A Quasi-Experimental Study of an Online Communication Partner Training Program for Orthoptic Students.
Sonia Lau, Emma Power, Amanda French
Orthoptic students' knowledge and confidence in communicating with people who have had a brain injury improved after a 2-hour online training program.
Qualified orthoptists showed no clear change. No control group was used, so the gains cannot be attributed to the program alone.
Key findings
1Before training, 36.4% of orthoptic students were 'not at all confident' and 39.4% were only 'somewhat confident' in communicating with people who have had a brain injury. After the program, 40.0% reported being 'very confident' and 4.0% 'extremely confident' (p < 0.001).
2Median student knowledge scores rose from 14/20 before training to 18/20 after (p < 0.001). Orthoptists started higher at 17/20 and ended at 19/20, with performance largely unchanged.
3No clear improvements were observed for qualified orthoptists, whose pre- and post-training performance was largely unchanged on both impairment-definition and strategy items.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they found
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
No control group, so the pre/post gains could reflect simply completing a test twice rather than the training itself Single university for students and one healthcare system for orthoptists, limiting generalisability Only 3 of 13 orthoptists/educators completed post-measures, so their results are descriptive only Measures were self-reported knowledge and confidence, not observed communication behaviour with a patient No follow-up to assess whether the gains lasted or translated into clinical skill No adjustment for multiple comparisons across the 20 quiz items The authors note that improvements in knowledge and confidence do not guarantee behaviour change or improvement in client-level outcomes
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not read the student improvements as proof the program works. There was no control group, so the gains could reflect simply completing a test twice. The measures were self-reported knowledge and confidence, not observed communication with a patient. And the authors themselves note that these gains do not guarantee behaviour change or improvement in client-level outcomes.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →