ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Strengthening capacity for pandemic preparedness among health care professionals through interdisciplinary online learning: a participatory mixed-methods evaluation.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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
14 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Between January and March 2022, the UK Public Health Rapid Support Team delivered a master's-level short course, Pandemics: Emergence, Spread and Response, designed to strengthen interdisciplinary knowledge and skills for pandemic preparedness. This study evaluated the course's perceived usefulness, outcomes, and longer-term impacts on professional practice, one year after completion. Methods: A participatory convergent mixed-methods design was used, involving course alumni as co-evaluators. Quantitative data were collected through an online survey (n = 31; 62% response rate), while qualitative data were generated through focus group discussions (FGDs), value creation stories (VCS), and iterative workshops. Wenger, Trayner and de Laat's Value Creation Framework informed the evaluation design and interpretation of findings. Quantitative analyses were exploratory and intended to identify patterns rather than test formal hypothesis. Results: Participants consistently reported that the course was relevant and useful to their professional roles. Exploratory analyses identified associations between perceived course usefulness and engagement, course content, delivery mode, learning platform, and facilitator diversity; these findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small sample size and exploratory design and should not be interpreted as causal. Qualitative findings provided explanatory depth by demonstrating how interactive pedagogy, interdisciplinary learning, practical case-based teaching, and exposure to diverse perspectives facilitated knowledge transfer and application in professional practice, generating value across Wenger's cycles of immediate, potential, applied, realised and reframing value. Discussion: Overall, the findings suggest that interdisciplinary, learner-centred online training may support professional practice change when engagement, inclusivity, and contextual relevance are prioritised. This study demonstrates the value of participatory, mixed-methods evaluation and Wenger's Value Creation Framework for understanding long-term learning outcomes in pandemic preparedness training.
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.