The study evaluated midwifery and anesthesia education because they are top workforce development priorities for both the GOE and the HRH Project, which aimed to increase the availability and quality of members of these cadres. The study was a pre-post evaluation design without control to assess the impact of various interventions on the quality of midwifery and anesthesia education. Assessors interviewed and observed a sample of 484 midwifery and 122 anesthesia graduating students for the baseline study and 486 midwifery and 104 anesthesia graduating students for the end-line study. The baseline took place from June to July 2013 at 25 midwifery training institutions (eight universities and 17 regional health science colleges [RHSCs]) and six anesthesia training institutions (four universities and two RHSCs). Assessors collected end-line data from June to September 2016 at 14 midwifery training institutions (eight universities and six RHSCs) and six anesthesia training institutions (four universities and two RHSCs). Assessors evaluated competence at baseline using objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and evaluated learning environments through structured interviews with students. The end-line added two OSCE stations to assess HIV and malaria competencies and new questions to the interview to investigate gender-based disparities. To measure student perceptions of the learning environment, the study authors calculated the percentage of students who responded “yes” to the statements in the structured interview. Those who answered “partially” were recoded as “no.”An independent sample t-test was used to compare mean competence scores between baseline and end-line. Pearson chi-square test was used to explore homogeneity of study participant characteristics at baseline and end-line. A P value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests. Overall, students’ perception of educational inputs, processes, and outputs significantly improved at the end-line compared to baseline. For example, teachers’ availability improved markedly, from 43.0% to 70.6% for classroom instructors and from 28.9% to 55.3% for skills lab assistants. Similarly, the proportion of students who said skills lab assistants effectively support students jumped from 44.6% to 76.1%. Quality of classroom instruction also rose, from 56.2% to 67.7%.

• Evaluation
• Quality
• Competencies
• Assessment
• students
• Midwifery
• Anesthesia
• Universtiees
• Ethiopia
• cross sectional

not suggested 

A total of 20 universities and 22 RHSCs offered PSE for midwives in 2013, but 12 universities did not have a graduating class that year and were therefore excluded from the baseline (Table 3.1). Of the 22 RHSCs, five were not included in the baseline because of lack of information and accessibility challenges. Therefore, baseline assessment (pre-test) was conducted in eight universities and 17 RHSCs in 2013. In 2016, end-line data (post-test) were collected from the same eight universities that participated at the baseline. Out of the 17 RHSCs included at baseline, only five were included in the end-line because 12 did not have midwifery graduating students during the end-line. The study was a pre-post evaluation design without control to assess the impact of various interventions on the quality of midwifery and anesthesia education. Assessors interviewed and observed a sample of 484 midwifery and 122 anesthesia graduating students for the baseline study and 486 midwifery and 104 anesthesia graduating students for the end-line study. The baseline took place from June to July 2013 at 25 midwifery training institutions (eight universities and 17 regional health science colleges [RHSCs]) and six anesthesia training institutions (four universities and two RHSCs). Assessors collected end-line data from June to September 2016 at 14 midwifery training institutions (eight universities and six RHSCs) and six anesthesia training institutions (four universities and two RHSCs). Assessors evaluated competence at baseline using objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) and evaluated learning environments through structured interviews with students. The end-line added two OSCE stations to assess HIV and malaria competencies and new questions to the interview to investigate gender-based disparities.

Copy url