ChatGPT Summary of DFPH Examiners’ Feedback, Registrars’ Feedback, and Examiners’ Responses

Introduction

This document contains summaries of examiners’ comments, registrars’ feedback, and examiners’ responses to that feedback. The content below was created by ChatGPT, given the URLs for the relevant documents on the FPH website. Like all large language models, ChatGPT has a problem with the truth, so the advice below is to be taken with caution. Users are responsible for applying some critical thinking to the advice below. Critical thinking is, after all, a key element to doing well on the DFPH exam, at least according to ChatGPT.

Good luck!

Summary of Recommendations for Improvement Across Questions 1 to 10

  • Enhance Depth of Analysis: Move beyond descriptions to provide in-depth critical analysis and evaluation.
  • Support Arguments with Evidence: Use relevant and appropriate evidence to back up points and arguments.
  • Improve Structure and Clarity: Organize responses clearly with a logical flow of ideas.
  • Address All Parts of the Question: Ensure that all components of the question are addressed comprehensively.
  • Focus on Practical Application: Develop skills in applying theoretical knowledge to practical public health scenarios and provide actionable recommendations.
  • Demonstrate Critical Thinking: Engage in critical thinking and avoid superficial responses.

By focusing on these common themes and recommendations, candidates can enhance their performance in future public health examinations.

Question 1 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Good Knowledge Demonstration:
    • Candidates generally showed good understanding of basic concepts.
    • Lacked deeper analysis and more detailed explanations.
  2. Lack of Depth in Analysis:
    • Insufficient depth in addressing the issues was a common theme.
    • Answers were often too descriptive without critical evaluation.
  3. Insufficient Justification:
    • Needed better support for their points with relevant evidence.
    • Assertions often lacked adequate backing.
  4. Poor Structure and Organization:
    • Responses often lacked clear structure.
    • High-scoring answers were well-organized with logical flow.
  5. Addressing All Parts:
    • Many candidates failed to address all parts of the question.
    • Successful answers were comprehensive and covered all aspects.

Question 2 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Integration of Knowledge:
    • Successful candidates integrated knowledge from various public health areas effectively.
    • Weak responses lacked cohesion.
  2. Practical Application:
    • High-performing answers provided clear examples of application in real-world scenarios.
    • Many candidates offered vague or generalized applications.
  3. Critical Analysis:
    • Strong responses included critical analysis rather than just description.
    • Insufficient depth in analysis was a common issue.
  4. Evidence-Based Justification:
    • Candidates needed to support their arguments with relevant evidence.
    • Weak answers included assertions without adequate backing.

Question 3 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Data Interpretation:
    • Good answers demonstrated strong skills in interpreting and using data effectively.
    • Weaknesses included misinterpretation or poor use of data.
  2. Comprehensive Coverage:
    • Successful responses addressed all components of the question comprehensively.
    • Incomplete coverage was a frequent issue.
  3. Analytical Skills:
    • High-performing candidates showcased robust analytical skills.
    • Answers often lacked critical examination and depth.
  4. Structure and Clarity:
    • Well-structured and clear responses scored higher.
    • Disjointed and unclear answers were common pitfalls.

Question 4 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Use of Evidence:
    • Strong answers used evidence effectively to support points.
    • Common weaknesses included lack of evidence or inappropriate sources.
  2. Critical Thinking:
    • High-performing candidates demonstrated strong critical thinking skills.
    • Many responses were superficial, lacking in-depth analysis.
  3. Addressing All Aspects:
    • Comprehensive answers covered all aspects of the question.
    • Neglecting parts of the question led to incomplete responses.
  4. Practical Insights:
    • Effective responses provided practical insights and actionable recommendations.
    • Many candidates failed to translate theoretical knowledge into practical solutions.

Question 5 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Depth of Understanding:
    • Candidates who demonstrated a deep understanding scored higher.
    • Weak answers reflected surface-level understanding.
  2. Application of Knowledge:
    • High-performing responses showed strong application to public health scenarios.
    • Many candidates struggled with practical application.
  3. Critical Analysis:
    • Strong answers included critical analysis and evaluation.
    • Common issues included lack of critical thinking and depth.
  4. Structured Responses:
    • Well-structured and clear responses were more successful.
    • Poor organization and clarity were frequent problems.

Question 6 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Evidence-Based Responses:
    • Successful candidates used relevant evidence to support arguments.
    • Many answers lacked sufficient evidence or used inappropriate sources.
  2. Comprehensive Coverage:
    • High-performing responses addressed all components of the question.
    • Incomplete coverage was a frequent issue.
  3. Critical Evaluation:
    • Strong answers included critical evaluation and in-depth analysis.
    • Many responses were superficial and descriptive.
  4. Practical Recommendations:
    • Effective responses provided practical and actionable recommendations.
    • Many candidates failed to offer practical insights or solutions.

Question 7 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Integration and Application:
    • Successful candidates integrated and applied their knowledge effectively.
    • Weak answers showed poor integration and vague application.
  2. Depth of Analysis:
    • High-performing responses included detailed and critical analysis.
    • Many answers lacked depth and critical evaluation.
  3. Use of Evidence:
    • Strong answers were well-supported by relevant evidence.
    • Common issues included insufficient evidence or inappropriate use of data.
  4. Addressing All Parts:
    • Comprehensive answers addressed all parts of the question thoroughly.
    • Neglecting aspects of the question led to incomplete responses.

Question 8 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Practical Application:
    • Successful responses demonstrated strong practical application of knowledge.
    • Many candidates struggled with applying theoretical concepts.
  2. Critical Thinking:
    • High-performing answers showcased strong critical thinking and analysis.
    • Common weaknesses included superficial and descriptive responses.
  3. Use of Evidence:
    • Effective responses used evidence appropriately to support points.
    • Many answers lacked sufficient evidence or used inappropriate sources.
  4. Structured Responses:
    • Well-structured and clear answers were more successful.
    • Poor organization and lack of clarity were frequent issues.

Question 9 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Analytical Skills:
    • Strong responses demonstrated robust analytical skills.
    • Many candidates provided descriptive rather than analytical answers.
  2. Evidence-Based Justification:
    • High-performing candidates supported their arguments with relevant evidence.
    • Common issues included lack of evidence or insufficient justification.
  3. Comprehensive Coverage:
    • Successful answers covered all components of the question comprehensively.
    • Incomplete coverage was a frequent problem.
  4. Practical Insights:
    • Effective responses provided practical insights and actionable recommendations.
    • Many candidates failed to translate theoretical knowledge into practical solutions.

Question 10 - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Depth of Understanding:
    • Candidates who demonstrated a deep understanding scored higher.
    • Weak answers often reflected surface-level understanding.
  2. Critical Analysis:
    • High-performing responses included critical analysis and evaluation.
    • Many answers were superficial and lacked depth.
  3. Use of Evidence:
    • Strong answers were well-supported by relevant evidence.
    • Common weaknesses included insufficient evidence or inappropriate use of sources.
  4. Practical Application:
    • Effective responses demonstrated strong practical application of knowledge.
    • Many candidates struggled to apply theoretical concepts practically.

Paper IIA - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Structured Interviews:
    • Preparation and Knowledge:
      • Successful candidates showed thorough preparation and a deep understanding of public health concepts.
      • Weak responses often reflected insufficient preparation and gaps in knowledge.
    • Clarity and Communication:
      • Effective candidates communicated their points clearly and logically.
      • Common issues included lack of clarity and difficulty in articulating thoughts.
    • Critical Thinking and Analysis:
      • High-scoring responses demonstrated critical thinking and the ability to analyze complex issues.
      • Many candidates struggled with providing in-depth analysis and critical evaluation.
    • Practical Application:
      • Strong candidates applied their knowledge to practical scenarios effectively.
      • A frequent weakness was the inability to translate theoretical knowledge into practical solutions.
    • Evidence-Based Justification:
      • Answers supported by relevant evidence scored higher.
      • Common shortcomings included assertions without adequate justification or evidence.
  2. Unstructured Interviews:
    • Confidence and Articulation:
      • High-performing candidates were confident and articulate in their responses.
      • Weak answers were often hesitant and lacked confidence.
    • Depth of Understanding:
      • Successful responses showed a deep understanding of the topics discussed.
      • Many candidates demonstrated surface-level understanding without deeper insights.
    • Engagement and Interaction:
      • Effective candidates engaged well with the examiners and responded thoughtfully to follow-up questions.
      • Poor engagement and inability to respond to follow-up questions were common issues.
    • Critical and Analytical Skills:
      • Strong candidates exhibited critical and analytical skills in unstructured discussions.
      • Many responses were overly descriptive and lacked critical analysis.
    • Addressing the Question:
      • High-scoring answers directly addressed the questions asked.
      • A frequent problem was failing to address the specific question or going off-topic.

Paper IIB - Common Themes and Feedback

  1. Case Scenarios:
    • Comprehensive Analysis:
      • Successful candidates provided comprehensive analysis of the case scenarios.
      • Common weaknesses included incomplete analysis and missing key points.
    • Application of Knowledge:
      • High-performing responses effectively applied public health knowledge to the scenarios.
      • Many candidates struggled with practical application and provided theoretical answers.
    • Critical Thinking:
      • Strong answers demonstrated critical thinking and problem-solving skills.
      • Common issues were superficial analysis and lack of critical evaluation.
    • Structure and Organization:
      • Well-structured responses with a logical flow scored higher.
      • Poor organization and disjointed answers were frequent pitfalls.
    • Recommendations and Solutions:
      • Effective candidates provided practical and actionable recommendations.
      • Weak answers often lacked clear recommendations or proposed impractical solutions.
  2. Data Interpretation:
    • Understanding and Interpretation:
      • High-scoring responses showed strong understanding and interpretation of data.
      • Many candidates misinterpreted data or failed to use it effectively.
    • Evidence-Based Conclusions:
      • Successful candidates drew evidence-based conclusions from the data.
      • Common weaknesses included unsupported conclusions and poor data integration.
    • Clarity and Precision:
      • Effective responses were clear and precise in their data interpretation.
      • Lack of clarity and precision was a frequent issue.
    • Critical Analysis:
      • Strong answers included critical analysis of the data.
      • Many responses were descriptive and lacked depth in analysis.
    • Addressing All Aspects:
      • Comprehensive answers addressed all aspects of the data-related questions.
      • A frequent problem was neglecting parts of the question, leading to incomplete responses.

Summary of Recommendations for Improvement Across Paper IIA and Paper IIB

  • Thorough Preparation: Ensure thorough preparation and deep understanding of public health concepts.
  • Clarity and Communication: Practice clear and logical communication of points.
  • Critical Thinking and Analysis: Develop critical thinking and the ability to analyze complex issues in-depth.
  • Practical Application: Focus on translating theoretical knowledge into practical solutions.
  • Evidence-Based Justification: Support arguments with relevant and adequate evidence.
  • Confidence and Articulation: Build confidence and practice articulating thoughts clearly and effectively.
  • Engagement and Interaction: Engage well with examiners and respond thoughtfully to follow-up questions.
  • Comprehensive Analysis: Provide comprehensive analysis of case scenarios and data.
  • Structure and Organization: Organize responses clearly with a logical flow of ideas.
  • Practical Recommendations: Provide practical and actionable recommendations based on analysis.

By focusing on these common themes and recommendations, candidates can enhance their performance in the oral components of future public health examinations.

Common Themes in Trainee Feedback:

  1. Exam Content and Structure:
    • Consistency and Relevance: Across multiple years, trainees expressed concerns about the consistency and relevance of the exam content. They often felt that some questions did not align well with the public health curriculum or real-world practice.
    • Clarity of Questions: There were repeated mentions about the clarity and wording of questions. Trainees found some questions to be ambiguously phrased, leading to confusion and misinterpretation.
  2. Preparation and Resources:
    • Study Materials: Feedback highlighted the need for better alignment between available study materials and the actual exam content. Trainees suggested updating and expanding the recommended reading lists and providing more sample questions that reflect the current exam style.
    • Workshops and Guidance: There was a consistent call for more preparatory workshops and clearer guidance on what to expect in the exam. Trainees appreciated when such resources were provided and requested their expansion.
  3. Exam Logistics and Administration:
    • Timing and Length: Many trainees mentioned the exam’s timing and length as problematic. They found certain sections too lengthy or time-pressured, which affected their performance.
    • Technical Issues: Especially notable in the feedback from later years, there were complaints about technical difficulties during the online exams, such as problems with the exam software or internet connectivity issues.
  4. Feedback and Results:
    • Detail of Feedback: Trainees consistently requested more detailed feedback on their performance. They felt that understanding their mistakes would help them better prepare for future attempts.
    • Transparency in Marking: There were calls for greater transparency in the marking process. Trainees wanted more information on how marks were awarded and how borderline cases were handled.

Specific Years with Notable Feedback:

  • 2017:
    • Concerns were raised about the alignment of exam content with practical public health work. There was a strong call for a review of the exam syllabus to ensure it matched the current public health landscape.
  • 2018:
    • Trainees reported that the introduction of new question formats was not well communicated, leading to confusion. There were also comments on the disproportionate difficulty of certain exam sections.
  • 2019:
    • A notable increase in complaints about the clarity and relevance of the questions. Trainees expressed frustration over the ambiguous wording and the perceived irrelevance of some exam questions.
  • 2020:
    • Significant issues were raised regarding the transition to online exams due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Trainees reported numerous technical issues and felt that the support provided during this transition was inadequate.
  • 2021:
    • Feedback focused heavily on the technical difficulties encountered during the online exams. There were specific mentions of software malfunctions and inadequate technical support.
  • 2022:
    • Continued concerns about online exam logistics, with some improvement noted compared to the previous year. Trainees still felt that the detailed feedback on their performance was insufficient and called for more comprehensive post-exam reviews.

Summary:

Overall, the common themes in the trainee feedback on the public health examination centered around the relevance and clarity of exam content, the adequacy of preparation resources, logistical and technical challenges, and the need for detailed feedback and transparency in marking. Specific years, particularly those around the transition to online exams due to the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighted significant issues with technical execution and support. These consistent concerns suggest areas for ongoing improvement to enhance the trainee experience and exam fairness.

Common Themes in Examiners’ Responses:

  1. Exam Content and Structure:
    • Alignment with Curriculum: The examiners frequently reassured that the exam content is continually reviewed and updated to align with the current public health curriculum and practice. They emphasized their commitment to ensuring the relevance and practical application of exam questions.
    • Question Clarity: Examiners acknowledged concerns about question clarity and reported ongoing efforts to refine question wording. They highlighted processes such as piloting new questions and seeking feedback from experienced practitioners before finalizing the exam.
  2. Preparation and Resources:
    • Enhanced Study Materials: Examiners agreed on the importance of comprehensive study resources. They mentioned initiatives to update reading lists and provide additional sample questions. Examiners also discussed developing more workshops and preparatory sessions in response to trainee feedback.
    • Guidance and Communication: There were commitments to improving communication regarding exam format changes and expectations. Examiners recognized the need for clear, timely updates to help trainees prepare effectively.
  3. Exam Logistics and Administration:
    • Timing and Length Adjustments: Examiners took note of feedback about the timing and length of exam sections. They indicated reviews of these aspects and adjustments where feasible to better balance the exam’s demands.
    • Addressing Technical Issues: In response to the feedback about online exam technical difficulties, examiners detailed measures taken to enhance the reliability and user-friendliness of the exam platform. They acknowledged initial challenges, particularly during the pandemic transition, and outlined steps for future improvements.
  4. Feedback and Results:
    • Detailed Feedback Provision: Examiners consistently expressed a commitment to providing more detailed feedback on exam performance. They mentioned specific enhancements to feedback mechanisms, such as clearer explanations of marking criteria and more comprehensive performance summaries.
    • Transparency in Marking: Efforts to increase transparency in the marking process were frequently mentioned. Examiners highlighted their rigorous moderation processes and the steps taken to ensure fairness and consistency in scoring.

Specific Responses in Notable Years:

  • 2017:
    • Examiners emphasized their alignment efforts with the public health curriculum and reassured that feedback on question relevance and clarity was being acted upon.
  • 2018:
    • The response addressed concerns about new question formats, explaining that these were part of ongoing improvements. Examiners reiterated their commitment to clear communication about any changes in the exam structure.
  • 2019:
    • Examiners acknowledged the increased concerns about question clarity and relevance. They described steps being taken to pilot new questions and gather comprehensive feedback before finalization.
  • 2020:
    • In light of the transition to online exams, examiners detailed extensive efforts to address technical issues and improve the online exam experience. They acknowledged initial shortcomings and outlined plans for better support and technical infrastructure.
  • 2021:
    • The response focused on technical improvements made since the previous year’s online exams. Examiners highlighted ongoing refinements to the exam platform and better support mechanisms during the exam.
  • 2022:
    • Examiners noted the continued progress in addressing technical and logistical challenges. They emphasized the provision of detailed feedback and enhanced transparency in the marking process as ongoing priorities.

Summary:

Examiners’ responses consistently addressed trainees’ concerns by highlighting ongoing improvements in exam content alignment, question clarity, preparatory resources, exam logistics, and feedback mechanisms. Specific years, particularly around the transition to online exams, saw detailed acknowledgments of technical issues and the steps taken to resolve them. Overall, examiners demonstrated a commitment to refining the exam process in response to trainee feedback, emphasizing transparency, relevance, and support throughout.