Van N B Nguyen1, Charlotte E Rees2, Ella Ottrey3, Corinne Davis4, Kirsty Pope5, Sarah Lee6, Susan Waller7, Claire Palermo8. 1. V.N.B. Nguyen is a research fellow, Monash Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0982-2532 . 2. C.E. Rees is head of school, School of Health Sciences, College of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia, and adjunct professor, Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4828-1422 . 3. E. Ottrey is a research fellow, Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2979-548X . 4. C. Davis is a PhD candidate, Department of Nutrition, Dietetics and Food, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6343-2260 . 5. K. Pope is a lecturer, Department of Occupational Therapy, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Frankston, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0010-4091 . 6. S. Lee is a PhD candidate, Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2781-3082 . 7. S. Waller is an adjunct senior research fellow, School of Rural Health, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Bendigo, VIC, Australia, and assistant professor, Department of Medical Education, College of Medicine and Health Sciences, United Arab Emirates University, Al Ain, UAE; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6309-0360 . 8. C. Palermo is director, Monash Centre for Scholarship in Health Education, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia, and associate dean (teaching and learning), Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9423-5067 .
Abstract
PURPOSE: Supervision training supports health care supervisors to perform their essential functions. Realist evaluations are increasingly popular for evaluating complex educational interventions, but no such evaluations exist appraising supervision workshops. Building on an earlier realist synthesis of supervision training, the authors evaluated whether supervision workshops work, for whom and under what circumstances, and why. METHOD: The authors conducted a 2-stage realist evaluation during 2018-2019 to refine and develop program theory. The intervention involved half-day, face-to-face supervision workshops as part of an Australian state-wide government-funded program for health care and human services supervisors. Data collection involved realist interviews with 10 workshop developers (stage 1) and 43 supervisors (stage 2). The authors employed team-based data analysis using realist logic to refine and develop program theory by identifying contexts, mechanisms, outcomes, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations. RESULTS: Despite their brevity, the supervision workshops had many reported benefits for supervisors (e.g., improved satisfaction) through various perceived mechanisms pertaining to pedagogy (e.g., mixed pedagogies), workshops (e.g., optimal duration), and individuals (e.g., supervisor engagement). However, they also yielded negative reported outcomes (e.g., suboptimal knowledge gains) brought about by assorted perceived mechanisms related to pedagogy (e.g., suboptimal peer learning), workshops (e.g., content irrelevance), and individuals (e.g., suboptimal facilitator competence). Such mechanisms were thought to be triggered by diverse contexts including supervisors' levels of experience, sector, and workplace supervision cultures. CONCLUSIONS: While the findings partly support the realist synthesis of supervision training and previous realist evaluations of faculty development, this realist evaluation extends this literature considerably. Health care educators should employ mixed pedagogies (e.g., didactic teaching, peer learning), relevant content, optimal workshop duration, and competent/engaging facilitators. Educators also need to tailor workshops according to supervisors' contexts including the sectors and supervision cultures in which supervision is practiced, and supervisors' levels of experience (e.g., experienced supervisors appreciated workshop brevity).
PURPOSE: Supervision training supports health care supervisors to perform their essential functions. Realist evaluations are increasingly popular for evaluating complex educational interventions, but no such evaluations exist appraising supervision workshops. Building on an earlier realist synthesis of supervision training, the authors evaluated whether supervision workshops work, for whom and under what circumstances, and why. METHOD: The authors conducted a 2-stage realist evaluation during 2018-2019 to refine and develop program theory. The intervention involved half-day, face-to-face supervision workshops as part of an Australian state-wide government-funded program for health care and human services supervisors. Data collection involved realist interviews with 10 workshop developers (stage 1) and 43 supervisors (stage 2). The authors employed team-based data analysis using realist logic to refine and develop program theory by identifying contexts, mechanisms, outcomes, and context-mechanism-outcome configurations. RESULTS: Despite their brevity, the supervision workshops had many reported benefits for supervisors (e.g., improved satisfaction) through various perceived mechanisms pertaining to pedagogy (e.g., mixed pedagogies), workshops (e.g., optimal duration), and individuals (e.g., supervisor engagement). However, they also yielded negative reported outcomes (e.g., suboptimal knowledge gains) brought about by assorted perceived mechanisms related to pedagogy (e.g., suboptimal peer learning), workshops (e.g., content irrelevance), and individuals (e.g., suboptimal facilitator competence). Such mechanisms were thought to be triggered by diverse contexts including supervisors' levels of experience, sector, and workplace supervision cultures. CONCLUSIONS: While the findings partly support the realist synthesis of supervision training and previous realist evaluations of faculty development, this realist evaluation extends this literature considerably. Health care educators should employ mixed pedagogies (e.g., didactic teaching, peer learning), relevant content, optimal workshop duration, and competent/engaging facilitators. Educators also need to tailor workshops according to supervisors' contexts including the sectors and supervision cultures in which supervision is practiced, and supervisors' levels of experience (e.g., experienced supervisors appreciated workshop brevity).
Authors: Betty Onyura; Stella L Ng; Lindsay R Baker; Susan Lieff; Barbara-Ann Millar; Brenda Mori Journal: Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract Date: 2016-06-13 Impact factor: 3.853
Authors: Corrie E McDaniel; Sahar N Rooholamini; Arti D Desai; Sandeep Reddy; Susan G Marshall Journal: Acad Pediatr Date: 2019-08-17 Impact factor: 3.107
Authors: Charlotte E Rees; Van N B Nguyen; Ella Ottrey; Corinne Davis; Kirsty Pope; Sarah Lee; Susan Waller; Claire Palermo Journal: Nurse Educ Today Date: 2021-11-18 Impact factor: 3.442
Authors: Alison R Hernández; Anna-Karin Hurtig; Kjerstin Dahlblom; Miguel San Sebastián Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2014-03-06 Impact factor: 2.655