DOI: 10.5061/dryad.0zpc86725
title: Data from: Graduate health professions education programs as they choose to represent themselves: A website review

description: Introduction: In an age of increasingly face-to-face, blended, and online
 Health Professions Education, students have more selections of where they
 will receive a degree. For an applicant, oftentimes, the first step is to
 learn more about a program through its website. Websites allow programs to
 convey their unique voice and to share their mission and values with
 others, such as applicants, researchers, and academics. Additionally, as
 the number of Health Professions Education programs rapidly grows,
 websites can share the priorities of these programs.  Methods: In
 this study, we conducted a website review of 158 Health Professions
 Education websites to explore their geographical distributions, missions,
 educational concentrations, and various programmatic components. Results:
 We compiled this information and synthesized pertinent aspects, such as
 program similarities and differences, or highlighted the omission of
 critical data. Conclusion: Given that websites are often the first point
 of contact for prospective applicants, curious collaborators, and
 potential faculty, the digital image of HPE programs matters. We believe
 our findings demonstrate opportunities for growth within institutions and
 assist the field in identifying the priorities of HPE programs. As
 programs begin to shape their websites with more intentionality, they can
 reflect their relative divergence/convergence compared to other programs
 as they see fit and, therefore, attract individuals to best match this
 identity. Periodic reviews of the breadth of programs, such as those
 undergone here, are necessary to capture diversifying goals, and serve to
 help advance the field of Health Professions Education as a whole.
description: Our team deduced that most HPE programs would have a website, and
 that this would serve as a representation of how individuals within the
 program choose to view themselves and hope to be viewed by others.
 Further, our team determined that these websites would be an efficient
 means of collecting programmatic information for the purposes of learning
 more about program growth, diversity, and values. We conducted the website
 review from August 2021 to April 2022 using a list of worldwide Health
 Professions Education programs, which was acquired from the Foundation of
 Advancement of International Medical Education and Research’s (FAIMER’s)
 website. FAIMER was chosen as the origin source of programs studied due to
 its use in another published study evaluating HPE programs. Each
 master's degree in HPE offered by a university was counted
 separately, allowing us to note the differences in course and time
 requirements across all programs. Only HPE master's programs were
 selected for this study. Certificate and Ph.D. programs were
 excluded. Next, we developed a data extraction tool.
 Categories were jointly identified for data collection by three of our
 authors (JS, SW, and HM). JS, SW, and HW worked independently through a
 set of three HPE programs, obtaining the data for our selected categories.
 Afterward, we cross-checked each other's work for verification
 purposes.  For example, if JS obtained the information, SW or HM, who were
 blinded to JS’s findings, would independently find the answers to the same
 questions/ topics. This was performed until an agreement between pre and
 post-review information was above 95%. There was no discovered information
 that was not agreed upon after discussion. Once 100% agreement was reached
 with this method, the total number of HPE programs analyzed was split
 between JS and SW, and the raw data was obtained for the same
 categories. This data then underwent a review by the
 other two researchers to ensure high accuracy. This review consisted of
 information verification on individual program websites where it was
 originally obtained. For example, if JS found the information about a
 program, SW and HM (now not blinded) would both have to independently find
 the same information. Any identified discrepancies were rectified through
 discussion, and three-way agreement was mandatory for the team to move on
 to the next program. 
description: Microsoft Excel, or, Google Sheets is best used, however there
 are likely other programs that could be used to view the
 information