Evaluation of a brief virtual implementation science training program: the Penn Implementation Science Institute.
Evaluation of a brief virtual implementation science training program: the Penn Implementation Science Institute.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/s43058-023-00512-5
复制
发表时间：
2023-11-06
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
为了满足对实施科学专业知识日益增长的需求，能力建设是一个优先事项。为了满足这一需要，出现了各种培训机会。为了确保严格和实现具体的实施科学能力，系统地评估培训计划至关重要。宾夕法尼亚大学实施科学研究所（PennISI）提供4天（20小时）的虚拟同步培训，内容涉及实施科学的基础和高级主题。通过前后设计，本研究评估了2022年交付的第六艘PennISI。调查措施包括43个实施科学培训评估能力，分为四个主题领域（例如，与实施科学研究设计相关的项目分为“设计、背景和基本原理”能力类别），特定课程评估标准，以及评估知识变化的开放式问题和改进未来研究所的建议。为每个能力主题创建平均综合分数。完成了描述性统计和专题分析。问卷调查前、后分别有104人（95.41%）和55人（50.46%）完成问卷调查。参与者包括主要隶属于美国学术机构的不同人群，他们在基线时自我报告为具有新手或初学者水平的实施科学知识（81.73%）。在预调查中，所有实施科学能力的平均综合得分都低于1（即初级水平）。参与者报告了PennISI在标准课程评估标准中的高价值（例如，课程整体质量的平均得分为3.77/4.00）。培训后，所有能力领域的得分都在初级水平和中级水平之间增加。在调查前和调查后，与“定义、背景和基本原理”相关的能力得分最高，而与“设计和分析”相关的能力得分最低。定性主题提供了PennISI的印象、教学内容、PennISI结构和改进建议。先前对实施科学的经验或知识影响了许多主题。这个评估突出了一个已建立的实施科学研究所的优势，它可以作为一个简短的、虚拟的培训项目的模型。研究结果为改进未来的项目努力提供了洞察力，以满足异质实施科学社区的需求（例如，不同的学科和实施科学知识水平）。本研究有助于通过项目评估确保严格的实施科学能力建设。在线版本包含补充材料，可在10.1186/s43058-023-00512-5获得。
To meet the growing demand for implementation science expertise, building capacity is a priority. Various training opportunities have emerged to meet this need. To ensure rigor and achievement of specific implementation science competencies, it is critical to systematically evaluate training programs. The Penn Implementation Science Institute (PennISI) offers 4 days (20 h) of virtual synchronous training on foundational and advanced topics in implementation science. Through a pre-post design, this study evaluated the sixth PennISI, delivered in 2022. Surveys measures included 43 implementation science training evaluation competencies grouped into four thematic domains (e.g., items related to implementation science study design grouped into the “design, background, and rationale” competency category), course-specific evaluation criteria, and open-ended questions to evaluate change in knowledge and suggestions for improving future institutes. Mean composite scores were created for each of the competency themes. Descriptive statistics and thematic analysis were completed. One hundred four (95.41% response rate) and 55 (50.46% response rate) participants completed the pre-survey and post-survey, respectively. Participants included a diverse cohort of individuals primarily affiliated with US-based academic institutions and self-reported as having novice or beginner-level knowledge of implementation science at baseline (81.73%). In the pre-survey, all mean composite scores for implementation science competencies were below one (i.e., beginner-level). Participants reported high value from the PennISI across standard course evaluation criteria (e.g., mean score of 3.77/4.00 for overall quality of course). Scores for all competency domains increased to a score between beginner-level and intermediate-level following training. In both the pre-survey and post-survey, competencies related to “definition, background, and rationale” had the highest mean composite score, whereas competencies related to “design and analysis” received the lowest score. Qualitative themes offered impressions of the PennISI, didactic content, PennISI structure, and suggestions for improvement. Prior experience with or knowledge of implementation science influenced many themes. This evaluation highlights the strengths of an established implementation science institute, which can serve as a model for brief, virtual training programs. Findings provide insight for improving future program efforts to meet the needs of the heterogenous implementation science community (e.g., different disciplines and levels of implementation science knowledge). This study contributes to ensuring rigorous implementation science capacity building through the evaluation of programs. The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s43058-023-00512-5.