| Literature DB >> 31338206 |
Ana A Baumann1, Melanie M Domenech Rodríguez2, Elizabeth Wieling3, J Rubén Parra-Cardona4, Laura A Rains5, Marion S Forgatch5.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite the large number of evidence-based practices (EBPs) ready for implementation, they are the exception in usual care, especially for ethnic minority patients, who may not have access to trained health professionals. Providing EBP training as part of a graduate curriculum could help build the pipeline of professionals to provide quality care.Entities:
Keywords: Blended learning; GenerationPMTO; Parent intervention; Pilot study; Therapist training
Year: 2019 PMID: 31338206 PMCID: PMC6626357 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-019-0476-8
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pilot Feasibility Stud ISSN: 2055-5784
Components of the GenerationPMTO training at university settings
| Strategy | Literature definition/Our specification | Justification | Target | Outcomes/Dose |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Educational | ||||
| Active educational meetings | Online classes: one encounter of 90 min per week for two academic semesters. Classes entailed both discussions of theory as well as role plays to strengthen skills | Theoretical [ [ Empirical [ | Students’ knowledge | Implementation outcomes: Knowledge gain Model fidelity (instructors as well as students) Dose: three knowledge surveys: October and November of 2015 and May of 2016 |
| Train-the-trainer |
Close monitoring of the teaching technique by the treatment developer and GenerationPMTO mentors to guide AB and MDR teaching in class. Teaching of students by certified coaches (AB, MDR, JRPC, EW) | Theoretical: adaptation of the GenerationPMTO implementation model to an academic setting [ Empirical [ | Students’ knowledge and skills building | |
| Education through peers | Students provided feedback on each other’s performance during sessions and role plays in class using the FIMP structure | Theoretical: knowledge [ | Students’ knowledge and skills building and peer-to-peer support | |
| Quality management | ||||
| Develop and organize quality monitoring system | Fidelity ratings as performance feedback to students and coaches; share notes and gather feedback on class preparation with treatment developer and team; mid-semester and end of semester qualitative assessment of course with coaches and students; implement student and coach goal-settings for skill acquisition in GenerationPMTO | Theoretical: reflecting and evaluating; available resources; access to knowledge [ Empirical [ | Lead trainers’ fidelity to the model while adapting the training Students’ knowledge and skills building | Implementation outcomes: Fidelity to the model Dose: weekly coaching during class for students; one meeting per semester with lead trainers and treatment developer |
| Audit and feedback | Verbal and written qualitative feedback were provided to students and coaches on their GenerationPMTO knowledge and skills performance | Theoretical: knowledge, peer pressure [ Empirical [ | ||
| Consultation | Small samples (10–20 min) of videos from their sessions with parents were observed in class and students received feedback on their GenerationPMTO skills | Theoretical: knowledge, self-efficacy [ Empirical [ | ||
Teaching evaluation (n = 14)
| Teaching evaluation | Mean (SD) |
|---|---|
| Instructors were knowledgeable about the subject | 1.09 (0.30) |
| Instructors were prepared for the class | 2.09 (1.22) |
| Instructors presented materials in a way that helped me learn | 1.81 (0.75) |
| Instructors encouraged participation | 1.09 (0.30) |
| Instructor answered student’s questions | 1.18 (0.30) |
| Instructors were enthusiastic about teaching | 1.09 (0.30) |
| The pace of the course was just right | 2.09 (0.70) |
| I would recommend these instructors to others | 1.27 (0.65) |
| Instructors had set agendas that facilitated the learning process | 1.63 (0.50) |
| Instructors used active teaching | 1.09 (0.30) |
| Instructors used good questioning process | 1.09 (0.30) |
| Assignments | |
| The readings/homework assignments were at the right level of difficulty for the course | 1.63 (0.50) |
| Assignments given for class interested me | 2.18 (1.17) |
| Assignments were about the right length | 2.45 (1.04) |
| General course | |
| I learned GenerationPMTO skills in this course | 1.18 (0.40) |
| This course improved my GenerationPMTO knowledge | 1.18 (0.40) |
| I learned from my peers | 1.54 (0.69) |
| Overall, the quality of the course was good | 1.09 (0.30) |
| If offered again, I would recommend this course to others | 1.18 (0.40) |
Integration of mixed method results demonstrating convergence of findings
| Approach | Quantitative | Qualitative |
|---|---|---|
| Question | Is the BL a feasible implementation strategy to train EBP? | |
| Answer | Yes: Students reported that BL was feasible | Yes: Students articulated that the mix of online and in vivo components of the class were feasible and helped them acquire GenerationPMTO knowledge |
| No: participants complained about issues with technology, too many platforms and issues uploading videos for supervision | ||
| Question | Is BL an acceptable training? | |
| Answer | Yes: Students had a significant increase in GenerationPMTO knowledge | Yes: BL training was acceptable and students were thankful for the opportunity of meeting GenerationPMTO mentors |
Fig. 1Fidelity rating of instructors 1 and 2 in selected segments during the 1-year training. A score of 6 or higher reflects adherence to the model