Limits...
Breakeven, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web-based versus face-to-face education delivery for health professionals.

Maloney S, Haas R, Keating JL, Molloy E, Jolly B, Sims J, Morgan P, Haines T - J. Med. Internet Res. (2012)

Bottom Line: Data were collected on learning outcomes including participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice, and combined with costs, savings, and benefits, to enable a break-even analysis from the perspective of the provider, cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health service, and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant.Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the health service and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant favored face-to-face education, although the outcomes were contingent on the sensitivity analysis applied (eg, the fee structure used).In the presence of relatively equivocal results for comparisons from other stakeholder perspectives, it is likely that providers would prefer to deliver education via a Web-based medium.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. stephen.maloney@monash.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: The introduction of Web-based education and open universities has seen an increase in access to professional development within the health professional education marketplace. Economic efficiencies of Web-based education and traditional face-to-face educational approaches have not been compared under randomized controlled trial conditions.

Objective: To compare costs and effects of Web-based and face-to-face short courses in falls prevention education for health professionals.

Methods: We designed two short courses to improve the clinical performance of health professionals in exercise prescription for falls prevention. One was developed for delivery in face-to-face mode and the other for online learning. Data were collected on learning outcomes including participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice, and combined with costs, savings, and benefits, to enable a break-even analysis from the perspective of the provider, cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health service, and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant.

Results: Face-to-face and Web-based delivery modalities produced comparable outcomes for participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice. Break-even analysis identified the Web-based educational approach to be robustly superior to face-to-face education, requiring a lower number of enrollments for the program to reach its break-even point. Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the health service and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant favored face-to-face education, although the outcomes were contingent on the sensitivity analysis applied (eg, the fee structure used).

Conclusions: The Web-based educational approach was clearly more efficient from the perspective of the education provider. In the presence of relatively equivocal results for comparisons from other stakeholder perspectives, it is likely that providers would prefer to deliver education via a Web-based medium.

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN): 12610000135011; http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=335135 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/668POww4L).

Show MeSH
Strategy for development of the Web-based course and measurements used in the refinement and modeling of an acceptable cost framework. RCT = randomized controlled trial; WTP = willingness to pay.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3376523&req=5

figure1: Strategy for development of the Web-based course and measurements used in the refinement and modeling of an acceptable cost framework. RCT = randomized controlled trial; WTP = willingness to pay.

Mentions: The Web-based arm of the RCT was offered as an ongoing educational product by the delivering university after the initial RCT was completed. The course was developed over four iterations, shown in Figure 1. The alpha version of the program was informed by research scoping activities and delivered to representative consumers who volunteered to participate, including content specialists, educational specialists, and community members. Course version beta was delivered to practitioners who held a bachelor’s degree in a health science, forming the RCT phase and the collection of data on learning outcomes and willingness to pay. Course version gamma was a fee-paying version of the course delivered to postgraduate clinicians, allowing validation of willingness to pay data. Course version delta was based on the modeled data, most closely simulating a realistic and ongoing short-course program.


Breakeven, cost benefit, cost effectiveness, and willingness to pay for web-based versus face-to-face education delivery for health professionals.

Maloney S, Haas R, Keating JL, Molloy E, Jolly B, Sims J, Morgan P, Haines T - J. Med. Internet Res. (2012)

Strategy for development of the Web-based course and measurements used in the refinement and modeling of an acceptable cost framework. RCT = randomized controlled trial; WTP = willingness to pay.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3376523&req=5

figure1: Strategy for development of the Web-based course and measurements used in the refinement and modeling of an acceptable cost framework. RCT = randomized controlled trial; WTP = willingness to pay.
Mentions: The Web-based arm of the RCT was offered as an ongoing educational product by the delivering university after the initial RCT was completed. The course was developed over four iterations, shown in Figure 1. The alpha version of the program was informed by research scoping activities and delivered to representative consumers who volunteered to participate, including content specialists, educational specialists, and community members. Course version beta was delivered to practitioners who held a bachelor’s degree in a health science, forming the RCT phase and the collection of data on learning outcomes and willingness to pay. Course version gamma was a fee-paying version of the course delivered to postgraduate clinicians, allowing validation of willingness to pay data. Course version delta was based on the modeled data, most closely simulating a realistic and ongoing short-course program.

Bottom Line: Data were collected on learning outcomes including participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice, and combined with costs, savings, and benefits, to enable a break-even analysis from the perspective of the provider, cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health service, and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant.Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the health service and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant favored face-to-face education, although the outcomes were contingent on the sensitivity analysis applied (eg, the fee structure used).In the presence of relatively equivocal results for comparisons from other stakeholder perspectives, it is likely that providers would prefer to deliver education via a Web-based medium.

View Article: PubMed Central - HTML - PubMed

Affiliation: Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. stephen.maloney@monash.edu

ABSTRACT

Background: The introduction of Web-based education and open universities has seen an increase in access to professional development within the health professional education marketplace. Economic efficiencies of Web-based education and traditional face-to-face educational approaches have not been compared under randomized controlled trial conditions.

Objective: To compare costs and effects of Web-based and face-to-face short courses in falls prevention education for health professionals.

Methods: We designed two short courses to improve the clinical performance of health professionals in exercise prescription for falls prevention. One was developed for delivery in face-to-face mode and the other for online learning. Data were collected on learning outcomes including participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice, and combined with costs, savings, and benefits, to enable a break-even analysis from the perspective of the provider, cost-effectiveness analysis from the perspective of the health service, and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant.

Results: Face-to-face and Web-based delivery modalities produced comparable outcomes for participation, satisfaction, knowledge acquisition, and change in practice. Break-even analysis identified the Web-based educational approach to be robustly superior to face-to-face education, requiring a lower number of enrollments for the program to reach its break-even point. Cost-effectiveness analyses from the perspective of the health service and cost-benefit analysis from the perspective of the participant favored face-to-face education, although the outcomes were contingent on the sensitivity analysis applied (eg, the fee structure used).

Conclusions: The Web-based educational approach was clearly more efficient from the perspective of the education provider. In the presence of relatively equivocal results for comparisons from other stakeholder perspectives, it is likely that providers would prefer to deliver education via a Web-based medium.

Trial registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN): 12610000135011; http://www.anzctr.org.au/trial_view.aspx?id=335135 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/668POww4L).

Show MeSH