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])