Assessment of the Undergraduate Health Social Work Curriculum: Identifying Areas for Improvement

Background:
The Mongolian National University of Medical Sciences (MNUMS) launched its undergraduate social work program in 2003. As of 2024, 368 students have graduated across 17 cohorts. The curriculum underwent revisions in 2008 and 2016 and currently spans four years, comprising 132 credits. Following national accreditation, the Department of Social Work implemented a five-year plan (2019–2024) to update the program’s core competencies and curriculum. In 2023, the core competencies were revised in collaboration with international experts through the Fulbright Specialist Program. The updated framework includes nine general and 40 sub-competencies, with an emphasis on training social workers to provide person-centered, integrated services within the health sector.

Objectives:
This study aimed to assess the alignment between the current undergraduate health social work curriculum and the revised core competencies. Through program mapping, we sought to identify overlaps, gaps, and areas for improvement that will inform future curriculum development.

Methods:
We employed content analysis and program mapping to evaluate 30 course curricula from the Health Social Work program. The selected courses included 6 General Foundation, 9 Professional Foundation, 12 Specialization, and 3 Field Practice courses. Each course's learning objectives—categorized into knowledge, skills, and attitudes—were assessed against the revised competencies at three levels: Introducing, Applying, and Mastery. NVivo 14 software was used for data analysis.

Results:
Of the nine core competencies, three were well-integrated across the curriculum: (1) Assessment and (2) Intervention of individuals, families, groups, communities, and organizations; and (3) Engage diversity and difference in practice. Conversely, competencies related to the evaluation of practice and policy engagement were underrepresented. Among the 40 sub-competencies, 11 were either missing or insufficiently addressed in the curriculum. Program mapping revealed that 38% of the courses addressed competencies at the Introducing level, 60% at the Applying level, and only 2% at the Mastery level. Learning outcomes in Professional Foundation and Specialization courses generally demonstrated a progression from introductory to applied learning.

Conclusions:
The revised core competencies are broadly aligned with the current curriculum. However, key areas—particularly evaluation of practice and engagement in policy practice-require further integration. The curriculum also leans heavily toward introductory and applied levels, with limited opportunities for students to achieve mastery. Future curriculum revisions should focus on strengthening these underrepresented areas and enhancing learning outcomes at the mastery level.