旁遮普省研究生对中央诱导政策的认知——混合方法定性研究

Maliha Nadeem, Hafsa Khalid, Anam Nazir, H. Yaqoob, Ghulam Abbas Kalyar, A. Momina, A. Qureshi
{"title":"旁遮普省研究生对中央诱导政策的认知——混合方法定性研究","authors":"Maliha Nadeem, Hafsa Khalid, Anam Nazir, H. Yaqoob, Ghulam Abbas Kalyar, A. Momina, A. Qureshi","doi":"10.37018/BZKW5932","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Central induction policy is recently implemented for induction of doctors for post-graduation training based on their performance in MBBS, post-graduation entrance exam, house job, studying in public institute, work in periphery and research. Despite controversies this policy was implemented in May 2016 and no feedback was taken by the stakeholders. This discrepancy aroused the need for data collection to determine effectiveness of CIP in terms of PG perceptions. \nSubjects and methods: An interview based qualitative study was conducted in four Tertiary care hospitals from 05 June 2018 to 30 November 2018. Request forms were randomly sent to 75 residents inducted through and before CIP. Total 39 residents participated in the study after giving consent. Interview questions were selected by the authors after detailed discussion. Each interview was heard thrice, manuscripts were prepared in the same words used by the participant. Manuscripts were discussed among the team members to identify themes. Depending upon themes questionnaire was designed and quantitative data was collected. \nResults: Qualitative evaluation identified following major themes including policy being merit based allowing every candidate to get a fair chance of induction; financial security on all the slots and provision of qualified doctors at primary health care centers for the induction policy whereas issues with choice of specialty and place of work, delay in start of training due to various factors and discrepancy in special cases like wedlock, FMGs, authenticity of research papers were identified as demerits. \nConclusion: CIP is a good initiative and is acceptable due to its merit based policy and financial security however there is need to improve the standard and evaluation method of research and option for change of specialty.","PeriodicalId":350066,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Fatima Jinnah Medical University -","volume":"62 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Perception about central induction policy among postgraduate trainees of Punjab - a mixed method qualitative study\",\"authors\":\"Maliha Nadeem, Hafsa Khalid, Anam Nazir, H. Yaqoob, Ghulam Abbas Kalyar, A. Momina, A. Qureshi\",\"doi\":\"10.37018/BZKW5932\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Central induction policy is recently implemented for induction of doctors for post-graduation training based on their performance in MBBS, post-graduation entrance exam, house job, studying in public institute, work in periphery and research. Despite controversies this policy was implemented in May 2016 and no feedback was taken by the stakeholders. This discrepancy aroused the need for data collection to determine effectiveness of CIP in terms of PG perceptions. \\nSubjects and methods: An interview based qualitative study was conducted in four Tertiary care hospitals from 05 June 2018 to 30 November 2018. Request forms were randomly sent to 75 residents inducted through and before CIP. Total 39 residents participated in the study after giving consent. Interview questions were selected by the authors after detailed discussion. Each interview was heard thrice, manuscripts were prepared in the same words used by the participant. Manuscripts were discussed among the team members to identify themes. Depending upon themes questionnaire was designed and quantitative data was collected. \\nResults: Qualitative evaluation identified following major themes including policy being merit based allowing every candidate to get a fair chance of induction; financial security on all the slots and provision of qualified doctors at primary health care centers for the induction policy whereas issues with choice of specialty and place of work, delay in start of training due to various factors and discrepancy in special cases like wedlock, FMGs, authenticity of research papers were identified as demerits. \\nConclusion: CIP is a good initiative and is acceptable due to its merit based policy and financial security however there is need to improve the standard and evaluation method of research and option for change of specialty.\",\"PeriodicalId\":350066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Fatima Jinnah Medical University -\",\"volume\":\"62 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Fatima Jinnah Medical University -\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37018/BZKW5932\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Fatima Jinnah Medical University -","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37018/BZKW5932","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:近期实施的中央入职政策是根据医生在MBBS、研究生入学考试、家庭工作、公共机构学习、外围工作和研究方面的表现来入职博士进行研究生培养。尽管存在争议,但该政策于2016年5月实施,没有收到利益相关者的反馈。这种差异引起了数据收集的需要,以确定CIP在PG感知方面的有效性。研究对象与方法:于2018年6月05日至2018年11月30日在四家三级医院进行了基于访谈的定性研究。申请表格随机发送给通过CIP和之前引入的75名居民。共有39名居民在同意后参与了本次研究。访谈问题是作者经过详细讨论后选定的。每次采访都要听三遍,稿子都是用参与者使用的相同语言编写的。团队成员讨论手稿以确定主题。根据主题设计问卷,收集定量数据。结果:定性评估确定了以下主要主题,包括以绩效为基础的政策,让每位候选人都有公平的入职机会;所有职位的财务保障和初级卫生保健中心合格医生的提供都是入职政策的缺点,而专业和工作地点的选择、由于各种因素导致的培训开始延迟以及婚姻、fmg等特殊情况的差异、研究论文的真实性等问题被认为是缺点。结论:CIP是一个很好的创举,由于其基于政策和财政保障的优势,是可以接受的,但需要完善研究的标准和评价方法,以及专业变更的选择。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Perception about central induction policy among postgraduate trainees of Punjab - a mixed method qualitative study
Background: Central induction policy is recently implemented for induction of doctors for post-graduation training based on their performance in MBBS, post-graduation entrance exam, house job, studying in public institute, work in periphery and research. Despite controversies this policy was implemented in May 2016 and no feedback was taken by the stakeholders. This discrepancy aroused the need for data collection to determine effectiveness of CIP in terms of PG perceptions. Subjects and methods: An interview based qualitative study was conducted in four Tertiary care hospitals from 05 June 2018 to 30 November 2018. Request forms were randomly sent to 75 residents inducted through and before CIP. Total 39 residents participated in the study after giving consent. Interview questions were selected by the authors after detailed discussion. Each interview was heard thrice, manuscripts were prepared in the same words used by the participant. Manuscripts were discussed among the team members to identify themes. Depending upon themes questionnaire was designed and quantitative data was collected. Results: Qualitative evaluation identified following major themes including policy being merit based allowing every candidate to get a fair chance of induction; financial security on all the slots and provision of qualified doctors at primary health care centers for the induction policy whereas issues with choice of specialty and place of work, delay in start of training due to various factors and discrepancy in special cases like wedlock, FMGs, authenticity of research papers were identified as demerits. Conclusion: CIP is a good initiative and is acceptable due to its merit based policy and financial security however there is need to improve the standard and evaluation method of research and option for change of specialty.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信