Course Evaluation Evidence for APHEA Public Health Accreditation

In short: APHEA — the Agency for Public Health Education Accreditation — assesses Bachelor- and Master-level public health programmes against seven criteria and grants accreditation for a six-year period. Course and student evaluation evidence maps most directly to Criterion 7, Internal Quality Management — and that is precisely the criterion European programmes most often under-deliver on. This guide maps each criterion to concrete evaluation evidence, and shows how a modern evaluation platform such as Koji produces it.

What APHEA is

APHEA was launched in 2011 and is based in Brussels. It was founded by a consortium of the leading European public-health bodies — the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER), the European Public Health Association (EUPHA), EuroHealthNet, the European Public Health Alliance (EPHA) and the European Health Management Association (EHMA) (APHEA).

APHEA runs a fitness-for-purpose model: it does not impose a single template of what a public health programme must look like, but asks whether a programme's aims, structure and outcomes are appropriate to its stated mission and context, evaluated against clearly defined standards. Accreditation applies to both Bachelor and Master programmes, is granted for six years subject to continued compliance, and accredited programmes are publicly listed and may display the APHEA logo.

Importantly, APHEA is a voluntary, discipline-specific international accreditation. It sits alongside — not instead of — your national quality-assurance regime and the European Standards and Guidelines (ESG). Most public-health schools pursue it to signal international quality to students, partners and funders, not because a ministry requires it.

The accreditation process

The route to APHEA programme accreditation runs in stages:

1. Curriculum Validation (Phase 1). A prerequisite step in which APHEA validates the curriculum against its core public-health competencies.
2. Self-evaluation. The programme produces a comprehensive self-evaluation report against the seven criteria.
3. Peer-review site visit. A review team spends approximately two and a half days on site, testing the self-evaluation against interviews and documentary evidence.
4. Decision. APHEA's Board of Accreditation, which meets monthly, reviews the report and reaches a decision.
5. Validity. Accreditation is granted for six years, subject to continued compliance with APHEA standards.

Evaluation evidence is read at two of these points: it must be documented in the self-evaluation, and it must hold up under questioning during the site visit. A tidy PDF of average scores rarely survives the second test; panels want to see the loop from student voice to programme change.

The seven APHEA criteria

The APHEA programme accreditation framework is organised around seven criteria (Bjegovic-Mikanovic et al., European Journal of Public Health, 2015):

1. Governance and Organization of the Programme
2. Aims and Objectives of the Public Health Programme
3. The Curriculum
4. Students and Graduates
5. Human Resources and Staffing
6. Supportive Services; Budgeting and Facilities
7. Internal Quality Management

Student and course evaluation touches several of these, but it is the backbone of Criterion 7.

Where course evaluation becomes accreditation evidence

APHEA criterion	What the panel looks for	Concrete evaluation evidence (Koji output)
2. Aims and Objectives	Evidence that stated learning outcomes are actually achieved and reviewed	Evaluation items and interview probes mapped to programme learning outcomes; longitudinal reports showing outcome-level student feedback over cohorts
3. The Curriculum	That module content, sequencing and workload are appropriate and student-informed	Module-level thematic analysis of what students found effective or confusing; workload and assessment feedback traced to curriculum decisions
4. Students and Graduates	Student support, progression and the student voice in programme development	Standardised, bias-aware student evaluation across every module; representative quotes and themes, not just averages
5. Human Resources and Staffing	That teaching quality is monitored and developed	Instructor-level formative feedback used for development (kept distinct from summative judgement)
7. Internal Quality Management	An operational quality system, inclusive of stakeholders, with continuous data and demonstrable improvement	Full closing-the-loop record: evaluation → theme → committee action → change → re-evaluation, tracked across cycles

(Criterion 7 is the anchor; the others draw on the same evidence base from different angles.)

The Criterion 7 problem — and why it matters

Criterion 7, Internal Quality Management, expects that "an operational internal quality management system is in place, broadly inclusive of staff, students and stakeholders," and that "there is continuous data collection and analysis that assures necessary modifications in the learning objectives, the content of modules, staffing and pedagogical approaches" (Bjegovic-Mikanovic et al., 2015).

Here is the uncomfortable finding from the same research: across European regions, Criterion 7 showed some of the lowest compliance rates, with particular difficulty in stakeholder engagement and the practical implementation of feedback mechanisms. In other words, the single area where course evaluation is your strongest asset is also the area where public-health programmes most frequently fall short.

The failure is rarely a lack of surveys. It is the missing loop: programmes collect ratings but cannot demonstrate that feedback was analysed, that specific changes followed, and that those changes were themselves re-evaluated. A panel does not want to see that you ran an evaluation; it wants to see that the evaluation changed something, and that you can prove it.

Building the evidence, not just the survey

To satisfy Criterion 7 (and strengthen 2, 3, 4 and 5 in the process), your evaluation system should produce four things a panel can inspect:

• Standardised collection. Every module evaluated on a comparable instrument, so cohort and longitudinal comparison is defensible rather than anecdotal. Koji standardises the moderation itself — each student is asked and probed consistently — which reduces the moderator variability that makes qualitative evidence hard to trust.
• Analysed qualitative data. Open text is where public-health students explain why a placement or a research-methods module worked or did not. Koji's automatic thematic analysis turns thousands of comments into themes with representative quotes, so the self-evaluation cites evidence rather than impressions.
• Documented actions. Closing-the-loop tracking records the decision each theme triggered — the "you said, we did" trail that is the heart of Criterion 7. See our guide on turning student feedback into ESG evidence and on annual programme monitoring.
• Longitudinal reporting. Six-year accreditation cycles reward programmes that can show a multi-year trend and the effect of their interventions, not a single strong term.

Because Koji is built on the same AI interview engine used for customer and user research on the main Koji platform, the depth of a qualitative interview is available at the scale of an institutional evaluation — the combination Criterion 7 quietly demands.

GDPR and student data

Public-health cohorts are often small, and small classes make "anonymous" feedback re-identifiable. Handle evaluation data under GDPR with genuine anonymity thresholds and clear processing terms; put your vendor's data-processing agreement in front of your DPO before the site visit, since panels increasingly ask how student data is protected.

When APHEA is not the right lens

Be honest about scope. APHEA accreditation is voluntary and public-health-specific. If your programme is not in public or global health, a discipline body such as WFME for medical schools or your national accreditation agency is the primary route, and APHEA adds little. Even where APHEA applies, it does not replace your national QA obligations or ESG alignment — treat it as an international quality signal layered on top. And no software makes a programme accreditable: the evidence has to reflect real changes to teaching. A tool can only make that evidence easier to collect, analyse and prove.

Related Resources

• Turning student feedback into ESG accreditation evidence
• Course evaluation evidence for WFME medical school accreditation
• Course evaluation evidence for nursing and health professions accreditation
• Writing the self-evaluation report: course evaluation evidence
• Annual programme monitoring: course evaluation evidence
• Institution-level evaluation reporting for QA audits

Frequently asked questions

What is APHEA accreditation?

APHEA is the Agency for Public Health Education Accreditation, launched in 2011 and based in Brussels. It accredits Bachelor- and Master-level public health programmes against seven criteria using a fitness-for-purpose model, granting accreditation for six years. It was founded by a consortium of European public-health bodies including ASPHER, EUPHA, EuroHealthNet, EPHA and EHMA.

Which APHEA criterion does course evaluation evidence support?

Course and student evaluation maps most directly to Criterion 7, Internal Quality Management, which expects an operational quality system inclusive of staff, students and stakeholders with continuous data collection and analysis. It also strengthens Criterion 2 (aims and objectives), Criterion 3 (the curriculum), Criterion 4 (students and graduates) and Criterion 5 (staffing).

Why do programmes struggle with APHEA's Internal Quality Management criterion?

Research on APHEA accreditation found Criterion 7 had some of the lowest compliance rates across Europe, with particular difficulty in stakeholder engagement and implementing feedback mechanisms. The usual gap is not missing surveys but a missing loop — programmes collect ratings yet cannot demonstrate that feedback was analysed, that changes followed, and that those changes were re-evaluated.

What evaluation evidence should a public health programme prepare for an APHEA site visit?

Prepare standardised evaluation across every module, analysed qualitative (open-text) data with themes and representative quotes, a documented closing-the-loop record of actions taken in response to feedback, and longitudinal reporting across the six-year cycle. The evidence must survive questioning during the roughly two-and-a-half-day peer-review site visit, not just appear in the self-evaluation.

Does APHEA replace national accreditation or ESG?

No. APHEA is a voluntary, public-health-specific international accreditation that sits alongside your national quality-assurance regime and ESG alignment. It is an additional quality signal, not a substitute for statutory national requirements.

How does Koji help with APHEA accreditation evidence?

Koji runs standardised, bias-aware AI-moderated evaluation interviews, applies automatic thematic analysis to open-text responses, and tracks closing-the-loop actions across cycles. That combination produces the analysed, stakeholder-inclusive, continuously updated evidence Criterion 7 asks for, at institutional scale.