Table 6.
Comparison of traditional format and train-the-trainer format findings
| Benefits from EBPH training (% Agree/Strongly Agree) | 2005–2011 participants from traditional format [19] | 2010–2012 participants from train-the-trainer format | Z statisticb |
|---|---|---|---|
| N = 296a | N = 144 | ||
| n (%) | n (%) | ||
| Acquire knowledge about a new subject | 195 (78) | 126 (88) | 2.34 |
| See applications for this knowledge in my work | 204 (82) | 122 (85) | 0.69 |
| Make scientifically informed decisions at work | 184 (74) | 112 (78) | 0.84 |
| Become a better leader who promotes evidence-based decision making | 198 (80) | 113 (79) | -0.24 |
| Adapt an intervention to a community’s needs while keeping it evidence based | 126 (51) | 89 (62) | 2.09 |
| Communicate better with co-workers | 145 (59) | 83 (58) | -0.27 |
| Develop a rationale for a policy change | 128 (52) | 83 (58) | 1.07 |
| Teach others how to use/apply the information in the EBPH course | 144 (58) | 80 (56) | -0.40 |
| Identify and compare the costs and benefits of a program or policy | 121 (49) | 80 (56) | 1.26 |
| Read reports and articles | 141 (57) | 78 (54) | -0.52 |
| Implement evidence-based practices in a CDC cooperative agreement or other federal program | 149 (60) | 60 (42) | -3.37 |
| Prepare a policy briefing for administrators or state or local legislative officials | 72 (29) | 46 (32) | 0.60 |
| Obtain funding for programs at work | 69 (28) | 45 (31) | 0.67 |
| Frequency of use of EBPH course materials/resources (At least monthly) | |||
| Searched the scientific literature for information on programs | 105 (41) | 47 (33) | -1.60 |
| Used the EBPH materials/skills in evaluating a program | 66 (26) | 31 (22) | -0.94 |
| Used the EBPH materials/skills in modifying an existing program | 67 (26) | 28 (20) | -1.42 |
| Used the EBPH materials/skills in planning a new program | 54 (21) | 27 (19) | -0.50 |
| Used the EBPH materials/skills for grant applications | 23 (9) | 16 (11) | 0.74 |
| Referred to the EBPH readings that were provided | 31 (12) | 15 (11) | -0.42 |
aResponse varied slightly for each question
bz tests were conducted to compare proportions between the two participant groups where +/- 1.96 signifies a statistically significant difference in proportion between the two groups at the alpha .05 level for the two tailed test
Notes: Data from the 2005–2011 traditional course participants are taken from Gibbert et al. [19])