Quality of training and satisfaction level among epidemiology and public health graduates in Tamil Nadu, South India: a descriptive cross-sectional survey

INTRODUCTION

Epidemiology, as the foundational science of public health, systematically examines the relationships between health or disease and various health-related factors within human populations.¹ Educators in epidemiology and public health play a crucial role in this field by providing high-quality instruction and practical experience to their students. This comprehensive training ensures that future professionals in both epidemiology and public health are well-prepared to influence health policy and effectively implement health programs. A degree in epidemiology or public health creates a wide range of career opportunities. Some students pursue these fields to become community health workers, directly engaging with the populations they serve. Others aspire to become program coordinators, designing and implementing public health initiatives. Additionally, many students aim to become educators or researchers, contributing to the advancement of health and well-being on a broader scale. The diverse career paths available to epidemiology and public health graduates underscore the importance of their education in shaping the future of public health.²

To develop proficient epidemiology and public health professionals, “quality teaching” is crucial, though it remains a polysemic term and can be challenging to define.^3,4 In research, both “quality teaching” and “effective teaching” encompass a broad range of skills, practices, and traits, including subject knowledge, clarity of instruction, enthusiasm, empathy, preparation, approaches to feedback, maintaining an organized learning environment, and teacher-student rapport.^3,5

Recognizing the importance of such teaching standards, the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University took a significant step by introduced a two-year master of science in epidemiology course in 2001 and later launched a master of science in public health in 2017 under the department of epidemiology. Based in Chennai and supported by the Government of Tamil Nadu, these initiatives reflect the university’s commitment to providing high-quality education and ensuring that future professionals are well-prepared to address critical public health challenges.⁶ Similarly to the importance of effective teaching, understanding the impact of training programs is crucial. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the satisfaction levels of graduates in epidemiology and public health from the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University and evaluate the overall quality of the training provided. By exploring these aspects, the study seeks to gain insights into how well these programs prepare students for their professional roles and meet educational standards.

Objectives

To determine the levels of satisfaction among graduated epidemiology and public health students. To assess the overall quality of the training provided at the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University.

METHODS

This study employed an online survey to assess the quality of training provided by the epidemiology and public health programs. The survey was administered via a Google forms questionnaire, distributed to graduates of the Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University. Data collection occurred from May to June 2024. The questionnaire was designed to gather comprehensive feedback on various aspects of the training programs, including course content, faculty effectiveness, and alignment with professional needs. It included multiple-choice and Likert scale questions to quantify respondents’ experiences and perceptions. Respondents were selected from a list of graduates who completed their training between 2010 and 2023. The survey link was shared through university email lists and alumni networks to ensure broad participation. Data was collected anonymously to encourage honest feedback. Descriptive statistics summarized the proportions and distributions of responses. Additionally, factor analysis was used to identify key components of the training and student satisfaction.

RESULTS

In Table 1, majority of the respondents are in the age group of 23 to 33 years 42 (77.8%), indicating a younger cohort.

Gender distribution shows a notable female majority 45 (83.3%). When examining educational backgrounds, most respondents have specialized in public health 31 (57.4%), while a substantial proportion focused on epidemiology 23 (42.6%). The table also highlights that a majority of graduates completed their studies after 2020, 37 (68.5%), suggesting recent educational trends. Regarding employment, the largest proportion worked in government positions 26 (48.1%), followed by those in the private sector 17 (31.5%). Fewer were employed by NGOs 4 (7.4%) or are self-employed 7 (12.9%). The distribution of professional roles indicates that education and training is the most prevalent field 15 (27.7%), with academic and research roles also being prominent 10 (18.5%). Project management and coordination roles 8 (14.8%) and medical and clinical roles 6 (11.1%) were moderately represented. Additionally, roles in editorial and publishing 2 (3.7%) and consultancy 4 (7.4%), along with freelance work 4 (7.4%), highlight a diverse range of professional engagements among the graduates.

In Table 2, the factor analysis revealed the key components influencing student satisfaction. Effectiveness of course materials and teaching methods is highlighted by strong loadings such as the utility of course notes and textbooks (0.751) and engaging faculty lectures (0.727), demonstrating the critical role of comprehensive and well-presented content. Peer learning and collaborative activities also emerge as essential, with high loadings on group work (0.826) and communication skill development (0.789), indicating that collaborative environments enhance learning. Faculty support and feedback is another crucial factor, where high loadings on support for critical thinking (0.684) and research project assistance (0.651) reflect the value students place on personalized guidance. In terms of overall quality of instruction and project guidance, clear explanations (0.770) and strong project supervision (0.634) significantly contribute to student satisfaction. The importance of faculty availability and support is underscored by high loadings on faculty accessibility during office hours (0.813) and their role in discussing learning outcomes (0.720). The academic rigor and cost-effectiveness of the course is marked by the courses challenging nature (0.726) and its perceived affordability (0.633), showing that students appreciate both the academic demands and the value of the program.

In Table 3, the majority of respondents strongly agreed that the course content was beneficial, with 22 students (strongly agree) and 23 students (agree) affirming its impact. Most students found the course intellectually challenging and stimulating, with 21 (strongly agree) and 23 (agree) recognizing its stimulating nature. The course notably increased interest in the subject for 30 students (strongly agree). Faculty performance was also rated highly; for instance, 26 students (strongly agree) felt that faculty were clear and enthusiastic, while 28 (strongly agree) acknowledged the support for critical thinking. Additionally, faculty’s availability and lecture organization were well-received, with 32 (strongly agree) stating that faculty were available during office hours and 43 (strongly agree) recognizing clear explanations. Student engagement was positively reflected in their encouragement to participate and share ideas, with 29 (strongly agree) noting encouragement in class discussions and group work.

In Table 4, a majority, 23 respondents (43%), strongly agreed that examination papers were clearly written and effectively tested the course content, with a similar sentiment regarding the fairness and appropriateness of evaluation methods. Feedback on examinations was timely and valuable, as affirmed by 24 respondents (44%). Regarding assignments, 24 respondents (44%) strongly agreed that they were adequate and contributed to a better understanding of the subjects, while 23 respondents (43%) agreed that the types of assignments were formative and enhanced learning outcomes. In the context of the project/dissertation, 33 participants (61%) strongly agreed that they received appropriate assistance from faculty in selecting their thesis or dissertation topics based on current trends, and 36 participants (67%) strongly agreed that they received comprehensive guidance from faculty throughout the project.

In Figure 1, majority of participants 34 (63%), strongly agreed that the information provided about job and career opportunities by faculty was adequate. Additionally, 41 respondents (76%) strongly agreed that completing their master’s degree was relatively inexpensive compared to other institutions.

In Figure 2, majority of 28 participants (52%), strongly agreed that they are very satisfied with the faculty, while 27 participants (50%) strongly agreed that they are very satisfied with the outcomes of the course. Additionally, 21 respondents (39%) agreed with the faculty’s satisfaction, and 22 respondents (41%) agreed with the course outcomes.

DISCUSSION

Demographic and professional background

The demographic profile of the current study predominantly features a younger cohort, with a significant representation of females, and a notable number of respondents specializing in public health. This pattern is consistent with observations made by Xu et al and Hu et al, which also identify a trend towards a younger demographic within public health programs.^7,8 The predominance of respondents engaged in education and training, along with substantial representation in academic and research and project management roles, reflects a heightened emphasis on roles that contribute to capacity building and knowledge dissemination. This finding is corroborated by the NIE study, which underscores the importance of core competencies and field assignments in shaping professional roles within the sector.⁹

Course impact and learning outcomes

Respondents conveyed a strong consensus regarding the benefits of the course, describing it as intellectually stimulating and effective in increasing their interest in the subject matter. These results align with the NIE study, which documented the efficacy of comprehensive and well-delivered course content in fostering core competencies.⁹ High ratings for faculty support and engagement reflect the positive impact of mentor involvement, as highlighted by Hu et al.⁸ The current study shows a high level of satisfaction when compared to Subedi et al with the clarity of faculty explanations and the structure of feedback.¹⁰

Examination practices and project support

The study reveals general satisfaction with examination practices and the support provided for assignments and projects. These findings are in accordance with Dinesh Kumar et al, which observed significant advancements in students’ understanding of statistical concepts following targeted training.¹¹ The high level of support for thesis and dissertation topics reported in the current study reflects a commitment to comprehensive faculty guidance, aligning with the NIE study’s emphasis on faculty involvement throughout field assignments.⁹ The focus on the adequacy of assignments and project support underscores the critical role these elements play in the learning process, reinforcing recommendations from Xu et al and Hu et al for enhanced support and resources to improve educational outcomes and research capacity.^7,8

Employability and cost-effectiveness

The study highlights strong agreement among respondents regarding the sufficiency of career information and the cost-effectiveness of the master’s program. These findings are consistent with the NIE study’s emphasis on aligning programs with current trends while maintaining cost-effectiveness.⁹ The current study’s focus on the program’s affordability compared to other institutions underscores the broader need for accessible public health education, reflecting the importance of maintaining educational opportunities that are both economically viable and effective.⁶

Factor analysis and key components

Factor analysis results underscore the significance of the effectiveness of course materials, peer learning, and faculty support as critical determinants of overall satisfaction. These findings are congruent with the NIE study’s emphasis on the importance of well-prepared materials and supportive faculty in achieving positive educational outcomes.⁹ The current study’s results are consistent with Hu et al, which highlighted mentor support and research capacity development as key factors influencing student satisfaction.⁸ The strong loadings on these components emphasize their essential role in enhancing the educational experience and supporting student success.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this study highlighted the strong positive impact of the epidemiology and public health training programs at Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University. Graduates reported high satisfaction with the course content, faculty effectiveness, and the overall quality of instruction. The effectiveness of course materials, supportive faculty, and valuable peer learning opportunities were key components identified as contributing to student satisfaction. Additionally, the affordability and academic rigor of the programs were appreciated, reflecting the institution’s commitment to delivering quality education. These findings affirm the programs’ success in preparing graduates for their professional careers and underscore their value in the field.

Funding: No funding sources

Conflict of interest: None declared

Ethical approval: The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Committee

REFERENCES

1. 1. Detels R. Epidemiology: The foundation of public health. In: Detels R, Beaglehole R, Lansang MA, Gulliford M, eds. Oxford Textbook of Public Health. Oxford University Press; 2009.
2. 2. What Is Epidemiology in Public Health? Regis College. 2022. Available from: https://www.regiscollege.edu/blog/public-health/what-is-epidemiology-in-public-health. Accessed on 26 August 2024.
3. 3. Devlin M, Samarawickrema G. The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. High Educ Res Dev. 2010;29(2):111-24.
4. 4. Welzant H, Schindler L, Puls-Elvidge S, Crawford L. Definitions of quality in higher education: a synthesis of the literature. High Learn Res Commun. 2011;5(3).
5. 5. Noben I, Deinum JF, Hofman WA. Quality of teaching in higher education: reviewing teaching behaviour through classroom observations. Int J Acad Develop. 2022;27(1):31-44.
6. 6. Sundar JS, Hemapriya AS, Srinivas G, Kalpana S, Valarmathi S, Paul AA. Towards a sustainable training on epidemiology and public health in Tamil Nadu, South India: a narrative review. Int J Community Med Public Health. 2024;11(8):3314-8.
7. 7. Xu FR, Yang Y. Public health graduates’ perceptions of the educational environment measured by the DREEM. Front Public Health. 2022;10.
8. 8. Hu B, Zhou H, Wang Y, Zheng L, Li M. A study of satisfaction with research capacity development of Master of Public Health and its influencing factors. Front Public Health. 2023;11:1263684.
9. 9. Bhatnagar T, Gupte MD, Hutin YJ, Kaur P, Kumaraswami V, Manickam P, et al. Seven years of the field epidemiology training programme (FETP) at Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India: an internal evaluation. Hum Resource Health. 2012;10(1):36.
10. 10. Subedi S, Kaphle HP, Neupane R, Rajbhandari R. Educational satisfaction of public health undergraduates: a cross sectional study in Nepal. J Health Allied Sci. 2016;5(1):47-52.
11. 11. Kumar D, Angurana R. Impact of epidemiological and statistical skills training in undergraduates. Med Educ. 2011;45(11).