A content analysis of Canadian master of public health course descriptions and core competencies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The Master of Public Health (MPH) is a common graduate-level professional degree that is offered by Canadian Universities. To date, few studies have examined competency-based MPH education in Canada. Objective To examine the degree to which MPH programs' course descriptions align with the Public Health Agency of Canada's (PHAC) core competency categories in order to identify strengths and training gaps in such programs across Canada. Methods A content analysis of MPH programs in Canada was conducted from July 2019 to November 2019. A sampling frame of programs was obtained from a list from the PHAC website. Program information, including mandatory and elective course descriptions was extracted from each program's website and analyzed in NVivo 12. Course descriptions were independently categorized by two researchers into one or more of the seven categories of the core competencies outlined by PHAC. Results We identified 18 universities with MPH programs with 267 courses across Canada. Thematic analysis revealed that 100% of programs had coursework that addressed the “Public Health Sciences” and “Assessment and Analysis” categories; 93% addressed “Policy and Program Planning, Implementation, and Evaluation”; 67% addressed each of “Communication,” “Leadership,” and “Partnerships, Collaboration, and Advocacy”; and only 56% had course descriptions addressing “Diversity and Inclusiveness.” Conclusions We find that Canadian MPH programs may lack course offerings addressing core competency categories relating to diversity and inclusiveness, communication, and leadership. Our findings were limited in scope as we relied on program Web sites; thus, further research should explore course content in more depth than this course description analysis allowed and identify ways to close the MPH curricular gaps we identified. Key messages Further research should be conducted to determine if the current model of competency education in Canada is successfully guiding MPH programs in meeting local and international workforce demands. Continued discussion is needed to raise the importance of MPH competency-based education in Canada.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".