Transcript 48x96 Horizontal Template - Global Campaign for Microbicides

Virtual or In-Person?
Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of New Teaching Methods to Expand HIV Prevention Research Literacy
Gary
1
Wolnitzek ,
1Global
Rebekah
2
Webb ,
Bindiya
1
Patel
Campaign for Microbicides; 2Consultant
Background
Key Findings
Is student knowledge of HIV-prevention research improved after taking
the course?
HIV prevention research literacy is a global endeavor. Despite the increasing
demand for training of both advocates and trial staff unfamiliar with
research, resources for research literacy are constrained. It is important
therefore, to continually evaluate teaching methods to ensure they are
effective, efficient, provide the expected value, and deliver demonstrable
impact. GCM compared two approaches to increasing learners’ interaction
with the e-course material. The first, called the Microbicides Research
Literacy Training (MRLT), was an in-person two-day training. The second,
called the Virtual Classroom, was a bi-weekly series of webinar sessions.
GCM conducted a formal evaluation of these different learning methods to
guide future resource allocation.
•
Advocates and trial staff demonstrate a increased understanding of
microbicides and PrEP as well as the overall research and development
process.
•
74% of students taking the course improved their knowledge of HIV
prevention research upon completing the course.
Six months after completing the course, have students retained the
information they learned?
Methods
Between June 2009 and December 2010, GCM undertook an in-depth evaluation
of the Microbicides Essentials on-line course and three methods of delivering
its content (self-instruction, virtual classroom, and in-person training). This
included a web-based longitudinal survey, a comparison of pre- and post- test
scores, and in-depth interviews with Microbicides Essentials course graduates
at key intervals. Feedback from graduates of all three course modalities was
captured via the post-test evaluation questionnaire on-line, evaluation forms
and in-depth interviews with a subset of learners. The three methods of
delivering the on-line course were then compared in terms of costeffectiveness.
•
87% of students answered basic questions on HIV-prevention research
correctly.
•
Graduates who regularly reviewed the course content in print were more
likely to answer correctly than those who did not.
What are the relative costs and benefits of the three methods of
delivering microbicides training to advocates and trial staff?
Modality
Estimated Cost per Learner (USD)
Self-Instruction via
Microbicides Essentials Course
Virtual Classroom
In-Person Research Literacy
Trainings
$66.00
$510.00
$650.00
So, Virtual or In-Person? Which is better?
For more information on GCM’s Prevention Research Literacy Training
please e-mail [email protected]
or
visit www.Global-Campaign.org
All three course modalities perform similarly in improving students’ ability
and confidence in answering questions from the community about
microbicides. Students in the conventional classroom setting were less
likely to have a deep knowledge of all of the course content because they
study in a much shorter timeframe, but they were better empowered to
become microbicides educators. Students in the Virtual Classroom settings
demonstrated a stronger understanding but were not as well equipped to
educate others. Making the decision about the cost-effectiveness of each
modality therefore depends on the goal of the training.