TABLE 2.
Common Themes Identified on Learning Objectives, Content and Materials, and Proportion of Responses
| Evaluation Question | Themes Identified | Definition/Description | Proportiona (n)b |
|---|---|---|---|
| Comments about the content and learning materials | Satisfied with presentation/presenters | Expressed in terms of conciseness, flow of presentation, presenters good, quality of slides and video, and multiple learning avenues | 31.5% (378) |
| Satisfied with content/material | Good information, relevant information or topic, desire for more of these types of information | 66.4% (378) | |
| Dissatisfied with content/material | Expressed as content being too basic, expected some issues covered other than those addressed, complexity, and difficult to understand | 9.3% (378) | |
| Presentation and question and answer (Q&A) time inadequate | Mostly related to need for more time for Q&A, also expressed as fast pace, rushed, superficial, too many topics, or information packed | 6.1% (378) | |
| Updated knowledge | Statements that indicate increased knowledge, refreshed, better ability, or more understanding or realization | 56.3% (368) | |
| Sharing of knowledge | Statements indicating sharing information with colleagues, others, or at other venues | 3.3% (368) | |
| Application of knowledge | Statements that clearly indicate how information will be used to change practice, or in practice. Or, in decision making or advocacy | 31.3% (368) | |
| Comments regarding the learning objectives | Satisfaction with learning objectives | Expressed as appropriate, course met objectives, relevant, achieved, well defined, clear | 87.3% (212) |
| Dissatisfaction with learning objective | Expressed as not clear, not well tailored to presentation, not what was expected | 4.7% (212) | |
| No learning objectives | Expressed as not knowing of objectives, not remembering or not finding | 2.4% (212) |
a
Proportion for each question may not add to 100% because some respondents made statements that cover more than 1 theme.
b
Text comments such as “none” “no comments” excluded from analysis; some comments contributing to denominator were not relevant to the question asked.