File(s) not publicly available
Good, bad or indifferent: A longitudinal multi-methods study comparing four modes of training for healthcare professionals in one Australian state
journal contributionposted on 2019-05-14, 00:00 authored by P Martin, S Kumar, L Abernathy, Matthew BrowneMatthew Browne
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. © 2018 Author(s) (or their employer(s)).