Title |
Blended learning is an effective strategy for acquiring competence in public health biostatistics
|
---|---|
Published in |
International Journal of Public Health, October 2017
|
DOI | 10.1007/s00038-017-1039-5 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Natasa Milic, Srdjan Masic, Vesna Bjegovic-Mikanovic, Goran Trajkovic, Jelena Marinkovic, Jelena Milin-Lazovic, Zoran Bukumiric, Marko Savic, Andja Cirkovic, Milan Gajic, Dejana Stanisavljevic |
Abstract |
We sought to determine whether blended learning is an effective strategy for acquiring competence in public health biostatistics. The trial was conducted with 69 Masters' students of public health attending the School of Public Health at University of Belgrade. Students were exposed to the traditional and blended learning styles. Blended learning included a combination of face-to-face and distance learning methodologies integrated into a single course. Curriculum development was guided by competencies as suggested by the Association of Schools of Public Health in the European Region (ASPHER). Teaching methods were compared according to the final competence score. Forty-four students were enrolled in the traditional method of education delivery, and 25 to the blended learning format. Mean exam scores for the blended learning group were higher than for the on-site group for both the final statistics score (89.65 ± 6.93 vs. 78.21 ± 13.26; p < 0.001) and knowledge test score (35.89 ± 3.66 vs. 22.56 ± 7.12; p < 0.001), with estimated large effect size (d > 0.8). A blended learning approach is an attractive and effective way of acquiring biostatistics competence for Masters of Public Health (MPH) graduate students. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Slovakia | 1 | 50% |
Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Unknown | 48 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Master | 6 | 13% |
Professor | 5 | 10% |
Lecturer | 5 | 10% |
Researcher | 3 | 6% |
Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 6% |
Other | 12 | 25% |
Unknown | 14 | 29% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 17% |
Social Sciences | 7 | 15% |
Psychology | 4 | 8% |
Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 6% |
Linguistics | 1 | 2% |
Other | 6 | 13% |
Unknown | 19 | 40% |