):341-7.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2004.04.011 
/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2019.24.36.1900013
Loading

Data & Media loading...

Supplementary data

Comment has been disabled for this content
Submit comment
Close
Comment moderation successfully completed
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error