Building Public Health Quantitative Methods Capacity and Networks in sub-Saharan Africa: An Evaluation of a Faculty Training Program

Oleosi Ntshebe; Sarah Anoke; Jesca M. Batidzirai; Chris Guure; Beatrice Muganda; Marcello Pagano; Muhammed Semakula; Elysia Larson

doi:10.9745/GHSP-D-22-00507

Figures & Tables

Tables

View popup

TABLE 1.

Indicators of Training Reaction, Learning, Behavior, and Results Among the Faculty Fellows

	Full Cohort^a	M&E (N=7)	Data Management (N=11)	Complex Survey Analysis (N=9)	Health Data Science (N=8)
Reaction
Rating of overall quality of course content, no. (%)
Excellent	16 (57)		6 (55)	6 (67)	4 (50)
Very good	11 (39)		5 (45)	3 (33)	3 (38)
Average, fair, or poor^b	1 (4)		0 (0)	0 (0)	1 (12)
Rating of overall usefulness of course content
Excellent	16 (57)		8 (73)	4 (44)	4 (50)
Very good	12 (43)		3 (27)	5 (56)	4 (50)
Average, fair, or poor^b	0 (0)		0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Would recommend workshop training to another faculty fellow, no. (%)
Definitely would	27 (96)		11 (100)	8 (89)	8 (100)
Probably would	1 (4)		0 (0)	1 (11)	0 (0)
Probably would not or definitely would not²	0 (0)		0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
Learning, median (IQR)
Change in confidence in teaching course content^c	29 (19, 42)		24 (19, 48)	33 (8, 33)	—
Change in confidence in teaching pedagogy^c	33 (22, 47)		33 (0, 44)	25 (20, 50)	—
Change in knowledge for fellows in content area (quiz)^d	20 (0, 20)		20 (0, 40)	0 (0, 20)	—
Behavior
The McGoldrick program has impacted my work or teaching, no. (%)	21 (100)	7 (100)	11 (100)	9 (100)
Results
Has offered the course at their institution, no. (%)	14 (52)	7 (100)	6 (55)	1 (11)	—
Among those who have offered the course
Times course was offered, median (IQR)	1 (1, 2)	1 (1, 2)	1 (1, 2)	1 (1,1)	—
Total students reached, no.	380	228	139	13	—
Students reached per offering, median (IQR)	21 (11, 25)	22 (21, 25)	14 (11, 21)	13 (13, 13)	—
Course format, no. (%)
Short course	16 (84)	8 (89)	6 (67)	1 (100)	—
Full semester course	2 (11)	1 (11)	2 (22)	0 (0)	—
Incorporated content into existing course, no. (%)	1 (5)	0 (0)	1 (11)	0 (0)	—
Sessions, median (IQR)	14 (10, 19)	18 (10, 24)	10 (9, 15)	14 (14, 14)	—
Faculty, median (IQR)	4 (2, 6)	5 (4, 6)	2 (2, 3)	9 (9, 9)	—
Faculty from outside institutions, median (IQR)	1 (0, 1)	1 (1, 1)	0 (0, 1)	7 (7, 7)	—

Abbreviations: IQR, interquartile range; M&E, monitoring and evaluation.
↵^a This is the full cohort for which data are available, which could represent participants from 1, 2, 3, or 4 rounds of training.
↵^b Response categories combined for reporting purposes.
↵^c Summative index of questions with 4- or 5-level response options, scaled from 0–100 so that the difference represents a percentage point change.
↵^d Number of questions correct on 5-question quiz scaled from 0–100 so that the difference represents a percentage point change.

View popup

TABLE 2.

Survey Results From Students Participating in the First Round of Monitoring and Evaluation Courses Offered at Faculty Fellows’ Home Institutions

	No. (%) (N=62)
Responded “yes” the training was worth their time	60 (97)
Words selected to describe the course content^a
Useful	47 (76)
Not useful	0 (0)
Challenging	17 (27)
Easy	0 (0)
Interesting	40 (65)
Innovative	19 (31)
Stale	0 (0)
Rating of the delivery of the course^b
Excellent	20 (32)
Very good	31 (50)
Average	10 (16)
Fair	1 (2)
Poor	0 (0)
Self-report of how much skills improved as a result of taking this course
A large amount	26 (42)
A moderate amount	31 (50)
A small amount	5 (8)
Not at all	0 (0)
Introduced changes into work or research after course	53 (85)