The Opinions of Family Medicine Residents about Education and Working Conditions in Turkey

Abstract

Objective: In residency education, the educational environment interacts with each component of the training. This study is intended to assess the perceptions of family medicine residents about the educational and working environments from their point of view and to reveal their problems and expectations. Methods: In this descriptive and cross-sectional study, nationwide 434 family medicine residents’ opinions about their educational environment were collected using a survey prepared by the researchers. Results: The mean age of the residents was 29.26±4.31 years. Women constituted 70.5% (n=306) of participants and 53.7% (n=233) chose family medicine career due to its working conditions. The rate of those who stated that there were no educational family health centers was 57.1% (n=248). More than half (67.5%; n=293) were satisfied with the department that they are getting education. Institutional assessment score (IAS) of those who chose family medicine for working conditions and obligations was lower than the participants who chose it because of their love and interest (p<0.001). The satisfaction score for the residency education (SSRE) was higher for those aged 36 and over than the age group 24-29 (p=0.008) and the age group 30-35 (p=0.005). Conclusions: Although more than three quarters of the participants stated that activities related to training such as articles and seminar hours were sufficient, approximately one third stated that theoretical and practical education was not sufficient. Another important result was that less than half of the residents believed that when they completed their education, they would be competent to work in all conditions.

Keywords

• family medicine
• residency
• education environment
• working conditions

Türkiye’deki Aile Hekimliği Uzmanlık Öğrencilerinin Eğitim ve Çalışma Koşulları Hakkındaki Görüşleri

Abstract

Amaç: Uzmanlık eğitimi sürecinde eğitim ortamı eğitimin her bir bileşeniyle etkileşim içindedir. Bu çalışmanın amacı, Türkiye’deki aile hekimliği uzmanlık öğrencilerinin eğitim ve çalışma ortamlarının kendi bakış açılarıyla değerlendirilmesi, böylelikle sorunlarını ve beklentilerini ortaya koyabilmektir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Tanımlayıcı ve kesitsel tipte olan bu çalışmada, ülke genelinde 434 aile hekimliği uzmanlık öğrencisinin eğitim ortamları ile ilgili görüşleri, araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan anket ile toplanmıştır. Bulgular: Uzmanlık öğrencilerinin yaş ortalaması 29,26±4,31 yıldı. Katılımcıların %70,5’i (n=306) kadın ve %53,7’si (n=233) aile hekimliğini çalışma şartlarından dolayı seçmişti. Yarısından fazlası (%67,5, n=293) eğitim aldığı alanı seçmekten memnundu. Eğitim aile sağlığı merkezlerinin olmadığını belirtenlerin oranı %57,1’di (n=248). Çalışma şartlarından ve zorunluluklardan dolayı aile hekimliğini seçenlerin kurum değerlendirme puanı (KDP) sevgisi ve ilgisinden dolayı seçen katılımcılardan düşüktü (p<0,001). Uzmanlık eğitiminden memnuniyet puanı (UEMTP) 36 yaş ve üzerindekilerin, 24-29 yaş (p=0,008) ve 30-35 yaş grubuna (p=0,005) göre yüksekti. Sonuç: Katılımcıların dörtte üçünden fazlası makale, seminer saatleri gibi eğitimle ilgili faaliyetlerin yeterli olduğunu belirtmesine rağmen yaklaşık üçte birinin teorik ve pratik eğitimin yeterli olmadığını belirtti. Diğer bir önemli sonuç da uzmanlık öğrencilerinin yarısından azının eğitimlerini tamamladıklarında her koşulda çalışabilecek yeterlilikte olacaklarına inanmalarıydı.

Keywords

• Aile hekimliği
• uzmanlık eğitimi
• eğitim ortamı
• çalışma koşulları

References

1. 1.The Board of Specialization in Medicine Curriculum Creation and Standart Setting System (TUKMOS). [Internet] [cited 2019 November 5] Available from: https://tuk.saglik.gov.tr/TR,50055/aile-hekimligi.html
2. 2.World Federation of Medical Education (WFME). Postgraduate Medical Education. [Internet] WFME Global Standarts For Quality Improvement The 2015 Revision. [cited 2019 November 5]. Available from: https://wfme.org/standards/pgme/
3. 3.Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada (CanMED). [Internet] [cited 2019 November 5]. Available from: http://www.royalcollege.ca/rcsite/canmeds/canmeds-framework-e
4. 4.Roff S, McAleer S. What is educational climate?. Medical Teacher. 2001;23(4): 333-34
5. 5.Genn JM. AMEE Medical Education Guide No. 23 (Part 2): Curriculum, environment, climate, quality and change in medical education – a unifying perspective. Medical Teacher. 2001; 23(5):445-54
6. 6.Llera J, Durante E. Correlation between the educational environment and burn-out syndrome in residency programs at a university hospital. Arch Argent Pediatr. 2014; 112(1):6-11
7. 7.Cebeci S, Konur M, Özdemir H, Özünal M, Sayalı E, Uzuner A et al. Opinions of family medicine residents about family medicine practice and residency education in Turkey. Working Report. 2007.
8. 8.Alanyalı FM, Geroğlu B, Kurnaz MA, Can H, Öngel K. Opinions About Residency Training Program of Family Physician Residents at Training and Research Hospitals in Izmir and Their Knowledge About Family Medicine. The Journal of Turkish Family Physician .2014; 5(4): 1‐7.

9. 9.Yıldırım B, Eğici MT. On‐Site Training of Family Medicine and Training Family Health Centers with the Perspective of Family Medicine Residents. Ankara Med J. 2018; 18(3): 300‐11.
10. 10.Bringer A, Carroll JC. What does the feminization of family medicine mean? CMAJ. 2012; 184(15) :1752.
11. 11.Weizblit N, Noble J, Baerlocher MO. The feminisation of Canadian medicine and its impact upon doctor productivity. Medical Education. 2009; 43: 442–448.
12. 12.Senf JH, Campos-Outcalt D, Kutob R. Factors related to the choice of family medicine: A reassessment and literature review. J Am Board Fam Pract. 2003;16:502–512.
13. 13.Naimer S, Press Y, Weissman C, Zisk-Rony RY, Weiss YG, Tandeter H. Medical students’ perceptions of a career in family medicine. Israel Journal of Health Policy Research. 2018; 7:1.
14. 14.Karaoğlu N, Bulut S, Baydar A, Carelli F. State and trait anxiety among family physicians: a case control study. Turkish Journal of Family Practice. 2009; 13(3): 119-126
15. 15.Oandasan IF, Archibald D, Authier L, Kathrine L, McEwen LA, Palacios M et al. Giving curriculum planners an edge: Using entrance surveys to design family medicine education. Canadian Family Physician. 2015; 61(4): e204‐10
16. 16.The Council of Higher Education Residency Training Workshop Report in Medical Departments. [Internet] The Council of Higher Education. Ankara: 16 May 2017. [cited 2020 April 20]. Available from: https://www.yok.gov.tr/Documents/Yayinlar/Yayinlarimiz/tip_dallarinda_egitim_calistayi_2017.pdf
17. 17.Aysan E, Köroğlu G, Türkeli V, Özgönül A, Özyaşar A, Gülümser Ç et al. Resident Physicians in Turkey: Results of a Survey of 1069 Residents from 11 Provinces. Turk J Med Sci. 2008; 38 (1): 35-42 .
18. 18.Uzuner A, Topsever P, Ünlüoğlu İ, Caylan A, Dağdeviren N, Uncu Y et al. Residents’ views about family medicine specialty education in Turkey. BMC Medical Education. 2010;10: 29
19. 19.Metsemakers JFM. Family medicine training in Turkey: some thoughts.Turkish Journal of Family Practice. 2012;16(1):23-34
20. 20.Takahashi O, Ohde S, Jacobs JL, Tokuda Y, Omata F, Fukui T. Residents’ experience of scholarly activities is associated with higher satisfaction with residency training. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24(6): 716– 20.
21. 21.Tan MN, Özçakar N, Kartal M. Resident Doctors’ Professional Satisfaction and Its Effect on Their Lives. Marmara Medical Journal. 2012; 25: 20-5.
22. 22.Yaşan A, Eşsizoğlu A, Yalçın M, Özkan M. Job Satisfaction, Anxiety Level and Associated Factors in a Group of Residents in a University Hospital. Dicle Medical Journal. 2008; 35: 228-33.
23. 23.Freeborn DK. Satisfaction, commitment and physiological well-being among HMO physicians. West J Med. 2001;174(1):13-8.
24. 24.Özyurt A, Hayran O, Sur H. Predictors of burnout and job satisfaction among Turkish physicians. QJ Med. 2006;99(3):161-9.
25. 25.Geneau R, Lehoux P, Pineault R, Lamarche PA. Primary care practice a la carte among GPs: using organizational diversity to increase job satisfaction. Family Practice. 2007; 24:138–44.
26. 26.Le Floch B, Bastiaens H, Le reste YJ, Lingner H, Hoffman D, Czachowski S, et al. Which positive factors determine the GP satisfaction in clinical practice? A systematic literature review. BMC Family Practice. 2016; 17: 133–41.