ArticlePloS one2020
Evaluation of in-service training program of laboratory professionals in Amhara Public Health Institute Dessie Branch, northeast Ethiopia: A concurrent mixed-method study.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn-service training programs should be evaluated and modified regularly to enhance training quality. However, in Ethiopia, there is no published evidence regarding its effectiveness. Therefore, we evaluated the Amhara Public Health Institute Dessie Branch (APHI_DB) in-service training program using the Kirkpatrick model.
methodsIn October 2019, a concurrent nested mixed method facility-based cross-sectional study was conducted among 107 laboratory stakeholders from 22 randomly selected government health facilities in the eastern part of the Amhara region. The qualitative part involved interviews with each of these key stakeholders. We collected data using a semi-structured questionnaire through face-to-face interviews. EpiData 3.1 and Microsoft Excel 2016 software were used for data entry and analysis respectively. The major qualitative findings were narrated and summarized based on four thematic areas to supplement the quantitative findings.
resultsA total of 107 laboratory personnel were interviewed, which makes a response rate of 97.3%. At the reaction level, 82.1% of the participants agree/strongly agree with the course structures, training contents, and learning tools. Likewise, 85.4% of the participants agreed/ strongly agreed on the trainer's knowledge and their communication skills. In addition, 93.1% of the participants stated an improvement in knowledge and skills after attending the training. As a result, 65.6% of them were able to transfer their knowledge and skills into practice. Regarding the training set-ups and environment, 45.1% of the respondents disagree/strongly disagree with the training hall, toilet, cafe, tea and snacks, financial process, and accommodation perdiem.
conclusionGenerally, the laboratory in-service training program of APHI_DB was more or less effective. Our findings suggest regular monitoring of each training event and evaluation of training programs against a clearly defined criterion. Furthermore, the institute is mandated to create a conducive learning environment and well-established training setups for trainees.
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.