Comparison of Two Methods of Needs Assessment in Continuing Pharmacy Education
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Identifying educational needs is recognized as an important part of planning continuing education programs. There are a variety of ways of assessing educational needs. In Pharmacy, needs assessment methods have ranged from those which are relatively subjective (i.e., pharmacists' perceived needs and planners' intuitive feelings) to those which are relatively objective (i.e., knowledge-based or test-derived needs). A more complete understanding of the relative worth of various methods used to assess educational needs is required if continuing pharmacy education (C.P.E.) programs are to be focused on the real problems of potential learners.\n\nThe main purpose of the present study was to compare two methods of needs assessments in continuing pharmacy education. The Canadian Consensus on Asthma Management Guidelines were used as the framework to develop two needs assessment instruments. Perceived needs assessment, or " what pharmacists think they need to learn", was undertaken using a questionnaire which asked pharmacists to rate their degree of educational needs on a five-point Likert scale where 1=low need and 5 =high need. Knowledge-based needs were assessed by means of an examination containing 39 questions to measure the level of knowledge of the same pharmacists regarding care of asthma patients, prior to their participation in a C.P.E. program on asthma. Participants' learning was assessed after the C.P.E. program by the administration of a post-test containing 21 of the pre-test exam questions.\n\nA total of 113 pharmacists who attended the C.P.E. program in either Regina or Saskatoon, Saskatchewan in May 1996, participated in this study. Data analysis indicated there were no significant correlations between perceived needs and knowledge-based needs among the pharmacists. When various subgroups of pharmacists were compared, there were no significant differences found among groups in the areas of perceived needs and post-test outcomes. However, several groups of pharmacists differed significantly in their knowledge-based needs (i.e., pre-test results). Variables which showed such differences included: gender, year of graduation, employment status, employment position, time spent in management activities, and family history of asthma. After further factor analysis, no correlations were found between overall perceived needs and knowledge-based needs. However, the factor analysis articulated significant differences between perceived needs and knowledge-based needs in the medication domain. Factor analysis also determined that certain subgroups of pharmacists differed in knowledge-based needs in the domains of pathophysiology and medication.\n\nEffectiveness of the C.P.E. program planned based on the intuitive feelings of the planners was assessed by comparing scores of paired pre-test and post-test items. Significant positive changes in learning were found on the post-test. A simple tabulation of data also showed an inclination that when pharmacists were aware of their own needs, effective learning took place.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».