ArticleAmerican journal of industrial medicine2025
Differences in the Effectiveness of Three OHS Training Delivery Methods.
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.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
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
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.