Objective1) to assess the preparedness to practice and satisfaction in learning environment amongst new graduates from European osteopathic institutions; 2) to compare the results of preparedness to practice and satisfaction in learning environment between and within countries where osteopathy is regulated and where regulation is still to be achieved; 3) to identify possible correlations between learning environment and preparedness to practice.MethodOsteopathic education providers of full-time education located in Europe were enrolled, and their final year students were contacted to complete a survey. Measures used were: Dundee Ready Educational Environment Measure (DREEM), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) and a demographic questionnaire. Scores were compared across institutions using one-way ANOVA and generalised linear model.ResultsNine European osteopathic education institutions participated in the study (4 located in Italy, 2 in the UK, 1 in France, 1 in Belgium and 1 in the Netherlands) and 243 (77%) of their final-year students completed the survey. The DREEM total score mean was 121.4 (SEM: 1.66) whilst the AAMC was 17.58 (SEM:0.35). A generalised linear model found a significant association between not-regulated countries and total score as well as subscales DREEM scores (p<0.001). Learning environment and preparedness to practice were significantly positively correlated (r=0.76; p<0.01).DiscussionA perceived higher level of preparedness and satisfaction was found amongst students from osteopathic institutions located in countries without regulation compared to those located in countries where osteopathy is regulated; however, all institutions obtained a ‘more positive than negative’ result. Moreover, in general, cohorts with fewer than 20 students scored significantly higher compared to larger student cohorts. Finally, an overall positive correlation between students’ preparedness and satisfaction were found across all institutions recruited.
BackgroundThis study investigated perceived preparedness to practice, one year after graduation across osteopathic education institutions (OEIs) and explored possible differences between countries where osteopathy is regulated (Reg) and countries where it is not (Unreg).MethodsTwo hundred forty-five graduates from 7 OEIs in 4 European countries, already assessed in a previous study, were contacted one year after their graduation to complete the survey. Survey tools included a questionnaire to assess perceived preparedness to practice: Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) questionnaire, and a questionnaire to collect socio-demographic information and practice characteristics.ResultsOne hundred sixty-eight graduates (68.6%) completed the survey. The AAMC mean score one year after the graduation (23.19; confidence interval 22.81–23.58) was significantly higher than in the previous study (17.58; 16.90–18.26) (p < 0.001). A difference was also found between Reg (23.49; 23.03–23.95) and Unreg (22.34; 21.74–22.94) (p = 0.004). Osteopaths with a previous healthcare degree scored significantly higher on AAMC score (25.53; 24.88–26.19) than osteopaths without a previous healthcare degree (22.33; 21.97–22.69) (p < 0.001). Regulation and a previous degree were the only significant independent variables in the most predictive multivariate linear model. The model had an r2 = 0.33.ConclusionsGraduates from OEIs where osteopathy is regulated felt significantly better prepared to practice than Unreg. Systematic information searches about graduates’ perception of preparedness to practice, may enable OEIs to strengthen their existing curricula to ensure their graduates are effectively prepared to practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12909-018-1429-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.