Table 3.

Postdidactic evaluation^∗, N = 16.

Questions	Mean (SD)
(1) This presentation met my needs	4.33 (0.49)
(2) The presenters were knowledgeable	4.47 (0.64)
(3) The techniques used were effective to teach the subject matter	4.33 (0.72)
(4) The stated objectives were met	4.47 (0.52)
(5) The amount of time allowed for material was appropriate	4.27 (0.80)
(6) The presentation enhanced my ability to provide care that is patient centered, compassionate, appropriate, and effective for the treatment of health problems and promotion of health	4.40 (0.51)
(7) This presentation provided me with medical knowledge of established and evolving biomedical, clinical, epidemiological, and social-behavioral sciences, as well as the application of this knowledge to patient care	3.93 (1.03)
(8) This presentation assisted me in developing skills and habits that will help me to self-evaluate and improve my care of patients	4.33 (0.49)
(9) This presentation assisted me in the development of interpersonal and communication skills that result in the effective exchange of information and collaboration with patients, their families, and health professionals	4.33 (0.62)
(10) Overall rating of this session	4.21 (0.58)
(11) What are the three most important things you learned during this training?
“Importance of health literacy”
“Tools available to help patients (i.e. Ask Me 3, teach-back)”
“Written instructions may not help”
(12) What are the three greatest strengths of this training?
“Interactive”
“Good patient scenarios”
“Examples of availability of resources”
(13) What additional assistance or resources, if any, will you need to be able to implement what you have learned at this training?
“Supervisor support”
“Videos”
“Classroom based”
(14) If you were given the task of revising, adjusting, or redesigning this training, what would you change?
“More role play”
“Need more time”
“Nothing”

^∗Five-point Likert Scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = neutral, 4 = agree, and 5 = strongly disagree).