The effects of an eLearning module “Elderly people in safe hands” for healthcare professionals to challenge elder abuse: a mixed method study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One out of twenty elderly people in the Netherlands is being abused. It is important that healthcare professionals are capable of recognizing elder abuse. Therefore, the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport introduced an action programme to challenge elder abuse. Part of this programme was the eLearning module ‘Elderly people in safe hands’ for health care professionals. The aim of this study was to investigate the results of this eLearning module and to determine the factors which make healthcare professionals motivated to participate in web-based education. Mixed methods were used to obtain insight into the effects of the module. The test results of a pre-test and a post-test were compared. Also, a Self-Efficacy Scale was used to find out whether the course members felt capable of dealing with elder abuse, to determine the effect of the module on people’s self-efficacy in dealing with the abuse of elderly people. The results of this study show a positive effect of the module on the knowledge of the healthcare professionals. Furthermore, the module has a positive effect on the course members' estimation of their efficacy in dealing with the abuse of elderly people after having finished the module. These findings were confirmed in telephone interviews with course members. Telephone interviews were also held with three healthcare organizations to determine the factors which motivate healthcare professionals to participate in web-based education. A short period of time to complete the module in combination with a good guidance from the organization were considered important factors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".