“Putting the power back into community”: A mixed methods evaluation of a chronic hepatitis B training course for the Aboriginal health workforce of Australia’s Northern Territory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Chronic hepatitis B (CHB) is endemic in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population of Australia’s Northern Territory. Progression to liver disease can be prevented if holistic care is provided. Low health literacy amongst health professionals is a known barrier to caring for people living with CHB. We co-designed and delivered a culturally safe “Managing hepatitis B” training course for the Aboriginal health workforce. Here we present an evaluation of the course. Objectives To improve course participants CHB-related knowledge, attitudes, and clinical practice. To evaluate the “Managing hepatitis B” training course. To enable participants to have the skills and confidence to be part of the care team. Methods We used participatory action research and culturally safe principles. We used purpose-built quantitative and qualitative evaluation tools to evaluate our “Managing hepatitis B” training course. We integrated the two forms of data, deductively analysing codes, grouped into categories, and assessed pedagogical outcomes against Kirkpatrick’s training evaluation framework. Results Eight courses were delivered between 2019 and 2023, with 130 participants from 32 communities. Pre- and post-course questionnaires demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all domains, p<0.001 on 93 matched pairs. Thematic network analysis demonstrated high levels of course acceptability and significant knowledge acquisition. Other themes identified include cultural safety, shame, previous misinformation, and misconceptions about transmission. Observations demonstrate improvements in post-course engagement, a deep understanding of CHB as well as increased participation in clinical care teams. Conclusions The “Managing hepatitis B” training course led to a sustained improvement in the knowledge and attitudes of the Aboriginal health workforce, resulting in improved care and treatment uptake for people living with CHB. Important non-clinical outcomes included strengthening teaching, and leadership skills, and empowerment.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.045 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".