Currently submitted to: JMIR Medical Education
Date Submitted: Nov 10, 2025
(closed for review but you can still tweet)
Warning: This is an author submission that is not peer-reviewed or edited. Preprints - unless they show as "accepted" - should not be relied on to guide clinical practice or health-related behavior and should not be reported in news media as established information.
Evaluating Value, Structure, and Curriculum in U.S. Graduate Health Informatics Programs: A Cross-Sectional Study
ABSTRACT
Background:
Background:
Graduate health informatics programs in the United States differ widely in cost, curriculum, and program structure. However, it is unclear how these differences influence affordability, accreditation value, and preparation for a data-driven workforce.
Objective:
Objective:
This study evaluated the value (tuition and affordability), structure (delivery format, credit load, culminating experience, and accreditation), and curriculum (technology content emphasis) of U.S. graduate health informatics programs, and examined how accreditation and modality relate to program design and tuition efficiency.
Methods:
Methods:
A cross-sectional analysis of 107 U.S. graduate health informatics programs was conducted using publicly available data collected between January and May 2025. Tuition was standardized to cost per credit. Curricular content was coded for technology density and mapped to CAHIIM domains. Comparative statistics, regression models, and cluster analysis were used to assess relationships between tuition, credit requirements, accreditation, delivery format, and curriculum characteristics.
Results:
Results:
Programs varied in delivery format (online 32%, in-person 19%, hybrid 17%), credit requirements (most commonly 31–39 credits), and culminating experiences (capstone 51%, internship 20%, thesis 2%). Delivery format predicted required credit hours (P=.05), while accreditation did not (P=.94). Accreditation did not improve tuition efficiency (P=.35). Programs requiring internships had significantly higher average credit loads (39.0 vs 31.3 credits; P=.005). Cluster analysis identified four program typologies differing in cost, credit requirements, modality, and culminating structure.
Conclusions:
Conclusions:
Accreditation did not consistently improve affordability or tuition efficiency. Program design elements, particularly delivery format and internship requirements, were stronger predictors of credit load and cost. Aligning tuition transparency, structural expectations, and curricular emphasis on technical competencies may enhance equity and value in graduate health informatics education.
Citation
