General Data on the Program’s Performance
The program was implemented in 2002 and the first cohort was admitted in January 2003. From 2003 to 2007, five successive summer sessions have been offered, involving 34 mentors and collaborators, 29 invited speakers, and 15 stakeholders. The program was initially designed by 24 researchers from 9 Canadian universities who were also the first designated mentors. They came from different disciplines such as anthropology, biomechanics, law, epidemiology, ergonomics, occupational therapy, ethics, engineering, kinesiology, medicine, neuropsychology, physical therapy, psychology, and biostatistics. Seventy-five percent of the mentors participated as instructors and/or chair mentors during the five summer sessions, in addition to their work as advisors regarding optional courses. Since the beginning of the WDP program, the number of mentors has increased, as well as the number of countries they come from. Hence, nine new university professors in the WDP field from six different universities in Canada, The Netherlands and The United States were added as mentors. They represented six different disciplines (psychology, medicine, sociology, chiropractic, epidemiology and physiotherapy) and three were previous trainees of the WDP program.
In each summer session, the program involved the participation of recognized guest speakers in the field of WDP and/or transdisciplinarity, as well as stakeholders. The speakers came from 13 different universities and 3 research centers in Canada, The United States, Australia, France, The Netherlands and Brazil. The speakers also represented a wide array of disciplines, from economics, management and administration, to social medicine, neuropsychology, medicine, biomechanics and physics. Also, Canadian stakeholders such as employers, unions, workers’ compensation boards (WCB), healthcare providers and disabled workers were invited to participate in the training activities to share their experiences and views of the field.
The CIHR’s Mid-Term Assessment
As the training program is funded by the CIHR, this research funding agency has required regular reports and conducted its own mid-term assessment (after 4 years of implementation). Based on the CIHR’s assessment criteria, the program was found to have achieved, and in most cases to have exceeded, its objectives. The CIHR reviewers made no negative comments or suggestions for improvement, acknowledging satisfactory progress in all six evaluation areas. The CIHR’s intermediate assessment highlighted the following points: international competitiveness, success in recruiting high-caliber trainees who are extremely productive in terms of publications and research grants, rigor in emphasizing a training experience that deepens interdisciplinary expertise, and outstanding progress towards attainment of the program objectives.
Trainees’ Profiles
Since its implementation, the WDP CIHR Strategic Training Program has admitted five successive cohorts, for a total of 44 high-calibre applicants. As shown in Table
1, the cohorts were predominantly composed of females (70.5%) and the mean age was 34.4 years. The trainees were registered in 27 different universities in 8 countries. They were also trained in 14 different disciplines. Among these applicants, two dropped out of the program because they changed their career orientation. Also, as of 2007, 11 had obtained all the credits and successfully completed the diploma.
Table 1
Characteristics of trainees in the WDP program (n = 44)
Characteristics |
Age (mean (SD)) (years) | 34.4 (8.5) |
Gender (n (%)) |
Female | 31 (70.5%) |
Male | 13 (29.5%) |
Disciplinea (n (%)) |
Anthropology | 1 (2.3%) |
Education and rehabilitation | 1 (2.3%) |
Epidemiology | 5 (11.4%) |
Ergonomics | 4 (9.1%) |
Ethics | 1 (2.3%) |
Kinesiology/exercise science/human movement sciences/biomechanics | 6 (13.6%) |
Medicine | 1 (2.3%) |
Nursing | 2 (4.5%) |
Occupational therapy | 2 (4.5%) |
Physiotherapy | 12 (27.3%) |
Psychology | 7 (15.9%) |
Public health | 1 (2.3%) |
Sociology | 1 (2.3%) |
Country of university attended (n (%)) |
Canada | 23 (52.3%) |
Netherlands | 8 (18.2%) |
Australia | 4 (9.1%) |
Sweden | 1 (2.3%) |
Denmark | 4 (9.1%) |
United States | 2 (4.5%) |
Germany | 1 (2.3%) |
Brazil | 1 (2.3%) |
Status (n (%)) |
PhD trainee | 32 (72.7%) |
Post-doctoral fellow | 4 (9.1%) |
Young researcher or university professor | 8 (18.1%) |
Chairmentors’ Appreciation of the Program
During the summer sessions, the chairmentors mention they enjoyed the stimulating and open discussions with trainees and mentors, small group size, and contacts with stakeholders. Also, they underlined the variety of perspectives, experiences and international connections they had benefited of in teaching in this program. They suggested having less passive lectures on theoretical models and including more practical examples, “real cases” and workshops to help trainees understand and interpret the theory. They also suggested adding gender and work as a topic.
Results from Focus Groups and Interviews with Trainees
During the 2007 summer session, four focus groups were held with trainees from the third (n = 6), fourth (n = 8) and fifth cohorts (n = 9), and with alumni from the first cohort (n = 4). Also, six telephone interviews were conducted with program alumni.
Question no. 1: Most Appreciated Aspects
The most appreciated aspect mentioned by participants was the networking with mentors and trainees, which allowed them to forge long-term professional relationships. It also offered them the opportunity to develop and collaborate on new research projects. In addition, trainees appreciated the group diversity: of experience, of disciplines, of origin, and of types of research conducted. This diversity provided them with an overview of the different aspects of the problem as seen from outside their own discipline and region/country. Also, having feedback from trainees coming from different disciplines and using different disciplinary languages was considered a helpful experience that facilitated communication with people from other disciplines. The fact that this program is unique and that it focuses on knowledge translation (not just transfer) were mentioned as positive aspects.
In general, the environment/atmosphere was considered as positive and open, which allowed room for collaboration between trainees. They also appreciated the small group size, the high scientific level of the program and the rigorous selection of the applicants. The caliber and number of mentors and the value of the close relationships with the mentors were mentioned as well. Having close contact with international speakers and renowned researchers was also appreciated.
Concerning the program activities, the morning forum was regarded as a good time for exchange, the e-learning enabled better time management, the practicum offered the opportunity to gain a new perspective in another research environment, the workplace visit was appreciated, and the stakeholders’ panel provided a better understanding of the stakeholders’ perspectives.
Question no. 2: Least Appreciated Aspects
Although the e-course was considered worthwhile as a means of obtaining information and preparing for tasks, the system used was criticized as being not “user-friendly.” Also, the chat room and group work via the e-course were considered difficult due to the different time zones of the participating trainees’ countries and each student’s availability. Some also mentioned that the connection between the e-course and the summer session was not clear.
The information available on optional courses was judged insufficient by some trainees who felt they did not have enough guidance regarding the courses options, mentors, and deadlines. With regard to the summer session, several trainees commented that some of the compulsory readings were outdated and that insufficient time was allowed for reading the articles and for interacting with the speakers. Some questioned the validity of the requirement of having to ask questions every day in the morning forum, and commented that the course content was too focused on low back pain. Also, others mentioned that a few lecturers did not cover their topics at as high a level as expected, were not practical enough or did not have an international perspective.
Several alumni considered that the program was too credit-based and course-based, and found that too much work was required given the number of credits allotted and that too short a time was allowed for assignments. In the first years of the program, peer evaluation in the seminars was used. This was regarded negatively as it created competition, focused on performance and had an adverse impact on the learning environment/atmosphere. Also, some emphasized that the evaluation criteria were not clear enough, that little feedback on homework was given by mentors and that there was a need to standardize the grading system since the mentors came from different countries.
Question no. 3: Assessment of the Program Organization
In general, the trainees appreciated how the program was organized and that care was taken to ensure that things ran smoothly. Some comments about the program facilities were also made. The compressed format of the summer session in June was considered intense but appropriate. Some trainees would have liked more opportunities for the three cohorts interacting together.
Some alumni commented on the fact that it was hard to stay in touch with the network once the three summer sessions were over. Their access to the web course was cut off and they had no information on the options available to them after the end of the program. They suggested that a web platform be created where trainees and alumni could meet.
The language issue was also mentioned with regard to the information provided on program registration procedures, given that the forms to be filled out and the diplomas issued by the Université de Sherbrooke were all written in French. Also, some participants would like to have more information about what costs were covered by the program, more guidance regarding visa requirements, and a more effective administrative process. Finally, some suggested developing a logo that could be used to advertise the program (e.g., on posters), including mentors from more disciplines (such as nursing) and admitting more trainees each year in order to offset drop-outs.
Question no. 4: Added Value of the Program
Several of the comments made in the Most Appreciated Aspects section (question no. 1) were also mentioned here as an added value. Hence, making new contacts and creating a network with mentors and trainees was considered helpful in terms of developing collaborative research and international collaboration. The possibility of talking and collaborating with people from different fields gave a sense of not being isolated in their own discipline and opened them up to other disciplines.
Acquiring new knowledge as well as an international perspective helped them to form a broader view of work disability and gain better insight into the research done to date, approaching the problem differently, taking home new ideas (to discuss with colleagues) and forming new ideas for research projects. Also, it made them more aware of other types of disabilities.
Some participants saw other favorable effects, such as the possibility of writing joint articles or developing joint projects with other trainees or mentors. Also, some mentioned that the program helped improve their ability to give presentations in public and their English language skills (for those with English as their second language), while offering an opportunity to travel. Another added value mentioned was that of gaining a broader perspective than researchers who have not taken the program, since several topics, such as socio-political challenges in WDP, are not addressed in other programs.
Some trainees mentioned that the training could be included in their curricula vitae. Others commented that their career prospects did not change and that their universities did not value the program. Still others mentioned that it helped them to plan their research career, earn a promotion, or obtain a research fellowship or a new position, as the program helped them use their contacts and knowledge. Also, some mentioned that it gave them more confidence as researchers working in the WDP field and in seeking research grants.
Question no. 5: Topics that Should be Added to the Program
Several new topics were suggested by trainees for inclusion in the program. Some proposed offering a course on work disabilities in developing countries, on political aspects, and on human resource management. Also, although they recognized the importance of focusing on theories, some suggested the need to address more practical/pragmatic aspects of research, such as computer software used in research, how to write articles, how to prepare grant applications, how to “sell” research projects to stakeholders and how to approach and communicate with stakeholders (marketing/negotiation strategies). Some indicated that they would like to see a researchers’ panel (along the same lines as the stakeholders’ panel), where they could discuss their research projects. A few also wanted the program to address biological, anatomical and structural issues in order to facilitate communication with healthcare professionals. Finally, some said they would like the program to address the issues of what can be done when a return to work is impossible and how to improve quality of life.
Trainees requested that more time be allocated to certain topics already included in the program, such as the economic aspect of work disability and how to reconcile the various concerns of the different systems presented (healthcare, legal, workforce), that the legal issue be addressed from a more international perspective, that there be more methodological courses (they expected more quantitative and qualitative studies), that there be another workplace visit, that the psychosocial issue be addressed in greater depth, and that the strategies used to conduct research in the workplace and the means used to implement them also be covered.