Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34059018›Full record

ArticleBMC medical education2021

Training needs assessment: tool utilization and global impact.

Adelais Markaki, Shreya Malhotra, Rebecca Billings, Lisa Theus

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical education, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Continuing professional development training needs for primary care doctors in central Uganda.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2023
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Adelais MarkakiPAHO/WHO Collaborating Center for International Nursing, Birmingham, AL, USA. markaki@uab.edu.
Shreya MalhotraStanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8708-5451
Rebecca BillingsSchool of Nursing, University of Alabama at Birmingham, 1701 University Boulevard, Birmingham, AL, 35294, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5203-7217
Lisa TheusPAHO/WHO Collaborating Center for International Nursing, Birmingham, AL, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8886-8768

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobal demand for standardized assessment of training needs and evaluation of professional continuing education programs across the healthcare workforce has led to various instrumentation efforts. The Hennessy-Hicks Training Needs Analysis (TNA) questionnaire is one of the most widely used validated tools. Endorsed by the World Health Organization, the tool informs the creation of tailored training to meet professional development needs. The purpose of this project was to describe TNA tool utilization across the globe and critically appraise the evidence of its impact in continuous professional development across disciplines and settings.

methodsA systematic integrative literature review of the state of the evidence across PubMed, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar databases was carried out. Full-text, peer reviewed articles and published dissertations/theses in English language that utilized the original, adapted or translated version of the TNA tool were included. Selected articles were appraised for type and level of evidence.

resultsA total of 33 articles were synthesized using an inductive thematic approach, which revealed three overarching themes: individual, team/interprofessional, and organizational level training needs. Included articles represented 18 countries, with more than two thirds involving high-income countries, and one third middle-income countries. Four studies (12.1%) used the original English version instrument, 23 (69.7%) adapted the original version, and 6 (18.2%) translated and culturally adapted the tool. Twenty-three studies targeted needs at the individual level and utilized TNA to determine job roles and responsibilities. Thirteen articles represented the team/interprofessional theme, applying the TNA tool to compare training needs and perceptions among professional groups. Last, three articles used the tool to monitor the quality of care across an institution or healthcare system, demonstrating the organizational training needs theme.

conclusionsOverall evidence shows that the TNA survey is widely used as a clinical practice and educational quality improvement tool across continents. Translation, cultural adaptation, and psychometric testing within a variety of settings, populations, and countries consistently reveals training gaps and outcomes of targeted continuous professional development. Furthermore, it facilitates prioritization and allocation of limited educational resources based on the identified training needs. The TNA tool effectively addresses the "know-do" gap in global human resources for health by translating knowledge into action.

Indexed as

Health PersonnelTranslatingHumansQuality ImprovementSurveys and QuestionnairesCapacity buildingContinuous professional developmentHealthcare organizationHennessy-HicksInstrumentInterprofessionalPsychometricsQuality improvementTraining needs assessment

Identifiers

PMID34059018
PMCPMC8167940

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.