How Do Field Epidemiologists Learn? A Protocol for a Qualitative Inquiry Into Learning in Field Epidemiology Training Programs

Abstract

IntroductionCOVID-19 underscored the importance of field epidemiology training programs (FETP) as countries struggled with overwhelming demands. Experts are calling for more field epidemiologists with better training. Since 1951 FETP have been building public health capacities across the globe, yet explorations of learning in these programs are lacking. This qualitative study will 1) describe approaches to training field epidemiologists in FETP; 2) describe strategies for learning field epidemiology among FETP trainees; and 3) explain the principles and practices aligning training approaches with learning strategies in FETP.Methods and analysisThe research design, implementation, and interpretation are collaborative efforts with FETP trainers. Data collection will include interviews with FETP trainers and trainees and participant observations of FETP training and learning events in four FETP in the Western Pacific Region. Data analysis will occur in three phases: I) we will use the constant comparison method of Charmaz’s grounded theory during open coding to identify and prioritise categories and properties in the data; II) during focused coding, we will use constant comparison and Polkinghorne’s analysis of narratives, comparing stories of prioritized categories, to fill out properties of those categories; III) we will use Polkinghorne’s narrative analysis to construct narratives that reflect domains of interest, identifying correspondence among Carr and Kemmis’s practices, understandings, and situations to explain principles and processes of learning in FETP.Ethics and disseminationWe have obtained the required ethics approvals to conduct this research at The Australian National University (2021/771) and Taiwan’s Ministry of Health and Welfare (112206). Data will not be available publicly, but anonymised findings will be shared with FETP for collaborative interpretation. Ultimately, findings and interpretations will appear in peer reviewed journals and conferences.STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDYThis study will be co-designed, co-developed, and co-interpreted with practitioners to generate relevant, useful, and informative findings for field epidemiology training programs, practitioners, and learners.Use of multiple data collection methods and theoretical frameworks will improve the credibility of the findings.Engagement of participants and programs throughout the process to check interpretations and facilitate dialogue on findings will strengthen the trustworthiness of the findings.The methodology aims to explore experiences in depth, and resources restrict the number of programs and participants that may enrol. So, there will be limits to the generalizability of the findings beyond the included programs.As grounded theory aims for hypothesis generation not hypothesis testing, the findings will be limited to explanations of training and learning and thus not interpretable as statements of the effectiveness of training approaches or programs.