Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40183197›Full record

ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2025

Differences in the Effectiveness of Three OHS Training Delivery Methods.

Lynda S Robson, Cynthia Chen, Cameron A Mustard, Faraz Vahid Shahidi, Victoria Landsman, Peter M Smith, Aviroop Biswas

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in American journal of industrial medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Lynda S RobsonInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-4418-0042
Cynthia ChenInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cameron A MustardInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Faraz Vahid ShahidiInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Victoria LandsmanInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Peter M SmithInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8286-4563
Aviroop BiswasInstitute for Work and Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0002-0393-6280

Funding

The Institute operates with the support of the Province of Ontario, stewarded by the Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development, which oversees the JHSC training standards. This project was funded through this support. However, the Ministry played no role in the design or conduct of the research; nor in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of the data; nor in the preparation, review, or approval of the publication. The views expressed are those of the Institute and do not necessarily reflect those of the Province of Ontario.
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMethods of delivering occupational safety and health (OSH) training have shifted from in-person to online. Widespread delivery of a standardized OSH training course in three modalities in the province of Ontario, Canada allowed measurement of differences in their effectiveness.

methodsLearners (N = 899) self-selected into face-to-face (F2F) instructor-led learning, online instructor-led synchronous distance learning, or online self-paced e-learning. Pre- and post-training surveys collected information on knowledge and other measures. Multiple regression analyses compared modalities on knowledge achievement (0%-100% scale; the primary outcome), engagement, perceived utility, perceived applicability, self-efficacy, and intention-to-use.

resultsF2F learners achieved a statistically significant 2.5% (95% CI: 0.3%, 4.7%) higher post-training knowledge score than distance learners (Cohen's d = 0.23, which is considered small). A statistically insignificant difference of 0.4% (95%: -1.4%, 2.3%) was seen between e-learners and distance learners. Collaborating training providers regarded these differences as not meaningful in practice. Statistically significant differences between modalities were seen for engagement, perceived utility, and self-efficacy. Scores of F2F learners were more favorable than scores of distance learners, which were, in turn, more favorable than scores of e-learners.

conclusionsThis study provides evidence that there are small to no differences among F2F, distance and e-learning in their ability to ensure knowledge achievement among learners. This finding is likely generalizable to other well-designed short-term OSH training aimed at acquiring new knowledge. More research is needed to understand whether there are important differences across these modalities in basic OHS skill acquisition and transfer of learning to the workplace.

Indexed as

Education, DistanceInservice TrainingOccupational HealthAdultComputer-Assisted InstructionEducational MeasurementFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedOntarioSelf EfficacySurveys and Questionnaireseffectivenessevaluationknowledgeonlinetraining

Identifiers

PMID40183197
PMCPMC11982432

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.