Evaluation plan of the 6for6 research skills program for rural and remote physicians

Pushing the Boundaries for Evidenced-Based Practice: Can Online Training Enhance Andrology Research Capacity Worldwide? An Exploration of the Barriers and Enablers - The Global Andrology Forum

PURPOSE

This is the first study to design and assess a research capacity building (RCB) specifically tailored for clinical and non-clinical andrology practitioners worldwide. We appraised: 1) the barriers and enablers to research among these practitioners; 2) attendees' satisfaction with the webinar; and 3) research knowledge acquisition as a result of the webinar (before/after quiz).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A online RCB webinar was designed, comprising two presentations in research design and systematic review/meta-analysis (SR/MA). An online survey using validated published questionnaires assessed the three above-stated objectives. Paired t-test compared the means of the pre- and post-webinar scores. Subgroup analysis was performed on the participants' professional background, sex, and number of years in practice.

RESULTS

A total of 237 participants attended the webinar, of which 184 completed the survey and are included in the current analysis. Male participants were about double the females and 60.9% were from Asian countries. The most common research enablers were to publish scientific papers (14.8%) and to develop research (14.7%) or new skills (12.7%). The most common barriers were the lack of training in research (12.4%), training in research software (11.8%), and time for research (11.8%). Satisfaction with the webinar was considerably high (86.3%-88.4%) for the different features of the webinar. Compared to the pre-webinar knowledge level, there were significant improvements in participants' research knowledge acquisition after the webinar in terms of the total score for the quiz (13.7±4.31 vs. 21.5±4.7), as well as the scores for the study design (7.12±2.37 vs. 11.5±2.69) and SR/MA sessions (6.63±2.63 vs. 9.93±2.49) (p<0.001 for each).

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical and non-clinical andrology webinar attendees recognized the importance of research and exhibited a range of research skills, knowledge and experience. There were significant improvements in the participants' knowledge and understanding of the components of scientific research. We propose an RCB model that can be implemented and further modeled by organizations with similar academic research goals.

(The shift to) online delivery of a rural faculty development program in research skills: lessons learned

BACKGROUND

While rural physicians are the ideal candidates to investigate health and healthcare issues in rural communities, they often lack the required skills, competencies, and resources. As a result, research skills development programs are crucial to help ensure communities receive the quality of care they deserve. Memorial University of Newfoundland created a research skills development program called 6for6 to empower and enable rural physicians to research solutions to community-specific health needs. 6for6 program delivery was exclusively in-person until 2019. However, with limitations introduced due to the COVID-19 pandemic, organizations around the globe needed to respond quickly. As we work to return to a post-pandemic environment, program administrators and educators worldwide are unsure whether to retain or remove the changes made to programs to adapt to the pandemic restrictions. Therefore, this work addresses the impact of the online delivery model in two areas: 1) attainment of competencies (specifically research skills, knowledge, and attitudes); and 2) participant experiences, defined as the ease of attendance, the capacity to interact with team members and peers, and challenges or barriers associated with navigating program resources.

METHODS

We compared the effect of an online delivery model pivoted to adapt pandemic restrictions with the original model (primarily face-to-face) on the acquisition of learning competencies and participant experience using a mixed-methods study. Various data collection methods, such as a pre-post program survey, post-program focus group, and structured observation, were utilized.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2021, 35 physicians attended the program (30 face-to-face and five online). The Wilcoxon-sign-rank test did not show any significant differences in the participants' median change of research competency scores who attended face-to-face and online learning, respectively: knowledge (32.6, 26.8), attitudes (3.8, 3.5), and skills (32.4, 20.0). Flexibility and accessibility were key aspects of participants' experiences during the online model. Comparison with previous years demonstrated no significant challenges with the virtual delivery model, yet participants struggled with mentorship challenges and learning-life balance.

CONCLUSIONS

Although presenting some unique challenges, the online model did not negatively affect learner competencies. Likewise, it provided opportunities for rural physicians to attend learning sessions and interact with experts and peers while remaining in their communities.