Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Summary of round 4 ratings for Delphi intervention items (n = 39)

From: A Delphi survey to determine how educational interventions for evidence-based practice should be reported: Stage 2 of the development of a reporting guideline

Information item n Mean (SD) Median MAD-M Frequency (%) per category of importance Include in GREET
      V high High Mod Low  
Aims and objectives of the educational intervention* 26 10.0 (0.9) 10.0 0.6 85 15 0 0 Yes
Teaching/learning strategies+ 26 9.5 (1.6) 10.0 1.1 69 23 4 4 Yes
Learning objectives* 26 9.4 (1.1) 10.0 0.6 81 19 0 0 Yes
Duration of each session+ 26 9.4 (1.5) 9.0 1.1 69 23 8 0 Yes
Number of face to face teaching/learning sessions+ 26 9.3 (1.7) 9.0 1.2 69 23 4 4 Yes
Duration of each entire educational program+ 26 9.3 (2.0) 9.0 1.1 73 19 4 4 Yes
Frequency of the teaching/learning sessions+ 26 9.3 (2.8) 9.0 1.1 73 19 4 4 Yes
Any post-intervention activities required+ 26 9.2 (1.3) 9.0 1.0 62 30 8 0 Yes
Theoretical basis/educational framework used+ 26 9.0 (1.6) 9.0 1.3 50 30 20 0 Yes
The specific educational materials/resources used+ 26 9.0 (1.9) 9.0 1.3 50 38 12 0 Yes
Any pre-intervention readings/activities required+ 26 8.9 (1.3) 8.5 1.1 50 46 4 0 Yes
Detail of EBP components/content+ 25 8.9 (1.4) 9.0 1.0 68 28 4 0 Yes
Process used to ensure fidelity of teaching/delivery 25 8.9 (1.8) 9.0 1.1 56 16 28 0 Likely
Timing of intervention 26 8.0 (2.3) 8.0 1.6 30 46 12 12 Likely
Supporting structures in organisation to maintain behaviours targeted by intervention+ 26 7.9 (1.4) 8.0 1.0 34 54 12 0 Yes
Extent of peer interaction 25 7.9 (2.3) 8.0 1.5 24 52 12 12 Likely
What post-training support was provided+ 26 7.8 (1.7) 8.0 1.4 38 42 15 5 Yes
Face to face contact time with learners+ 26 7.8 (1.9) 8.0 1.3 38 46 8 8 Yes
Whether any identified barriers were targeted + 26 7.6 (1.4) 7.5 1.2 27 58 15 0 Yes
Whether follow-up sessions planned+ 26 7.5 (1.7) 8.0 1.2 27 54 15 4 Yes
Training required for instructors to teach the intervention 25 7.3 (1.7) 7.0 1.4 28 40 32 0 Likely
Non-face to face contact time with learners 26 7.2 (2.1) 8.0 1.6 27 42 19 12 Likely
Instructors commitment to specific content of teaching 26 7.2 (2.1) 8.0 1.5 27 42 23 8 Likely
Student time NOT covered by face to face contact 26 7.2 (1.8) 8.0 1.4 19 50 23 8 Likely
What method was used to decide content 25 7.1 (2.3) 7.0 1.9 32 32 20 16 Likely
Number of instructors/teachers involved 25 7.0 (1.8) 7.0 1.2 12 60 24 4 Likely
Ratio of learners to teachers 25 6.9 (1.8) 7.0 1.1 12 64 16 8 Likely
Instructors commitment to format of teaching 26 6.8 (2.3) 8.0 1.7 20 42 23 15 Likely
Whether the same instructor was used for all teaching 25 6.8 (2.0) 7.0 1.4 16 52 24 8 Likely
Whether a systematic method was used beforehand to identify barriers 26 6.8 (1.5) 6.0 1.2 15 31 50 4 Consider
Whether program will be compared across different sites 26 6.6 (2.4) 7.0 1.8 20 42 23 15 Likely
Settings where teaching/learning sessions undertaken 26 6.5 (1.9) 7.0 1.2 8 62 15 15 Likely
Description of teaching experience/expertise 24 6.5 (1.6) 6.0 1.2 13 38 42 12 Consider
Profession of instructors 25 6.1 (2.6) 7.0 2.0 12 40 24 24 Likely
Whether educational intervention was endorsed by an academic, educational or professional institution 27 6.1 (2.7) 7.0 2.1 22 26 33 19 Consider
Who was involved in designing the content 26 5.7 (2.8) 6.0 2.3 23 15 35 27 Consider
Relation of instructor to learners/program 26 5.5 (2.2) 5.0 1.5 12 12 50 26 Consider
Who designed the intervention 26 5.2 (3.3) 5.0 2.5 27 8 19 46 Unlikely
To what extent did the hosting agency facilitate training+ 26 4.8 (2.1) 5.0 1.5 8 12 46 34 No
  1. *item achieved consensus agreement (≥80%) using original four categories of agreement, +item achieved consensus agreement (≥80%) using collapsed categories of agreement.
Back to article page