1. Public Health Learning Network
Workforce Training Chartbook
February 2019
Prepared by:
National Coordinating Center for Public Health Training
Common Metrics Reporting Year 2:
Training Data: July 2017 – June 2018
Field Placement Data: All 2018 field placements ending by September 14, 2018

2. Contents Table of Contents Intro to the Common Metrics
Part 1: Characteristics of Training
Graphic 1. Quick Training Statistics
Graphic 2. Training Delivery Mode
Chart 1. Core Competencies
Part 2: Common Metrics Data: Overall
Chart 2. Common Metrics Question #1 – Improved Understanding
Chart 3. Common Metrics Question #2 – Identified Actions
Chart 4. Common Metrics Question #3 – Presented Clearly
Chart 5. Common Metrics Question #4 – Satisfied with Training

3. Contents Table of Contents Part 3: Common Metrics Data : Delivery Mode
Chart 6. Improved Understanding by Delivery Mode
Chart 7. Identified Actions by Delivery Mode
Chart 8. Presented Clearly by Delivery Mode
Chart 9. Satisfied with Training by Delivery Mode
Part 4: Student Field Placements Data
Chart 10. Learning Objectives Met
Chart 11. Application
Chart 12. Relevant to Career
Chart 13. Working with Vulnerable Populations
Chart 14: Preceptor

4. Contents Table of Contents Part 5: Comparative Analysis
Chart 15. Common Metrics Question #1 – Improved Understanding (Overall)
Chart 16. Common Metrics Question #2 – Identified Actions (Overall)
Chart 17. Common Metrics Question #3 – Presented Clearly (Overall)
Chart 18. Common Metrics Question #4 – Satisfied with Training (Overall)
Part 6: Key Findings
Three-Year Comparison Data
Hybrid Trainings
Student Field Placements

5. Purpose Expectations Reporting Periods
Intro to the Common Metrics
To collect data on key metrics from all 10 Regional Public Health Training Centers (RPHTC).
To report national training and field experience* evaluation data.
Purpose
All RPHTCs will incorporate the common metrics in their training and field experience evaluation tools beginning in July 1, 2016.
Expectations
Year 1: Data from 7/2016 – 12/2016
Year 2: Data from 1/2017 – 6/2017
Year 3 Data from 7/2017 – 6/2018
Reporting Periods
Note: Represents Common Metrics data from nine reporting regions. One region did not submit data.

6. Part 1:
Characteristics of Training

7. 70,586 1,081 Quick Training Statistics
Graphic 1
Quick Training Statistics
4,360 hours of training were offered across all regions.
70,586
Range of total training hours across regions = 97 – 1,385 hours.
Training participants attended.*
1,081
Unique training courses offered.
*Note: This figure is not limited to unique individuals and may include participants who have attended multiple trainings.

8. 57% of all training hours were delivered in a Classroom-based format.
Graphic 2
Training Delivery Mode
66% of participants attended trainings offered in a Self-paced Distance learning format.
Archived learning was the most common training format (502 trainings).
438 trainings took place in a Classroom-based setting.
57% of all training hours were delivered in a Classroom-based format.
NEEDS TO BE UPDATED
n=1076

9. Chart 1
Core Competencies
The most frequently addressed core competency across all trainings was Community Dimensions of Practice.
Only 3% of courses addressed Financial Planning and Management.
n = 1,074

10. Part 2:
Common Metrics Aggregate Data

11. Question 1: Improved Understanding
Chart 2
Half of training attendees strongly agreed with the statement “my understanding of the subject improved as a result of participating in this training.”
n=35,725

12. Question 2: Actions to Apply Learning
Chart 3
Question 2:
Actions to Apply
Learning
Nearly half of attendees strongly agreed with the statement “I have identified actions they could take to apply information learned in the training.”
n= 35,951

13. Question 3: Presentation Clarity
Chart 4
Over half of attendees strongly agreed with the statement “the training information was presented in a way they could clearly understand.”
n= 35,251

14. Question 4: Overall Satisfaction
Chart 5
Over half of attendees strongly agreed with the statement “I was satisfied with the training overall.”
n= 35,581

15. Part 3:
Common Metrics
By Delivery Mode

16. Understanding by Delivery Mode
Chart 6
Understanding
by Delivery
Mode
Attendees in Hybrid trainings were the most likely to agree with the statement “my understanding of the subject improved as a result of participating in this training.”
n= 3,329
n= 4,133
n= 11,307
n= 16,956

17. Understanding by Delivery Mode Identified Actions by Delivery Mode
Chart 7
Understanding
by Delivery
Mode
Attendees in Hybrid trainings expressed the highest level of agreement with the statement “I have identified actions I will take to apply the information I learned.”
n= 3,311
n= 4,131
n= 11,251
NEEDS UPDATED
n= 17,258

18. Presentation Clarity by Delivery Mode
Chart 8
Attendees in Hybrid trainings expressed the highest level of agreement with the statement “the information was presented in a way I could clearly understand.”
n= 3,344
n= 4,139
n= 10,955
n= 16,813

19. Satisfaction by Delivery Mode
Chart 9
Overall Satisfaction
by Delivery
Mode
Attendees in Hybrid trainings were most likely to agree with the statement “I was satisfied with this training overall.”
n= 3,368
n= 4,125
n= 11,368
n= 16,720

20. Part 4:
Student Field Placements Data

21. Question 1: Learning Objectives
Chart 10
Over 90% of student field placement participants agreed with the statement “my learning objectives were met.”
n = 164

22. Question 2: Application
Chart 11
A strong majority (94%) of student field placement participants agreed with the statement “I identified actions to apply the information.”
n = 163

23. Question 3: Career
Chart 12
94% of student field placement participants agreed with the statement “information was relevant to my career.”
n = 164

24. Question 4: Vulnerable Populations
Chart 13
86% of student field placement participants agreed that the experience “increased interest in working with vulnerable populations.”
n = 164

25. Question 1:
Preceptor
Chart 14
Chart 14
95% of student field placement preceptors agreed that “student learning objectives were met.”
n = 106

26. Part 5:
Comparative Analysis

27. Comparison
Table
Chart 15
Three-Year Comparison Data: “My understanding of the subject improved as a result of participating in this training.”

28. Comparison
Table
Chart 16
Three-Year Comparison Data: “I have identified actions I will take to apply information I learned from this training in my work.”

29. Comparison
Table
Chart 17
Three-Year Comparison Data: “The information was presented in ways I could clearly understand.”

30. Comparison
Table
Chart 18
Three-Year Comparison Data: “I was satisfied with this training overall.”

31. Part 6:
Key Findings

32. Three-Year Comparison (2016-2018)
Key Findings
Comparison
Three-Year Comparison ( )
Common Metric (CM) #1: Overall participant understanding was highest in or Year 3 (agree/strongly agree), with a shift leaning from strongly agree to agree responses
CM #2: Overall participant actions identified to apply in the workplace remained the same over all three years (85% agree/strongly agree)

33. Three-Year Comparison (2016-2018)
Key Findings
Comparison
Three-Year Comparison ( )
CM #3: Overall participant clarity has remained at 90% or above with a strong leaning towards strongly agree over agree responses (preference for strongly agree over agree ranging from 20%-11%)
CM #4: Overall participant satisfaction remained the same over all three years (89%; agree/strongly agree), with a general shift leaning towards strongly agree to agree responses

34. Three-Year Comparison Findings
Key Findings
Comparison
Three-Year Comparison Findings
( )
The most frequently addressed core competency across all trainings during all years was Community Dimensions of Practice.
There was a significant increase in the number of total training participants each year: from 29,525 to 54,983 in 70,586 in Year 3.
The total number of unique trainings also increased: from 532, to 779, to 1,081 in 2018.

35. Three-Year Comparison Findings
Key Findings
Comparison
Three-Year Comparison Findings
( )
The total number of training hours was about 3 times higher in 2018 than in (4,360 versus 1,467).
Self-paced distance learning (or archived learning) remains the most common training format across all years.

36. The Rise of Hybrid Trainings
Key Findings
Trainings
The Rise of Hybrid Trainings
In 2017 those attending hybrid trainings were the most likely to agree with the statement “the information was presented in a way I could clearly understand.”, a slight shift (2%) from classroom based trainings as the lead in 2016.
In 2017, those that participated in hybrid trainings were the most likely to agree with the statement “I was satisfied with this training overall. In 2016, those that participated in both classroom and hybrid trainings were the most likely to agree, thereby representing a slight decrease in classroom-based training outcome percentages.
In the most recent year (July 2017-June 2018), training outcomes for Hybrid trainings were highest across all four Common Metrics
>90% Strongly Agree/Agree on all items
NEEDS TO BE UPDATED

37. Student Field Placements Key Findings
(All 2018 student field placements ending by September 2018)
Nearly all field placement participants felt their learning objectives for the placement were met.
Similarly, most preceptors also agreed that the student field placement learning objectives were met.

38. Funding Statement Satisfaction by Delivery Mode
This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) under grant number UB6HP27435.

39. Evaluation Team For More Information Brittany Bickford, MPH
Senior Research and Evaluation Analyst
National Coordinating Center for Public Health Training
National Network of Public Health Institutes
Jennifer Edwards, PhD, GCIS
Principal Research Scientist
Aaron Alford, PhD, MPH, PMP
Director, Research and Evaluation