Keeping men in mind: practitioner self-efficacy and e-learning implementation one year following training to engage men in therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
E-learning is a common mode of professional development for mental health practitioners. However, program outcomes are rarely studied beyond 3-month follow-up, and limited research has examined barriers and facilitators to the implementation of e-learning in mental health practitioners. This gap is pronounced when considering programs aiming to upskill practitioners to engage and respond to help-seeking men. The current study examined the self-efficacy and learning implementation among practitioners one year following the completion of an e-learning program (Men in Mind) focused on strategies for engaging male clients in psychotherapy. A cross-sectional follow-up survey including open response items was administered to 117 practitioners (70.9% female; mean age 44.6 years) sampled from a prior RCT evaluating primary outcomes of Men in Mind. Quantitative results indicated closely comparable average self-efficacy for the current sample one year following the completion of the RCT, relative to the separate but overlapping sample of RCT participants at 3-months post-training. In particular, most practitioners reported confidence to engage suicidal men at 1-year follow-up (77.8% compared to 76.5% at 3-month follow-up). Qualitative findings provided insight into how Men in Mind informed practitioners’ confidence and capacity to leverage masculinity for engagement, alongside their perceptions of the impact of these changes on their male clients (e.g. improved engagement, willingness to discuss emotions and vulnerability). Qualitative reports of implementation barriers included a lack of time and/or opportunity to practice new skills, while facilitators included the suite of practical resources provided with Men in Mind. Results suggest the potential maintenance of self-efficacy gains 1-year following completion of Men in Mind, reinforcing the value of practitioner training to engage help-seeking men and the importance of delineating paths to implementation of learning.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".