The research subjects consisted of 121 university faculty members who responded to a questionnaire.
sex
Of the 121 faculty members who participated, 80 (66.12%) were male and 41 (33.88%) were female. Regarding gender variables, there were no statistically significant differences between men and women in terms of the number of medical qualifications obtained, the number of certifications by evaluation organizations, the number of six-year research terms, and the number of five-year educational terms. Regarding managerial positions and clinical activities, there was a significant difference in that only men had ever held the positions of dean and vice dean, while 65.85% of women had never held a managerial position ( p=0.032) (Figure 1). As no statistical dependence was detected between participants’ age and gender (p = 0.938), age is ignored as a confounding variable when interpreting these results.
Figure 1
Clinical activities related to faculty managerial positions and gender (p = 0.032 and p = 0.003, respectively)
Significant differences were found between men and women regarding medical activities and attachment to the clinic (p = 0.003). More men participated in medical activities (63.75%) and were affiliated with clinics (50%) than women (34.14% and 26.83%, respectively). Regarding training in teaching methods, no significant difference was found between men and women, but 63.75% of men and 77.77% of women did not receive prescribed training in teaching methods. 22 men and 9 women did not participate in the educational innovation project. Regarding the production of teaching materials, 63 men and 28 women developed the materials. Twelve men and four women received awards for educational innovation. We found no significant differences between men and women in training received in the following areas: ICT (48 men, 25 women). E-learning (39 men, 20 women). Virtual environment (27 men, 16 women). PBL (30 men, 13 women). Debriefing session (10 men, 5 women). However, 87.60% of participants did not receive training on debriefing (Figure 2). A significant difference was found between men and women regarding clinical simulation training (p = 0.019). 33.75% of men had received some training, while only 14.63% of women.
Figure 2
Proportion of male and female faculty trained in clinical simulation (p = 0.019) and clinic attachment (p = 0.003)
year
The age of 83 teachers (68.59%) was above 45 years and 38 (31.41%) were below 45 years. Eighty of the teachers aged 45 years and above had medical qualifications, as did 30 of the teachers aged under 45 years (p = 0.004). In the elderly group, 67.47% completed the 6-year study period, compared to 36.83% in those under 45 years of age (p=0.002). None completed a six-year term of five or more years. In terms of experience in managerial positions, staff over the age of 45 were more likely to hold these positions or the posts of dean or vice dean, whereas 76.31% of younger staff had never held a managerial position; There was a significant difference (p = 0.002). . No significant differences were found between age groups in participation in medical activities and clinical attachment.
Although 63.15% of those under 45 years of age had not received this type of training, there were no significant differences between age groups regarding regulated training in teaching methods received. No significant differences were found in participation in educational innovation projects (71 people under 45 years old, 29 people under 45 years old) or creation of teaching materials (64 people under 45 years old, 27 people under 45 years old). Regarding awards received for educational innovation, a significant difference was found (p=0.002), with 16 older teachers receiving awards and no younger staff receiving awards.
Regarding training in specific teaching methods, there were no significant differences between age groups for ICT (52 under 45s, 21 under 45s) and e-learning (20 under 45s, under 20s). did. Virtual environment (30 under 45 and 13 young). Significant differences were found in clinical simulation training (p < 0.001): 30 of those aged 45 years and older received training, compared to only 3 of those under 45 years. No differences were found between groups in PBL and debriefing training, but both age groups showed lower rates. (Figure 3).
Figure 3
Clinical activity related to faculty managerial position and age (p = 0.002), educational innovation award (p = 0.002) and clinical simulation training (p < 0.001)
Academic background
Of all faculty members surveyed, 87 (71.90%) had a medical degree and 34 (28.10%) had other degree qualifications. educational background, both in relation to age (the “physician group” tends to be older than the “other qualification group”, p < 0.001) and in relation to gender (the ratio of men to women tends to be higher). A detectable association was observed. Compared to the “other qualification group,” the “medical group” is more unbalanced, p < 0.001). There was no difference between those with the title ``doctor'', that is, those with a medical degree, and employees with other qualifications. Therefore, most of the faculty members were doctors. More than half (56.32%) of medical degree holders were accredited by the National Evaluation and Accreditation Agency (ANECA), as were 88.23% of other degree holders (statistically significant difference: p < 0.001) ( Figure 4). The number of 6-year research terms and 5-year teaching terms was similar between employees with medical degrees and those with other degrees. Managerial positions were held by both teachers with medical degrees and teachers with other qualifications. More physicians were involved in medical activities or affiliated with clinics (51), but no staff with other degrees were affiliated with clinics (p < 0.001).
Figure 4
Educational access certification (p < 0.001) and clinic affiliation (p < 0.001) by staff with medical degrees and staff with other degree qualifications.
Teachers with other degree qualifications had more regulated training in teaching methods than teachers with medical degrees, a statistically significant difference (p = 0.039) (Figure 5). Similarly, participation in educational innovation projects by people with non-medical degrees was higher, especially in the role of project director (p < 0.001).
Figure 5
Regulated training in teaching methods (p = 0.039) and participation in educational innovation projects by staff with medical degrees versus those with other degree qualifications (p = 0.0006)
Regarding the development of educational materials, no significant differences were found between physicians and physicians with other degrees. The same was true for the number of recipients of awards/awards for educational innovation. Regarding training in specific teaching methods, teachers with medical degrees and others in ICT (49 with medical degrees, 24 with other degrees) or e-learning (39 with medical degrees) No significant differences were found between teachers with degree qualifications. 20) including medical and other degrees. Significant differences were found between the two groups, with teachers with non-medical degrees receiving more training in virtual environments than teachers with medical degrees, but the opposite was true for clinical simulation training. True, more doctors were being trained. higher than staff with other degrees (p < 0.001) (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Teachers with medical degrees and teachers with other degree qualifications received more training in virtual environments (p = 0.019) and clinical simulation (p < 0.001).
No significant differences were found regarding PBL training and debriefing. More than a third (35.63%) of teachers with medical degrees had training in PBL, compared to 35.29% of teachers with other degrees. Regarding debriefing, 12.64% of doctors and 11.76% of teachers with other degrees had received training.
