Table 3 Participants' evaluation of Workshop Structure and content
Item | n | Median Rating | N (%) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | Â | Â | Not at all satisfied 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Very satisfied 5 |
Presentation by Ambassador | 81 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 11 (14%) | 37 (46%) | 33 (41%) |
Interactive approach | 80 | 4 | 0 | 3 (4%) | 11 (14%) | 33 (41%) | 33 (41%) |
Case study | 77 | 4 | 1 (1%) | 3 (4%) | 12 (16%) | 32 (42%) | 29 (38%) |
One-page summaries | 81 | 5 | 0 | 1 (1%) | 5 (6%) | 25 (31%) | 50 (62%) |
Action planning | 76 | 4 | 1 (1%) | 6 (8%) | 22 (29%) | 33 (43%) | 14 (18%) |
| Â | Â | Â | Strongly disagree 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Strongly agree 5 |
The Ambassadors are a source of knowledge I respect | 79 | 4.5 | 0 | 0 | 6 (8%) | 34 (43%) | 39 (50%) |
Workshop content was relevant for my organization/environment | 73 | 4 | 0 | 3 (4%) | 8 (10%) | 34 (43%) | 35 (44%) |
Material was presented in language that held meaning for me | 81 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 7 (9%) | 41 (51%) | 33 (41%) |
Content was relevant for my practice | 79 | 4 | 0 | 5 (6%) | 10 (13%) | 34 (43%) | 30 (38%) |
Workshop met my information needs | 81 | 4 | 3 (4%) | 3 (4%) | 18 (22%) | 35 (43%) | 22 (27%) |