ISSN (Online): 1694-4674
Annals of Medicine and Medical Sciences Annals of Medicine and Medical Sciences
Submit Manuscript
  1. Home
  2. Volume 05 (2026), Version 02
  3. The Perceived Value and Use of a Master in Health Professions Educatio…
Original Article Open Access

The Perceived Value and Use of a Master in Health Professions Education among Medical Educators and Clinical Trainers

Annals of Medicine and Medical Sciences Volume 05 (2026), Version 02 February 15, 2026 pp. 161 - 166
172 49
Download PDF
PDF XML
Abstract

Background: Medical educators and clinical trainers are increasingly expected to demonstrate competencies beyond clinical expertise, including in curriculum design, assessment, educational research, and leadership. While faculty development programs (FDPs) and informal learning remain common, formal postgraduate education such as the Master of Health Professions Education (MHPE) has expanded globally. However, evidence on how MHPE is perceived relative to other development pathways remains limited. Methods: This qualitative collective case study explored the perceived value and uses of MHPE among medical educators and clinical trainers. Semi-structured online interviews and document reviews were conducted with three faculty members who completed the MHPE. Data were analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis with cross-case comparison. Results: Participants valued MHPE for providing a scientific and systematic foundation for teaching, assessment, curriculum development, and leadership. MHPE enhanced adaptability, reflective practice, and student-centeredness, particularly during curricular reforms and the pandemic. Compared with FDPs and informal learning, MHPE offered deeper, longitudinal, and integrative competency development and opened significant professional and leadership opportunities. Conclusion: MHPE is perceived as a high-value pathway for developing competent, reflective, and adaptive medical educators and clinical trainers. Strengthening institutional support and clarifying career pathways may further enhance its impact.

References
  1. Guze PA. Using Technology to Meet the Challenges of Medical Education. Trans Am Clin Climatol Assoc 2015; 126: 260–270.
  2. Frank J, Taber S, van Zanten M, Scheele F, Blouin D. The role of accreditation in 21st century health professions education: report of an International Consensus Group. BMC Med Educ 2020; 20(S1). DOI: 10.1186/s12909-020-02121-5
  3. Wilkerson L, Irby DM. Strategies for improving teaching practices: a comprehensive approach to faculty development. Acad Med 1998; 73(4): 387–396. DOI: 10.1097/00001888-199804000-00011
  4. Friedman K, Lester J, Young J. Clinician-Educator Tracks for Trainees in Graduate Medical Education: A Scoping Review. Acad Med 2019; 94: 1599-1609. DOI: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000002814
  5. Alsoufi A, Alsuyihili A, Msherghi A, Elhadi A, Atiyah H, Ashini A, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical education: Medical students’ knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding electronic learning. PLoS ONE 2020; 15(11): e0242905. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0242905
  6. MacDougall J, Drummond MJ. The development of medical teachers: an enquiry into the learning histories of 10 experienced medical teachers. Med Educ 2005; 39(12): 1213–1220. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02335.x
  7. Breckwoldt J., Svensson J, Lingemann C, Gruber H. Does clinical teacher training always improve teaching effectiveness as opposed to no teacher training? A randomized controlled study. BMC Med Educ 2014;14: 6. DOI:10.1186/1472-6920-14-6
  8. Steinert Y, Mann K, Centeno A, Dolmans D, Spencer J, Gelula M, et al. A systematic review of faculty development initiatives designed to improve teaching effectiveness in medical education: BEME Guide No. 8. Med Teacher 2006; 28(6): 497–526. DOI:10.1080/01421590600902976
  9. O’Sullivan PS, Irby DM. Reframing research on faculty development. Acad Med 2011;86: 421-428. DOI:10.1097/ACM.0b013e31820dc058
  10. Skeff KM, Stratos GA, Mygdal W, DeWitt TA, Manfred L, Quirk M, et al. Faculty development. A resource for clinical teachers. J Gen Intern Med 1997;12 Suppl 2(Suppl 2): S56–S63. DOI:10.1046/j.1525-1497.12.s2.8.x
  11. Stenfors-Hayes T, Weurlander M, Owe Dahlgren L, Hult H. Medical teachers' professional development – perceived barriers and opportunities. Teach High Educ 2010; 15(4): 399-408. DOI:10.1080/13562517.2010.493352
  12. Hartford W, Nimmon, L, Stenfors T. Frontline learning of medical teaching: "you pick up as you go through work and practice". BMC Med Educ 2017; 17(1): 171. DOI:10.1186/s12909-017-1011-3
  13. Swanwick T, McKimm J. Professional development of medical educators. Br J Hos Med 2010; 71(3): 164–168. DOI:10.12968/hmed.2010.71.3.46982
  14. Artino AR Jr, Cervero RM, DeZee KJ, Holmboe E, Durning SJ. Graduate Programs in Health Professions Education: Preparing Academic Leaders for Future Challenges. J Grad Med Educ 2018; 10(2): 119–122. DOI:10.4300/JGME-D-18-00082.1
  15. Cable C, Knab M, Tham K, Navedo D, Armstrong E. Why are you here? Needs analysis of an interprofessional health-education graduate degree program. Adv Med Educ Pract 2014, 5, 83-8. DOI:10.2147/amep.s60211
  16. Creswell J, Poth C. Qualitative inquiry and research design (4th ed.). Sage; 2018.
  17. CESSDA Training Team. CESSDA Data Management Expert Guide.
  18. Bergen, Norway: CESSDA ERIC. 2017 [cited 2026 Jan 27]. Available from: https://www.cessda.eu/DMGuide
  19. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res 2005; 15(9): 1277-88. DOI:10.1177/1049732305276687
  20. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Conceptual and design thinking for thematic analysis. Qual Psych 2022; 9(1): 3–26. DOI:10.1037/qup0000196
  21. Curry, L. (2015). Fundamentals of Qualitative Research Methods: What is Qualitative Research (Module 1). 2015 [cited 2026 Jan 27]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbdN_sLWl88&list=PLqHnHG5X2PXCsCMyN3_EzugAF7GKN2poQ
  22. GenAI. works. AILYZE. N.d. [cited 2026 Jan 27]. Available from: https://genai.works/applications/ailyze
Author Resources