Educational environment perceptions of Family physician assistants working in University and education Research Hospitals and factors affecting these perceptions

Educational Environment Perceptions of Family Physician Assistants Working in University and Education Research Hospitals and Factors Affecting These Perceptions Objective: In this study, it is aimed to determine the educational environment perceptions of assistants who have family medicine specialty training in various centers and the factors affecting these perceptions and to make suggestions about the regulation of these issues. Method: A total of 160 family medicine specialty students participated in the study, 80 of which were from university and 80 were from educational research hospitals. MESHEO scale was applied to participants on the internet. According to this scale, MESHEO average total score, occupational autonomy perception, educational environment perception and social support perception scores were calculated. SPSS 22.0 package program was used in the analysis of the data. In descriptive statistics, number and percentage for categorical data; average and standard deviation for numerical data were used. The convenience of numerical variables to the normal distribution was evaluated by Histogram graph. Student t test, one-way ANOVA tests were used as hypothesis tests. Statistically, the significance limit was accepted as p <0.05. Findings: 105 (65.6%) female and 55 (34.4%) male assistants participated in the study. The average age of the participants was 28.6 ± 2.9 years. 49 (30.6%) of the assistants were 1st year assistants, 57 (35.6%) were 2nd year assistants and 54 (33.8%) were 3rd year assistants. 130 (81.3%) of the participants, preferred family medicine specialty voluntarily and 30(18.8%) preferred involuntarily. According to the applied survey; while the participants' average of MESHEI score was 89,98 ± 22,99, when the subscales of scale were examined, the average of autonomy score was 33,21 ± 8,7; the average of education score was 30.41 ± 10.7; and the average of social support score was 26.23 ± 6.01. When the participants were assessed in terms of MESHEO score, it was found that 103 (64.4%) of the respondents were satisfied with the educational environment but thought that it would be developed, 39 (24.4%) thought that there was a problematic education environment, 10 (6.3%) thought that it was a perfect educational environment, 8 (5%) thought that it was a very poor educational environment. There was no significant difference (p> 0,05) between assistants training at the university hospitals and education research hospitals when MESHEO and subscale scores were assessed. There was no significant difference between the genders in terms of MESHEO score (p = 0.447). No significant difference was found between female assistants and male assistants in terms of autonomy score, education score, social support score (p = 0,612; p = 0,493; p = 0,777 respectively). The MESHEO score of whom selected their field voluntarily was found significantly higher than those who selected their field involuntarily (p = 0.04). On the other hand, there was no significant difference between people selected their field voluntarily and involuntarily in terms of autonomy score and education score; social support points were found significantly high (p = 0.12, p = 0.16, p = 0.014 respectively). Considering the answers given by the participants to the question 'How do you evaluate your institution's education service balance?', participants who said "The both MESHEO scores are conducted in a balanced manner" were significantly higher than those who answered "the service is placed more importance" and those who answered "other" ( p = 0.001, p = 0.008, respectively). MESHEO score, autonomy score, education score and social support score of whom don't have difficulty in researching and publishing were found higher than those who have difficulty in researching and publishing (p = 0,000; p = 0,000; p = 0,000; p = 0.001 respectively). There was no significant difference between participants in terms of MESHEO and subscale scores according to assistant years (p = 0,574; p = 0,521; p = 0,702 p = 0,409 respectively). Conclusion: In order to increase the satisfaction of the family medicine specialty students, it is ynecessary to inform them adequately about the department before they make their choice, to conduct the education service in a balanced manner and to give them an opportunity to make research and publications. Key Words: MESHEO, family medicine specialty students, perception, professional autonomy, social support, educational environment.