Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38558055›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Evaluative study of a MOOC on knowledge translation in five French-speaking countries.

Romane Villemin, Christian Dagenais, Valéry Ridde

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

3 authors.

Romane VilleminDepartment of Psychology, Université du Quebec à Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-7359-9614
Christian DagenaisDepartment of Psychology, Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Valéry RiddeIRD, Inserm, Ceped, Université Paris Cité, Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0001-9299-8266

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the past few years, the RENARD research team has observed a sharp increase in the need for knowledge translation (KT) training. Given the high demand, it has been nearly impossible for the team to provide training entirely in person, and so a massive open online course (MOOC) was developed. Its aim is to promote the use and appropriation of the KT process by practitioners, decision-makers, and others in the public sphere. The goal of this study was to evaluate the MOOC by collecting users' opinions, reactions, appropriation, and practice changes. A qualitative research design was used. Data were collected through semi-structured individual interviews (n = 16) with professionals from Canada, France, and three West African countries (Burkina Faso, Mali, and Senegal) who had taken the MOOC. All interviews were subjected to thematic content analysis. The MOOC content was generally appreciated and reused by the respondents. The results revealed one main motive for completing the course: the immediate opportunity to apply their learning in their practice environments. However, most respondents deplored the lack of interaction among learners and expressed the need for coaching with an instructor to deepen the topics covered during the course. The results also revealed connection and accessibility issues linked to the Internet network and unstable access to electricity in West African countries. The study highlights the potential of MOOCs for the acquisition of knowledge and competencies by KT professionals. Several recommendations and avenues of exploration were formulated to optimize and improve future designs of MOOCs on KT.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceBurkina FasoEducational MeasurementHumansLearningTranslational Science, Biomedical

Identifiers

PMID38558055
PMCPMC10984463

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.