Table 4.
Qualitative results mapped to the 3-P framework.
| Domain | 1. Pain mechanisms and manifestations module | 2. Opioids module | 3. Patient and interprofessional panel | 4. Topical pain sessions | 5. Interprofessional team-based care planning |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Size (n) | Single (1) | Single (1) | Large (500–1000) | Medium (30–100) | Small (10) |
| Presage | |||||
| Student factors • Preferred learning approach • Learning expectations • Prior knowledge |
“I liked the engagement by clicking on different tabs to read more.” (facilitator) | “The case study was really informative and interactive.” (facilitator) | “Really enjoyed the morning session with the interaction between patients and interprofessional members discussing pain and its implications.” (facilitator) | “It was great to have the opportunity to choose which specific topics we were interested in learning about.” (facilitator) | "I really liked the interactivity of this session.” (facilitator) |
| “The [module] interface or software was rather clumsy and slow.” (barrier) | “The module is a bit laggy, not sure if this was due to many people accessing it?” (barrier) | “The introduction of the patient panel sections did not offer any information I could apply to my clinical practice that I don't already know.” (barrier) | “Was not interactive at all. I would have appreciated if there was more participation encouraged.” (barrier) | "I would suggest making the session shorter.” (barrier) | |
| Learning factors • Curriculum goals • Assessment methods • Learning environment |
“This [module] has been very enlightening in terms of understanding the roles of other health professionals. (facilitator) | “Improved my understanding of the interprofessional approach in pain management.” (facilitator) | “The patient panel was interesting and thought provoking, and giving them a chance to share their story and answer questions was the highlight of the whole event.” (facilitator) | “All presenters were very engaging, and I really saw the interprofessional aspects of their talks.” (facilitator) | "Very efficient use of patient cases and stories [which] are quite powerful.” (facilitator) |
| “A little more time should have been put into editing the question set.” (barrier) | “I would have liked to learn more about the dangers surrounding opioid use.” (barrier) | "Venue was not really conducive to my learning—I couldn't hear or see for certain portions of the presentation.” (barrier) | "It was too general. Practical take-aways that could be applied to one's profession would be more useful.” (barrier) | “Our group missed the point of interacting to learn interprofessionally and focused too much on completing the assignment.” (barrier) | |
| Process | |||||
| Deep learning | “Overall this module was excellent—well put together visually, well-organized, and with a flow through that made sense.” (facilitator) | “The interactive module solidified key points covered in lectures. The cases were practical and stimulated rational thinking in approaching pain.” (facilitator) | “I really enjoyed listening to the interprofessional team panel because they really brought together how interprofessional care works. Until today, most of the other sessions showed the patient managing the system alone. This team showed how in one setting you can have a variety of professionals working collaboratively.” (facilitator) | “Very interesting session that helped me to better understand the overall debate on cannabis use and when it may be appropriate.” (facilitator) | "This was a very helpful session. I learned a lot about the other health care professionals, their specific roles, and how to best communicate in a large interdisciplinary team.” (facilitator) |
| Surface learning | “The amount of material presented was a little overwhelming so at times I was skimming the material instead of reading in-depth.” (barrier) | “I think I left understanding more terms, but not knowing how they fit together.” (barrier) | “The panel was a good idea. Did not learn about appropriate pain management and the interprofessional team and how we can work together.” (barrier) | “Practical take-aways that could be applied to one's profession would be more useful.” (barrier) | “The entire focus of the group ended up being “just getting things done.” (barrier) |
| Learning outcomes | |||||
| Knowledge • What was learned |
“Module increased my knowledge of how important it is to treat pain before it becomes chronic.” (facilitator) | “I did not previously know that minor dental surgery generally requires anti-inflammatories and rarely opioids.” (facilitator) | “Having a panel of experts from a pain clinic showed how well these pain experts can work together for patient well-being” (facilitator) | “Did not know much at all before the session and now I know something about the topic.” (facilitator) | “Helped me gain insight with what other health care professionals do.” (facilitator) |
| “For those with a background in pain, this is repetitive and not necessarily a good use of time.” (barrier) | “I didn't really find the module useful. It didn't really provide any information that I didn't already know.” (barrier) | "There wasn't anything here that I hadn't already learned in the (faculty) program" (barrier) |
“Would like to hear the clear roles of nursing or medicine or pharm, etc.” (barrier) | “Rather than build my knowledge, it was more explaining and sharing my knowledge to all of the other professions.” (barrier) | |
| Process • How learning occurred |
“The diagrams and videos were also very helpful in synthesizing material in a visual way that kept up attention and increased deeper learning.” (facilitator) | “The answers to the quiz questions were really thorough but also easy to understand and reinforced what the case studies were trying to portray. (facilitator) | “Very efficient use of patient cases and patient stories are quite powerful” (facilitator) | “[Presenter] amazing at explaining the learning objective and answering the audience questions.” (facilitator) | “The best education was in the informal discussions with my small group.” (facilitator) |
| “At times, it felt like too much information was provided—possibly cut down to emphasize the main learning point.” (barrier) | “Questions throughout module tested information not yet introduced or never introduced.” (barrier) | “Not very engaging. Would have preferred more conversational style and more about the case.” (barrier) | “[Topic] could be even more effectively presented if the time was used to provide more clinical pearls.” (barrier) | “Some of the facilitated group discussion felt forced. I would have enjoyed a free form discussion.” (barrier) | |
| Affective • Feelings and attitudes |
“Amazing chronic pain coverage. This is eye-opening and not covered in depth in our program.” (facilitator) | “I believe that I have developed an increased respect for the level of knowledge and responsibilities of my peers in other faculties.” (facilitator) | "Developing a sense of empathy forms a crucial part of our dealing with patients presenting with any type of pain” (facilitator) | “[The] session has provided me with new dimension to see the pain and ways to handle such human suffering.” (facilitator) | “Made me truly reflect on the importance of IP practice and value each profession's unique roles” (facilitator) |
| “Information was extremely dense, and it is a misrepresentation to report [it] can be completed in 1 h” (barrier) | “There was not enough detail. This module barely brushed the surface of this complex issue.” (barrier) | “It was very hard to absorb any information or just focus in general […] I think there should have been a balance between lecture style or interactive work today.” (barrier) | “I found the topics to be very biased toward medical and pharmaceutical management.” (barrier) | “I feel as though my time and profession was very disrespected by many of the students who had not had clinical experience” (barrier) | |