ArticleBMC public health2015
Evaluating an online training module on protecting children from secondhand smoke exposure: impact on knowledge, confidence and self-reported practice of health and social care professionals.
Article in BMC public health, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals report that a lack of training is the primary barrier to raising the issue of secondhand smoke (SHS). An open access online training module was therefore developed for those working with smoking families to deliver effective very brief advice on SHS. The current study aimed to evaluate the following: (1) does knowledge increase as a result of participating in the online training module, and (2) does the module impact on participant confidence and self-reported practice relating to SHS.
methodsThose accessing the module were invited to participate in an evaluation to assess participants' knowledge about, and confidence in, delivering very brief advice on SHS. Change in knowledge was assessed via ten multiple choice questions and confidence was assessed by Likert scale responses to three statements. Data were collected across three time points: pre-training, post-training and after 3 months. Data were also collected at 3 months post module completion on self-reported changes in practice and key learning points.
resultsData at all three time points were available for 178 participants (~1 % of those who visited the module homepage over a 2 year period). Knowledge and confidence to deliver effective very brief advice for SHS significantly increased between the pre- and post-training assessments and was maintained at 3 months. Eighty-four percent self-reported that they perceived taking part in the training had led to positive changes in their clinical practice.
conclusionsThere is potential for this module to be embedded within training programmes across health and social care professions, which may help to increase the knowledge and confidence of health and social care professionals to deliver very brief advice for SHS to smoking families. Future research needs to explore whether the smoking families who receive very brief advice for SHS are motivated to make changes to their home smoking behaviours and whether roll-out of this intervention would be cost-effective.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.