Skip to main content

Table 6 Tabular data for self-reported evaluation of learning objectives across professions (total number of trainees for each profession)

From: E-learning programs in oncology: a nationwide experience from 2005 to 2014

Profession Ratings
Excellent Good Neither good nor inferior Inferior Very inferior
A. How would you rate the program as a whole?
 MD (365) 237 (64.9%) 126 (34.5%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.3%)
 RN (1765) 1179 (66.8%) 572 (32.4%) 15 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
 SHCA (369) 369 (77.7%) 102 (21.5%) 4 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
 ADM (27) 27 (77.1%) 8 (22.9%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Total (2641) 1812 (68.6%) 808 (30.6%) 20 (0.8%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (0.0%)
Profession Ratings
To a very high degree To a high degree Neither to a high degree nor a low degree To a low degree To a very low degree
B. Will you be able to use what you learned in everyday clinical practice?
 MD (364) 120 (33.0%) 232 (63.7%) 11 (3.0%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%)
 RN (1765) 867 (49.1%) 799 (45.3%) 87 (4.9%) 9 (0.5%) 3 (0.2%)
 SHCA (476) 199 (41.8%) 247 (51.9%) 29 (6.1%) 1 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%)
 ADM (35) 6 (17.1%) 22 (62.9%) 6 (17.1%) 1 (2.9%) 0 (0.0%)
Total (2640) 1192 (45.2%) 1300 (49.2%) 133 (5.0%) 12 (0.5%) 3 (0.1%)
Profession Ratings
To a very high degree To a high degree Neither to a high degree nor a low degree To a low degree To a very low degree
C. Would you recommend the program to a colleague in a similar situation as yours?
 MD (365) 221 (60.5%) 130 (35.6%) 13 (3.6%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0.0%)
 RN (1763) 1233 (69.9%) 467 (26.5%) 60 (3.4%) 3 (0.2%) 0 (0.0%)
 SHCA (476) 357 (75.0%) 102 (21.4%) 14 (2.9%) 2 (0.4%) 1 (0.2%)
 ADM (35) 22 (62.9%) 10 (28.6%) 3 (8.6%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%)
Total (2639) 1833 (69.5%) 709 (26.6%) 90 (3.4%) 6 (0.2%) 1 (0.0%)
Profession Ratings
Very high High Appropriate Low Very low
D. How did you experience the workload during the program?
 MD (364) 14 (3.8%) 153 (42.0%) 195 (53.6%) 2 (0.5%) 0 (0.0%)
 RN (1749) 115 (6.6%) 472 (27.0%) 1120 (64.0%) 36 (2.1%) 6 (0.3%)
 SHCA (471) 43 (9.1%) 163 (34.6%) 251 (53.3%) 10 (2.1%) 4 (0.8%)
 ADM (35) 6 (17.1%) 18 (51.4%) 9 (25.7%) 2 (5.7%) 0 (0%)
Total (2619) 178 (6.8%) 806 (30.8%) 1575 (60.1%) 50 (1.9%) 10 (0.4%)
Profession Ratings
Very High importance High importance Moderate importance Low importance Very low importance Unimportant
E. Evaluate the importance of the recommended literature in the program.
 MD (341) 54 (15.8%) 126 (37.0%) 100 (29.3%) 44 (12.9%) 13 (3.8%) 4 (1.2%)
 RN (1717) 513 (29.9%) 536 (31.2%) 403 (23.5%) 188 (10.9%) 58 (3.4%) 19 (1.1%)
 SHCA (469) 137 (29.2%) 140 (29.9%) 96 (20.5%) 56 (11.9%) 30 (6.4%) 10 (2.1%)
 ADM (34) 3 (8.8%) 14 (41.2%) 6 (17.6%) 6 (17.6%) 2 (5.9%) 3 (8.8%)
Total (2561) 707 (27.6%) 816 (31.9%) 605 (23.6%) 294 (11.5%) 103 (4.0%) 36 (1.4%)
Profession Ratings
Very High importance High importance Moderate importance Low importance Very low importance Unimportant
F. Evaluate the importance of the recommended scientific publications in the program.
 MD (334) 38 (11.4%) 100 (29.9%) 96 (28.7%) 64 (19.2%) 30 (9.0%) 6 (1.8%)
 RN (1566) 112 (7.2%) 281 (17.9%) 411 (26.2%) 419 (26.8%) 215 (13.7%) 128 (8.2%)
 SHCA (420) 66 (15.7%) 99 (23.6%) 118 (28.1%) 81 (19.3%) 48 (11.4%) 8 (1.9%)
 ADM (33) 0 (0%) 10 (30.3%) 4 (12.1%) 8 (24.2%) 7 (21.2%) 4 (12.1%)
Total (2353) 216 (9.2%) 490 (20.8%) 629 (26.7%) 572 (24.3%) 300 (12.7%) 146 (6.2%)
Profession Ratings
Very High importance High importance Moderate importance Low importance Very low importance Unimportant
G. Evaluate the importance of the lectures in the program.
 MD (347) 164 (47.3%) 138 (39.8%) 37 (10.7%) 7 (2.0%) 0 (0%) 1 (0.3%)
 RN (1739) 1116 (64.2%) 448 (25.8%) 114 (6.6%) 52 (3.0%) 3 (0.2%) 6 (0.3%)
 SHCA (454) 312 (68.7%) 103 (22.7%) 18 (4.0%) 8 (1.8%) 5 (1.1%) 8 (2.8%)
 ADM (35) 25 (71.4%) 7 (20.0%) 2 (5.7%) 1 (2.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Total (2575) 1617 (62.8%) 696 (27.0%) 171 (6.6%) 68 (2.6%) 8 (0.3%) 15 (0.6%)
Profession Ratings
Very High importance High importance Moderate importance Low importance Very low importance Unimportant
H. Evaluate the importance of the links in the program.
 MD (341) 24 (7.0%) 90 (26.4%) 115 (33.7%) 76 (22.3%) 28 (8.2%) 8 (2.3%)
 RN (1690) 251 (14.9%) 461 (27.3%) 474 (28.0%) 329 (19.5%) 133 (7.9%) 42 (2.5%)
 SHCA (429) 134 (31.2%) 119 (27.7%) 94 (21.9%) 53 (12.4%) 19 (4.4%) 10 (2.3%)
 ADM (35) 5 (14.3%) 10 (28.6%) 10 (28.6%) 6 (17.1%) 2 (5.7%) 2 (5.7%)
Total (2495) 414 (16.6%) 680 (27.3%) 693 (27.8%) 464 (18.6%) 182 (7.3%) 62 (2.5%)
Profession Ratings
Very High importance High importance Moderate importance Low importance Very low importance Unimportant
I. Evaluate the importance of the exercises and the feedback in the program.
 MD (344) 188 (54.7%) 113 (32.8%) 35 (10.2%) 7 (2.0%) 1 (0.3%) 0 (0%)
 RN (1733) 864 (49.9%) 569 (32.8%) 194 (11.2%) 83 (4.8%) 18 (1.0%) 5 (0.3%)
 SHCA (461) 281 (61.0%) 114 (24.7%) 42 (9.1%) 17 (3.7%) 5 (1.1%) 2 (0.4%)
 ADM (34) 22 (64.8%) 8 (23.5%) 3 (8.8%) 1 (2.9%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Total (2572) 1355 (52.7%) 804 (31.3%) 274 (10.7%) 108 (4.2%) 24 (0.9%) 7 (0.3%)
Profession Ratings
Very High importance High importance Moderate importance Low importance Very low importance Unimportant
J. Evaluate the importance of the physical meeting(s) in the program.
 MD (316) 127 (40.2%) 102 (32.3%) 49 (15.5%) 21 (6.6%) 9 (2.8%) 8 (2.5%)
 RN (1640) 869 (53.0%) 483 (29.5%) 182 (11.1%) 81 (4.9%) 16 (1.0%) 9 (0.5%)
 SHCA (438) 253 (57.8%) 126 (28.8%) 23 (5.3%) 24 (5.5%) 6 (1.4%) 6 (1.4%)
 ADM (32) 16 (50.0%) 7 (21.9%) 5 (15.6%) 4 (12.5%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Total (2426) 1265 (52.1%) 718 (39.6%) 259 (10.7%) 130 (5.4%) 31 (1.3%) 23 (0.9%)
  1. Data are given as number (%) of trainees in each ordinal rating category. The data include ratings from 64.2 to 72.1% of the total number of trainees (n = 2353 to 2642) in the program 2008 to 2014 (n = 3666). For details regarding questions A–J cf. the text
  2. MD medical doctors, RN registered nurses (in this table also includes radiation therapy technologists), SHCA social and health care assistants, ADM administrative personnel