| Literature DB >> 35897091 |
Jyh-Gang Hsieh1,2, Jui-Hung Yu3, Ying-Wei Wang1,2, Mi-Hsiu Wei4, Mei-Chuan Chang5, Chao-Chun Wu6, Shu-Li Chia6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Health literacy (HL) has proven to be a determining factor influencing the health of individuals. Community health providers (CHPs) work on the front line of improving public HL. Increasing their understanding of HL and their ability to incorporate HL into healthcare can reduce obstacles in healthcare services. This study evaluated the effectiveness of an HL training program for CHP by using the hybrid online team-based learning (TBL) model.Entities:
Keywords: Community health providers; Health literacy; Hybrid; Learning experiences; Online; Team-based learning
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35897091 PMCID: PMC9327261 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03646-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 3.263
Demographic information
| Variable | Category | n | % |
|---|---|---|---|
| Male | 8 | 9.9 | |
| Female | 73 | 90.1 | |
| Nurse | 59 | 72.8 | |
| Other medical personnel | 7 | 8.7 | |
| Health administrators and others | 15 | 18.5 | |
| ≤ 30 years | 4 | 5.0 | |
| 31–50 years | 65 | 80.2 | |
| ≥ 51 years | 12 | 14.8 | |
| College (5-year program) | 16 | 19.8 | |
| University and graduate school (Master) | 65 | 80.2 | |
| Northern Taiwan | 20 | 24.6 | |
| Central Taiwan | 14 | 17.3 | |
| Southern Taiwan | 21 | 25.9 | |
| Eastern Taiwan and offshore islands | 26 | 32.1 | |
| ≤ 10 years | 17 | 21.0 | |
| 11–20 years | 39 | 48.1 | |
| ≥ 21 years | 25 | 30.9 | |
| Never | 30 | 37.0 | |
| ≤ 10 h | 45 | 55.6 | |
| ≥ 11 h | 6 | 7.4 |
Fig. 1Hybrid online team-based learning for community healthcare providers
Changes in familiarity with HL, attitude toward HL, and confidence in implementing HL practices
| Item | Pre-test | Post-test | t | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4.29 ± 1.76 | 6.92 ± 1.52 | 11.89 | .000 | |
| 7.39 ± 1.88 | 8.10 ± 1.44 | 2.98 | .004 | |
| 6.22 ± 1.48 | 7.61 ± 1.34 | 7.35 | .000 |
Note: scale 0–10 points
Analysis of satisfaction with the teaching methods and content
| Item | |
|---|---|
| 4.07 ± .53 | |
| The preparatory videos increased my understanding of the course | 4.14 ± .65 |
| The IRATs increased learning motivation | 4.01 ± .73 |
| The TRATs increased mutual learning among group members | 4.02 ± .65 |
| The discussion activities enhanced the applicability of course content | 4.06 ± .58 |
| The learning time of the course was flexible | 4.15 ± .65 |
| The learning space of the course was flexible | 4.26 ± .63 |
| The course increased my interest in learning | 4.01 ± .62 |
| The course reduced learning stress | 3.95 ± .84 |
| The course ran smoothly | 4.06 ± .60 |
| The course content is easy to absorb | 4.09 ± .62 |
| 4.13 ± .55 | |
| Introduction to the HL concept | 4.21 ± .56 |
| Oral communication | 4.14 ± .65 |
| Written communication | 4.11 ± .61 |
| Community HL interventions | 4.10 ± .60 |
| Case discussion of communication with the elderly | 4.15 ± .59 |
| Case discussion of community HL interventions | 4.05 ± .63 |
| 4.06 ± .58 | |
| Familiarity with HL after the course | 4.10 ± .56 |
| Execution power of providing HL services after the course | 3.89 ± .61 |
| Overall, I am satisfied with the course | 4.12 ± .53 |
| The next course should adopt the same model | 4.11 ± .63 |
Note: 5: Very helpful/familiar/agree; 4: Helpful/familiar/agree; 3: Neither helpful/familiar/agree nor unhelpful/unfamiliar/disagree; 2: Unhelpful/unfamiliar/disagree; 1: Very unhelpful/unfamiliar/disagree
Analysis of CHPs’ experience of course participation
| Category | Theme | Subtheme |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Experiences with teaching strategies | 1. The distance learning course increased participation and accessibility | |
| 2. Series short course learning made learning easy | ||
| 3. TBL was a new experience | 3.1 The preparatory videos were helpful for learning 3.2 IRATs increase learning motivation 3.3 TRATs enhance the sharing of learning experiences 3.4 Team application activities enhance practical applications 3.5 TBL increased interactions between teams | |
| 4. Case discussion provided experience | ||
| 5. Challenges in learning | 5.1 Video equipment and network problems 5.2 Unable to prepare before each class due to busy work schedule 5.3 Work-related interruptions during the course led to fragmented learning 5.4 Supervisors’ leadership eliminated all difficulties | |
| 2. Learning experiences in the HL course | 6. The course content was systematic and complete | |
| 7. Review existing community health services and make improvements from the perspective of HL | 7.1 Community health education activity 7.2 Written communication skills for HL 7.3 Community HL intervention 7.4 Health-literate healthcare environment |