Back

Is there a difference in the satisfaction levels between professionals who have participated and those who have not participated in the TeleUTIP telemedicine project regarding their engagement in tele-education activities?

Rodrigues Moleda Constant, H. M.; Jacovas, V. C.; Vinade Chagas, M. E.; Cotta Matte, M. C.; Konig Klever, E.; Gomes da Cunha, L.; Mafalda Krauzer, J. R.; de Campos Moreira, T.; Cabral, F. C.

2024-01-17 intensive care and critical care medicine
10.1101/2024.01.16.24301368 medRxiv
Show abstract

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to introduce a distance education program and assess the satisfaction of health professionals. MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in five public hospitals across different regions of Brazil. A total of 171 health professionals participated in a tele-education activity involving discussions of complex cases in a Case-Based Learning (CBL) format. Employee satisfaction was measured using the translated questionnaire Tele-Education Satisfaction Assessment Instrument (IAS-TE). ResultsThe mean satisfaction score for participants was 4.6 on a 5-point Likert-type scale. Participants engaged in the telemedicine project (35.5%) reported significantly higher satisfaction (p<0.001) compared to their non-participating peers (n = 149, 64.5%). The IAS-TE exhibited a Cronbachs alpha of 0.73, indicating good reliability, and demonstrated good homogeneity (KMO = 0.76, Bartletts test of sphericity = p<0.00). ConclusionParticipants in the proposed activity expressed high levels of satisfaction. The findings suggest that satisfaction levels are elevated among professionals involved in the telemedicine project. The proposed satisfaction assessment instrument (IAS-TE) exhibits robust psychometric qualities and is suitable for evaluating other distance education activities. Future perspectives involve gaining a deeper understanding of strategies to enhance satisfaction for professionals who do not engage in activities using advanced technology.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.