title: The effect of using different competence frameworks to audit the content of a masters program in public health.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  (1) To quantify the effect of using different public health competence frameworks to audit the curriculum of an online distance learning MPH program, and (2) to measure variation in the outcomes of the audit depending on which competence framework is used.
  
  
  METHODS
  Retrospective audit.
  
  
  METHODS
  We compared the teaching content of an online distance learning MPH program against each competence listed in different public health competence frameworks relevant to an MPH. We then compared the number of competences covered in each module in the program's teaching curriculum and in the program overall, for each of the competence frameworks used in this audit.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A comprehensive search of the literature identified two competence frameworks specific to MPH programs and two for public health professional/specialty training. The number of individual competences in each framework were 32 for the taught aspects of the UK Faculty of Public Health Specialist Training Program, 117 for the American Association of Public Health, 282 for the exam curriculum of the UK Faculty of Public Health Part A exam, and 393 for the European Core Competencies for MPH Education. This gave a total of 824 competences included in the audit. Overall, the online MPH program covered 88-96% of the competences depending on the specific framework used. This fell when the audit focused on just the three mandatory modules in the program, and the variation between the different competence frameworks was much larger.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Using different competence frameworks to audit the curriculum of an MPH program can give different indications of its quality, especially as it fails to capture teaching considered to be relevant, yet not included in an existing competence framework. The strengths and weaknesses of using competence frameworks to audit the content of an MPH program have largely been ignored. These debates are vital given that external organizations responsible for accreditation specify a particular competence framework to be used. Our study found that each of four different competence frameworks suggested different levels of quality in our teaching program, at least in terms of the competences included in the curriculum. Relying on just one established framework missed some aspects of the curriculum included in other frameworks used in this study. Conversely, each framework included items not covered by the others. Thus, levels of agreement with the content of our MPH and established areas of competence were, in part, dependent on the competence framework used to compare its' content. While not entirely a surprising finding, this study makes an important point and makes explicit the challenges of selecting an appropriate competence framework to inform MPH programs, and especially one which recruits students from around the world.
authors.affiliation: Centre for Epidemiology in the Institute for Public Health, The University of Manchester , Manchester , UK.
authors.forename: Roger A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Harrison
authors.affiliation: Centre for Epidemiology in the Institute for Public Health, The University of Manchester , Manchester , UK.
authors.forename: Isla
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Gemmell
authors.affiliation: Centre for Epidemiology in the Institute for Public Health, The University of Manchester , Manchester , UK.
authors.forename: Katie
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Reed
keywords: accreditation; masters in public health; professional competences; public health competences; public health education