Impact of Training Modules on Physicians’ Perspective of COVID-19: An Online Survey

  1. Badar Uddin Umar
  2. Nazmun Nahar Alam
  3. Tanbira Alam
  4. Mahmudul Mannan
  5. S M Niazur Rahman

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Background: The outbreak of COVID-19 has remained a massive challenge for healthcare workers specially physicians. Effective professional training has a crucial role in preparing doctors for responding to pandemics. Objective: To assess the effectiveness of existing training modules on enhancing knowledge, ensuring safe practice, and improving behavior on COVID-19 among physicians. Methods: This is a descriptive, cross-sectional, online survey; where a virtual questionnaire was used to collect data through online professional platforms. A pre-tested survey tool was employed to assess the impact of professional training on infection prevention and control. Results: Total 161 physicians participated in this survey from 15 different countries. Most of the respondents (72%) received training from various sources like the workplace (60%) and international agencies (21%), through the in-person or online format. Knowledge assessment revealed advanced (43%) and competent (40%) understanding by the participants. Improving knowledge progression was displayed by the cohort who received professional training (p<0.00). Physicians’ positive behavior and good practices were observed with the training modules. Conclusion: It became evident from this study, that professional training is effective in enhancing knowledge, improving behavior, and ensuring safe practices. Hence, designing such training modules for the physicians is warranted to tackle ongoing and future pandemics. J MEDICINE 2021; 22: 107-113

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.3329/jom.v22i2.56699
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.01.13.21249689: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: Electronic informed consent was shown on the initial page of the survey.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Data Analysis: The collected data were validated, coded, and analyzed using SPSS version 24 (IBM).
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Limitations: As convenience sampling was used, the results could not be generalizable. Since it was an asynchronous, web-based, cross-sectional survey, there are fair chances for the participants to seek the correct answers online before responding. Future Directions: Considering the training effectiveness pattern of our study, a robust, multicentre, and systematic experiment could be designed to better understand the significance of training modules.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.01.13.21249689v1 on medRxiv