ArticleMaternal and child health journal2022
A model to evaluate interprofessional training effectiveness: feasibility and five-year outcomes of a multi-site prospective cohort study.
Article in Maternal and child health journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Supporting the Advancement of a National Agenda for Pediatric Healthcare Reform: A multi-year Evaluation of a Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental and Related Disabilities Program.Maternal and child health journal · 2025Article
- Changes in LEND trainees' understanding and application of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice principles.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2024Article
- Measuring LEND Core Competencies Using Trainee Follow-Up Surveys.Maternal and child health journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesAssessing the impact of interdisciplinary training programs is highly desirable and needed. However, there are currently no established methods to prospectively assess long-term outcomes of trainees compared to individuals who did not receive training. Our objective was to test the feasibility of a longitudinal, prospective cohort design to evaluate training outcomes, and to use this method to evaluate Leadership Education in Neurodevelopmental Disabilities and Related Disorders (LEND) training outcomes.
methodsLEND trainees were matched to comparison peers and followed annually for up to five years using a pre-existing outcomes survey. We assessed study feasibility using recruitment and retention data over five years. We then looked at preliminary efficacy of LEND training in LEND trainees compared to comparison peers using the pre-existing outcomes survey.
resultsOverall, 68.3% of eligible trainees participated in the Outcomes Study across five years, and 66.0% were matched to comparison peers. On average, 84.4% of LEND trainees and 79.9% of comparison peers completed the outcomes survey annually. Attrition was low at 0.9% for LEND trainees and 2.6% for comparison peers over five years. LEND training demonstrated preliminary efficacy in promoting leadership development: LEND trainees began their careers engaged in more leadership activities than comparison peers, and the rate of growth in their participation in leadership activities was greater.
conclusionsThe design used to assess outcomes is a feasible approach that can be widely used to assess training program outcomes. Analyses suggest that LEND training is efficacious in increasing involvement in leadership activities over time after graduation.
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.