促进职业健康专业人员使用指南的培训计划：一项可行性研究。

A training programme facilitating guideline use of occupational health professionals: a feasibility study.

机构信息

Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Coronel Institute of Occupational Health, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

BMC Med Educ. 2018 Oct 3;18(1):226. doi: 10.1186/s12909-018-1223-1.

DOI:10.1186/s12909-018-1223-1

PMID:30285724

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6169000/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

To evaluate whether a training programme is a feasible approach to facilitate occupational health professionals' (OHPs) use of knowledge and skills provided by a guideline.

METHODS

Feasibility was evaluated by researching three aspects: 'acceptability', 'implementation' and 'limited efficacy'. Statements on acceptability and implementation were rated by OHPs on 10-point visual analogue scales after following the training programme (T2). Answers were analysed using descriptive statistics. Barriers to and facilitators of implementation were explored through open-ended questions at T2, which were qualitatively analysed. Limited efficacy was evaluated by measuring the level of knowledge and skills at baseline (T0), after reading the guideline (T1) and directly after completing the training programme (T2). Increase in knowledge and skills was analysed using a non-paramatric Friedman test and post-hoc Wilcoxon signed rank tests (two-tailed).

RESULTS

The 38 OHPs found the training programme acceptable, judging that it was relevant (M: 8, SD: 1), increased their capability (M: 7, SD: 1), adhered to their daily practice (M: 8, SD: 1) and enhanced their guidance and assessment of people with a chronic disease (M: 8, SD: 1). OHPs found that it was feasible to implement the programme on a larger scale (M: 7, SD: 1) but foresaw barriers such as 'time', 'money' and organizational constraints. The reported facilitators were primarily related to the added value of the knowledge and skills to the OHPs' guidance and assessment, and that the programme taught them to apply the evidence in practice. Regarding limited efficacy, a significant increase was seen in OHPs' knowledge and skills over time (X (2) = 53.656, p < 0.001), with the median score improving from 6.3 (T0), 8.3 (T1) and 12.3 (T2). Post-hoc tests indicated a significant improvement between T0 and T1 (p < 0.001) and between T1 and T2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The training programme was found to be a feasible approach to facilitate OHPs' use of knowledge and skills provided by the guideline, from the perspective of OHPs generally (acceptability and implementation) and with respect to their increase in knowledge and skills in particular (limited efficacy).

摘要

背景

评估培训计划是否是促进职业健康专业人员（OHPs）使用指南中提供的知识和技能的可行方法。

方法

通过研究三个方面来评估可行性：“可接受性”，“实施”和“有限效果”。OHPs 在参加培训计划后（T2），根据 10 点视觉模拟量表对可接受性和实施情况进行评分。通过开放式问题在 T2 时探讨实施的障碍和促进因素，并进行定性分析。通过在基线（T0），阅读指南后（T1）和直接完成培训计划后（T2）测量知识和技能的水平来评估有限效果。使用非参数 Friedman 检验和事后 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验（双侧）分析知识和技能的增加。

结果

38 名 OHPs 认为培训计划是可以接受的，认为该计划与他们的日常实践相关（M：8，SD：1），增加了他们的能力（M：7，SD：1），符合他们的日常实践（M：8，SD：1）并增强了他们对慢性病患者的指导和评估（M：8，SD：1）。OHPs 认为该计划在更大范围内实施是可行的（M：7，SD：1），但预计会遇到“时间”，“金钱”和组织限制等障碍。报告的促进因素主要与 OHPs 指导和评估的知识和技能的附加值有关，并且该计划教会他们将证据应用于实践中。关于有限效果，OHPs 的知识和技能随时间显著增加（X (2) = 53.656，p < 0.001），中位数评分从 6.3（T0），8.3（T1）和 12.3（T2）提高。事后检验表明，T0 与 T1 之间（p < 0.001）和 T1 与 T2 之间（p < 0.001）有显著改善。