↓ Skip to main content

Preparing Public Health Professionals to Make Evidence-Based Decisions: A Comparison of Training Delivery Methods in the United States

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Public Health, September 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
52 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
Preparing Public Health Professionals to Make Evidence-Based Decisions: A Comparison of Training Delivery Methods in the United States
Published in
Frontiers in Public Health, September 2018
DOI 10.3389/fpubh.2018.00257
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rebekah R. Jacob, Kathleen Duggan, Peg Allen, Paul C. Erwin, Kristelle Aisaka, Samuel C. Yang, Ross C. Brownson

Abstract

Background: Evidence-based decision making (EBDM) in health programs and policies can reduce population disease burden. Training in EBDM for the public health workforce is necessary to continue capacity building efforts. While in-person training for EBDM is established and effective, gaps in skills for practicing EBDM remain. Distance and blended learning (a combination of distance and in-person) have the potential to increase reach and reduce costs for training in EBDM. However, evaluations to-date have focused primarily on in-person training. Here we examine effectiveness of in-person trainings compared to distance and blended learning. Methods: A quasi-experimental pre-post design was used to compare gaps in skills for EBDM among public health practitioners who received in-person training, distance and blended learning, and controls. Nine training sites agreed to replicate a course in EBDM with public health professionals in their state or region. Courses were conducted either in-person (n = 6) or via distance or blended learning (n = 3). All training participants, along with controls, were asked to complete a survey before the training and 6 months post-training. Paired surveys were used in linear mixed models to compare effectiveness of training compared to controls. Results: Response rates for pre and post-surveys were 63.9 and 48.8% for controls and 81.6 and 62.0% for training groups. Participants who completed both pre and post-surveys (n = 272; 84 in-person, 67 distance or blended, and 121 controls) were mostly female (89.0%) and about two-thirds (65.3%) were from local health departments. In comparison to controls, overall gaps in skills for EBDM were reduced for participants of both in-person training (β = -0.55, SE = 0.27, p = 0.041) and distance or blended training (β = -0.64, SE = 0.29, p = 0.026). Conclusions: This study highlights the importance of using diverse methods of learning (including distance or blended in-person approaches) for scaling up capacity building in EBDM. Further exploration into effective implementation strategies for EBDM trainings specific to course delivery type and understanding delivery preferences are important next steps.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users 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 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 23%
Student > Ph. D. Student 6 12%
Student > Postgraduate 3 6%
Researcher 3 6%
Lecturer 2 4%
Other 6 12%
Unknown 20 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 9 17%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 13%
Social Sciences 4 8%
Psychology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 23 44%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 09 October 2018.
All research outputs
#7,600,406
of 23,313,051 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Public Health
#2,596
of 10,842 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,272
of 338,467 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Public Health
#52
of 95 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,313,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 67th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,842 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
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 338,467 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 95 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.