Transcript Effectiveness of Plain Language Training on LA County Department of Public Health Workforce Fred Dominguez, MPH; Susan Srabian, MPH; Jacqueline Valenzuela,

Effectiveness of Plain Language Training on LA County Department of Public Health Workforce
Fred Dominguez, MPH; Susan Srabian, MPH; Jacqueline Valenzuela, MPH, MCHES
Health Literacy is an individual’s ability to access,
understand, and use information to achieve good health.
LA County has a vital interest in health literacy because
poor health literacy is a stronger predictor of a person's
health than age, income, employment status, education
level, and race.
%
Average
Plain Language Evaluation Summary 2011
(A) Strongly agree or agree that training objectives were fully
met
In LA County, 53% of working-age adults have low literacy
levels that affect their ability to search for and use health
information, adopt healthy behaviors, and act on important
public health alerts.
Improving health literacy skills requires a comprehensive
strategy, including the use of plain language techniques.
One of the ways Health Education Administration (HEA) is
addressing the challenges posed by low health literacy is
by empowering and training DPH staff to incorporate Plain
Language in their everyday communication.
96%
(B) Strongly agree or agree that they were satisfied with the
training
97%
(C) Would recommend the training to colleagues
97%
(D) Will apply information in the next year
98%
(E) Average % difference in self-reported knowledge
28%
(F) Weighted Average % difference in self-reported
confidence*
*Weighted % Average distribution
shown in graph below
• Analyses shows a significant increase (P<.001) in knowledge
(E) and confidence (F) between pre and post test for 2011
• Pearson Correlation shows a positive correlation for 2011
(P = 0.56) (E & F)
Increase in
knowledge
about the
topics
presented
today (E)
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson
Correlation
31.7%
P(T<=t) two-tail
Total # of
participants
Pre-test
2011
Post-test
2011
0.57
0.05
140
0.87
0.01
140
0.56
1.49E-34
*significant
Pre-test 2011
Post-test
2011
Mean
Variance
Observations
Pearson
Correlation
0.59
0.05
144
0.53
0.88
0.01
144
P(T<=t) two-tail
2.15E-30
Increase in
confidence in
applying
knowledge or
skills
presented
today (F)
*significant
N=176
“Increase in confidence in applying the knowledge or skills presented today,”
(F) 2011 Percent Difference in evaluation pre/post response
40
37
Weighted Average 31.7%
35
30
# of Participants
To examine whether the Plain Language training developed
by HEA was effective in teaching DPH employees Plain
Language communication skills.
2011 # of Participants N=152
Plain Language training is effective in teaching DPH employees
Plain Language techniques.
25
23
20
Note: HEA is conducting three and six month evaluations on 2012
results to assess the intermediate and long term effects of HEAs
Plain Language training on the DPH workforce.
20
18
18
18
15
11
Please complete the following evaluation. Your input will help improve future trainings.
Training Objectives:
1. Define plain language.
2. State the average reading level of U.S. adults.
3. List the components of the plain language process.
4. Identify one way to improve oral communication.
5. Identify one way to improve non-verbal communication.
6. Describe one way to become a more effective listener.
Strongly
Agree
(5)
Agree
(4)
Neutral
(3)
Strongly
Disagree
(1)
Disagree
(2)
A) Overall, today’s training objectives
were fully met.
B) Overall, I was satisfied with today’s
training.
C) Based on my experience today, I
would recommend the Plain
Language trainings to my
colleagues.
D) I will use the information I learned at
today’s training in the next year.
What was your percentage BEFORE
the session?
E) Knowledge about the
topics presented today.
F) Confidence in applying the
knowledge or skills
presented today.
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
80
80
90
90
What was your percentage AFTER
the session?
100
100
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
50
50
60
60
70
70
80
80
90
90
100
100
Comments:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Plain Language Evaluation:
An evaluation was administered
after each
2-hour training session to
capture participants’ response
to presentation format (A – C),
their intent to use the
information (D), and their
knowledge and confidence
before and after the training (E,
F).
Results were entered into
Microsoft Excel worksheets
where descriptive statistics
(A–D) and Paired t-Test (E,F)
were performed to analyze data.
5
4
3
0
0
90%
100%
0
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
% Difference Pre/Post Response
“Increase in confidence in applying the knowledge or skills,”
2011 One Year Follow-up
30
27
25
Fred Dominguez, MPH
(213) 351-7858
[email protected]
22
#of Participants
HEA conducted 8 plain language trainings between during
2011 Plain Language Training Evaluation
10
Susan Srabian, MPH
(213)351-7823
[email protected]
73.9 % Weighted Average
20
17
15
n = 99
11
10
10
5
0
0
1
10%
2
20%
3
30%
Jacqueline Valenzuela, MPH, MCHES
(213) 351-7834
[email protected]
4
2
40%
50%
60%
% Participant Response
70%
80%
90%
100%