ArticleBMJ open2022
Evaluating results of the implementation research MOOC using Kirkpatrick's four-level model: a cross-sectional mixed-methods study.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Strengthening equitable research capacity in response to infectious diseases of poverty.BMJ global health · 2026Article
- Feasibility, usability, and acceptability of the asynchronous trauma-focused CARE training program for healthcare providers: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Enhancing gastric ultrasound training with standardized patient-based drinking simulation: a self-controlled study.BMC medical education · 2025Article
- Lost in translation: key lessons from conducting dissemination and implementation science in Zambia.Implementation science communications · 2024Article
- Enhancing occupational therapy education: Evaluating the impact of a STEAM-based assistive technology curriculum using Kirkpatrick's four-level model.The British journal of occupational therapy · 2024Article
- MOOC-based blended learning for knowledge translation capacity-building: A qualitative evaluative study.PloS one · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluating the impact of continuing professional development courses on physician behavioral intention: a pre-post study with follow-up at six months.BMC medical education · 2023Article
- Improving understanding of disease control implementation research through a mooc with participants from low- and middle-income countries: Evaluating participant reactions and learning.PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2023Article
- Implementation research training for learners in low- and middle-income countries: evaluating behaviour change after participating in a massive open online course.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Barriers to Applying Knowledge Gained Through an Implementation Research Massive Open Online Course: An Explanatory Qualitative Study.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financingArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAn implementation research (IR) massive open online course (MOOC) was developed by the Special Programme for Research and Training in Tropical Diseases, to address the scarcity of training in low-income and middle-income countries in the field of IR. The Kirkpatrick model was used to evaluate the IR MOOC as it is widely applied for evaluation of training and educational programmes. The Kirkpatrick model evaluates training programmes on four levels: reaction, learning, behaviour and results. This paper addresses the impact of the IR MOOC on participants' professional practice.
methodsFindings are based on analysis of survey and interview data collected 1.5-2 years after the conclusion of the two 2018 IR MOOC offerings. Of the 3858 MOC participants, 748 responded to the anonymous online survey and seven of these respondents were interviewed. All data are self-reported.
resultsThe IR MOOC was successful in enhancing the professional practice of participants and for their organisations. Over 40% reported modifying or implementing changes in their professional work. Respondents reported that participation in the MOOC had improved their ability to conduct IR, enhanced their professional profiles and increased their opportunities for collaboration, research and job promotion. Respondents stated that the MOOC had improved their work quality and productivity, and allowed them to contribute to research, initiate and develop professional collaborations and train others in IR. Respondents reported an increase in applying for grants and scholarships and presenting and publishing work on IR after participating in the MOOC. Barriers applying the knowledge gained from the IR MOOC were experienced, for example, due to a lack of funding and lack of support from colleagues, managers and organisations.
conclusionParticipants perceived that the IR MOOC was successful in its aims of delivering medium-term and long-term results in relation to their own and their organisations' professional outcomes.
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.