Table 3.
Participants’ Degree of Satisfaction with the Training (n=53)
| Teaching Satisfaction | Satisfied n (%) | Very Satisfied n (%) | Satisfied and Very Satisfied n (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Course modules are sufficient to meet the needs of practical work. | 27 (50.9) | 19 (35.8) | 46 (86.8) |
| 2. The course content can help improve my knowledge and skills in cancer pain management. | 27 (50.9) | 24 (45.3) | 51 (96.2) |
| 3. The amount of time spent on each module is reasonable. | 29 (54.7) | 21 (39.6) | 50 (94.3) |
| 4. The courseware and reference materials provided by the educational program are helpful for my self-study. | 26 (49.1) | 24 (45.3) | 50 (94.3) |
| 5. The instructors have solid theoretical knowledge, rich clinical experience, and teach theory and practice. | 20 (37.7) | 31 (58.5) | 51 (96.2) |
| 6. The instructor controls the class well, explains clearly and vividly, and the lecture is attractive. | 27 (50.9) | 23 (43.4) | 50 (94.3) |
| 7. Study groups make training more effective. | 17 (32.1) | 32 (58.5) | 49 (92.5) |
| 8. PBL teaching makes training more effective. | 19 (35.8) | 28 (52.8) | 47 (88.7) |
| 9. I am satisfied with the overall quality of this training. | 18 (34.0) | 29 (54.7) | 47 (88.7) |
| Skills Development Satisfaction | |||
| 1. The training helped improve my clinical practice in cancer pain management. | 25 (47.2) | 25 (47.2) | 50 (94.3) |
| 2. The training helped improve my ethical legal practice in cancer pain management. | 21 (39.6) | 24 (45.3) | 45 (84.9) |
| 3. The training helped improve my interpersonal communication and collaboration skills in cancer pain management. | 22 (41.5) | 24 (45.3) | 46 (86.8) |