Table 4.

Intervention effects for evidence-based decision making skill gaps by training delivery method.

	In-person only training (n = 84)				Distance or blended training (n = 67)
	Unadjusteda		Adjustedb		Unadjusted		Adjusted
	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE	β	SE
EBDM SKILL GAPSc
Community assessment gap	−0.45	0.32	−0.38	0.33	−0.09	0.34	−0.20	0.36
Quantifying the issue gap	0.06	0.33	−0.06	0.34	−0.00	0.35	−0.22	0.37
Prioritization gap	−0.91**d	0.31	−0.90**	0.32	−0.57	0.33	−0.50	0.34
Economic evaluation gap	−0.72	0.40	−0.86*	0.41	−0.81	0.42	−1.23**	0.44
Action planning gap	−0.55	0.29	−0.57	0.30	−0.49	0.30	−0.66*	0.32
Adapting interventions gap	−0.74*	0.33	−0.87*	0.35	0.06	0.35	−0.24	0.37
Evaluation designs gap	−0.48	0.37	−0.68	0.41	−0.24	0.39	−0.27	0.41
Quantitative evaluation gap	−0.28	0.34	−0.29	0.35	−0.56	0.36	−0.78*	0.38
Qualitative evaluation gap	−0.38	0.35	−0.38	0.40	−0.60	0.38	−0.68	0.40
Communicating research gap	−0.29	0.38	−0.28	0.40	−0.29	0.40	−0.49	0.42
Mean of 10 EBDM skill gaps	−0.49	0.26	−0.55*	0.27	−0.44	0.27	−0.64*	0.29

^aLinear regression models estimating post-gap score effects (control as referent) and pre-gap score as covariate.

^bLinear regression models estimating post-gap score effects (control group as referent) adjusting for job position, gender, age category, years in public health, agency type, master degree and state as random effect.

^cParticipants were asked to rate both the importance and availability on an 11 point Likert scale (1 = not important/available; 11 = very important/available). Gaps were calculated by subtracting the Likert score rating for availability from rated importance.

^dBold text represent significantly lower skill gaps in post-survey from pre-survey compared to the control group, where asterisks represent

^*p < 0.05,

^**p < 0.01.

EBDM, evidence-based decision making; β, beta value; SE, standard error.