↓ Skip to main content

Comparative impact of two continuing education activities targeted at COPD educators on educational outcomes: protocol for a non-randomized controlled study using mixed methods

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
83 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Comparative impact of two continuing education activities targeted at COPD educators on educational outcomes: protocol for a non-randomized controlled study using mixed methods
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, June 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12913-018-3284-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Myriam Gagné, Jocelyne Moisan, Sophie Lauzier, Christine Hamel, Patricia Côté, Jean Bourbeau, Louis-Philippe Boulet

Abstract

Therapeutic patient education (TPE) improves quality of life and reduces health care utilization among patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). However, benefits from TPE might depend on the performance of the educators and training is needed to ensure the effective delivery of TPE interventions. Based on the framework by Moore et al. (J Contin Educ Health Prof 29:1-15, 2009), we will compare the impact of two continuing education (CE) activities on TPE in regard to the following educational outcomes: (1) learning, (2) self-report of competence, (3) performance of the educators, and (4) outcomes of COPD patients who will meet the newly trained educators for TPE. We will conduct a non-randomized controlled study using mixed methods. Educators will first participate in a CE activity on TPE that will include a role-playing simulation (experimental group) or in a lecture on TPE (comparison group) and then will perform TPE in COPD patients. Among educators, we will assess: (1) learning, by measuring knowledge about TPE, and (2) self-report of competence using self-administered questionnaires before and after the activity. Then, after the CE activity, we will assess (3) educators' performance levels in delivering TPE by rating a videotaped TPE intervention. In COPD patients who will meet the newly trained educators for TPE after either CE activity, we will assess (4) quality of life and resource utilization using interviewer-administered questionnaires, before and after TPE. Statistical analyses will compare the experimental group against the comparison group using multivariate models. Using a semi-structured interview guide, we will conduct interviews with educators and perform content analysis. Results will be integrated in order that qualitative results further explain the quantitative ones. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first controlled mixed methods study to compare the impact of two CE activities on TPE in regard to four educational outcomes. We believe this study will serve as a model for evaluating CE activities on TPE. Results from this study could increase educators' performance levels in delivering effective TPE interventions, and, in turn, COPD patient outcomes. The study was registered on https://clinicaltrials.gov/ ( NCT02870998 ) on March 15, 2016.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 83 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 83 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 12%
Student > Master 8 10%
Student > Bachelor 8 10%
Researcher 6 7%
Student > Postgraduate 4 5%
Other 15 18%
Unknown 32 39%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 17 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 10 12%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Engineering 3 4%
Computer Science 3 4%
Other 9 11%
Unknown 37 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 June 2018.
All research outputs
#15,536,861
of 23,090,520 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#5,647
of 7,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#208,391
of 328,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#175
of 211 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,090,520 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,738 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.8. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,114 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 211 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.