Skip to main content

Table 6 Comparison of traditional format and train-the-trainer format findings

From: Evaluating a train-the-trainer approach for improving capacity for evidence-based decision making in public health

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

  1. aResponse varied slightly for each question
  2. 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
  3. Notes: Data from the 2005–2011 traditional course participants are taken from Gibbert et al. [19])