Table 1.
Force Field Analysis with 22 Faculty Members Regarding FAP
| Inputs favoring FAP | n (%) | Inputs against FAP | n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Provides a long-term, holistic insight into the health of the family | 10 (45.4) | Lack of transport and supportive staff | 14 (63.6) |
| Understand the public perception of health | 8 (36.3) | Shortage of faculty in private colleges | 10 (45.4) |
| Creates relevance and interest for academics | 5 (22.7) | No clarity over timing and scheduling | 7 (31.8) |
| Opportunity to focus on “health” rather than “disease” | 5 (22.7) | Overburden of faculty with other programs | 5 (22.7) |
| Early Community Exposure | 4 (18.1) | Too early for first-year students; risk of losing confidence and relevance | 4 (18.1) |
| Long-term, full-fledged extension of Family Health Study | 4 (18.1) | Getting overly attached and vulnerable to manipulation | 3 (13.6) |
| More scope for interaction compared towards | 4 (18.1) | Over expectations from family | 3 (13.6) |
| Opportunity to form long-lasting bonds with the families | 3 (13.6) | The reluctance of faculty to go into the field | 3 (13.6) |
| The right time to create the impression in students’ minds | 3 (13.6) | Too many new initiatives at once by NMC | 2 (9.1) |
| New catchment area for hospitals | 2 (9.1) | The student strength is very high compared to reputed institutes running this program earlier | 2 (9.1) |