Tabriz University of Medical Sciences Research and Development in Medical Education 2322-2719 15 1 2026 01 01 Evaluation of District Residency Program Among Postgraduates of Hyderabad -A Mixed-Method Study 33382 33382 10.34172/rdme.026.33382 EN Shirishkumar Chavan https://orcid.org/0009-0000-1034-485X Sudha Bala https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7616-1132 Manisha S Mane https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2639-2888 Massarat Begum https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2464-4527 Saba Hashmiya https://orcid.org/0009-0005-2274-6190 Bindiya C Gowda https://orcid.org/0009-0006-5111-8094 Journal Article 10.34172/rdme.026.33382 2025 08 26 2025 10 31 Background: Evaluation of the District residency program highlights the strengths of the program, which can be reinforced and promoted. It identifies weaknesses or gaps in the program, allowing for targeted improvements to enhance the training experience. Methods: A mixed method of study was conducted among 88 postgraduates who had completed the DRP and were willing to participate. This approach consisted of a quantitative study method about satisfaction with DRP training, satisfaction with basic amenities rated on a Likert scale, specialty-focused skill training, safety and well-being at the DRP site, and a qualitative method through In-depth interviews covering all three phase-wise subjects. Results: On quantitative data analysed, we found an 86(97%) response rate, with 36% strongly agreeing that the learning objectives fulfilled, 37% with quality of training, 27% support from parent department, only 22% has an access to safe and decent accommodation, and only 37% satisfied with safety and wellbeing. On qualitative analysis, they found limited skill development, poor infrastructure, lack of basic amenities, safety concerns, and no alignment with the objectives of the program, but found two positive aspects, such as cross-departmental collaboration, teaching, clinical exposure, and research opportunities enhancement. Conclusion: Less than half of them felt that the objectives were not met. Post-graduates of Phase 3 were benefitted with adding a new dimension to their clinical practice; Phase 1 and 2 have not gained any domains of learning, and concerns about safety issues were raised. However, despite the challenges they faced, students have provided good recommendations for improvement.