Good, bad or indifferent: a longitudinal multi-methods study comparing four modes of training for healthcare professionals in one Australian state

好、坏还是无所谓:一项纵向多方法研究比较了澳大利亚某州医疗保健专业人员的四种培训模式

阅读:1

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to compare the differences in learning outcomes for supervision training of healthcare professionals across four modes namely face-to-face, videoconference, online and blended modes. Furthermore, changes sustained at 3 months were examined. DESIGN/METHODS: A multimethods quasi-experimental longitudinal design was used. Data were collected at three points-before training, immediately after training and at 3 months post-training. Quantitative and qualitative data were collected through anonymous surveys and reflective summaries, respectively. RESULTS: Participants reported an increase in supervision knowledge and confidence immediately after training that was sustained at 3 months with all four modalities of training. Using analysis of variance, we found these changes were sustained at 3 months postcompletion (confidence p<0.01 and knowledge p<0.01). However, there was no statistically significant difference in outcomes between the four modes of training delivery (confidence, p=0.22 or knowledge, p=0.39). Reflective summary data highlighted the differences in terminology used by participant to describe their experiences across the different modes, the key role of the facilitator in training delivery and the merits and risks associated with online training. CONCLUSIONS: When designed and delivered carefully, training can achieve comparable outcomes across all four modes of delivery. Regardless of the mode of delivery, the facilitator in training delivery is critical in ensuring positive outcomes.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。