Background

1. Background HIV prevention research literacy is a global endeavor. Despite the increasing demand for training of both advocates and trial staff unfamiliar with research, resources for research literacy are constrained. It is important therefore, to continually evaluate teaching methods to ensure they are effective, efficient, provide the expected value, and deliver demonstrable impact. GCM compared two approaches to increasing learners’ interaction with the e-course material. The first, called the Microbicides Research Literacy Training (MRLT), was an in-person two-day training. The second, called the Virtual Classroom, was a bi-weekly series of webinar sessions. GCM conducted a formal evaluation of these different learning methods to guide future resource allocation. • Key Findings • Is student knowledge of HIV-prevention research improved after taking the course? • Advocates and trial staff demonstrate a increased understanding of microbicides and PrEP as well as the overall research and development process. • 74% of students taking the course improved their knowledge of HIV prevention research upon completing the course. • Six months after completing the course, have students retained the information they learned? • 87% of students answered basic questions on HIV-prevention research correctly. • Graduates who regularly reviewed the course content in print were more likely to answer correctly than those who did not. • What are the relative costs and benefits of the three methods of delivering microbicides training to advocates and trial staff? Methods Between June 2009 and December 2010, GCM undertook an in-depth evaluation of the Microbicides Essentials on-line course and three methods of delivering its content (self-instruction, virtual classroom, and in-person training). This included a web-based longitudinal survey, a comparison of pre- and post- test scores, and in-depth interviews with Microbicides Essentials course graduates at key intervals. Feedback from graduates of all three course modalities was captured via the post-test evaluation questionnaire on-line, evaluation forms and in-depth interviews with a subset of learners. The three methods of delivering the on-line course were then compared in terms of cost-effectiveness. Virtual or In-Person? Evaluating the Impact and Cost-Effectiveness of New Teaching Methods to Expand HIV Prevention Research LiteracyGary Wolnitzek1, Rebekah Webb2, Bindiya Patel1 1Global Campaign for Microbicides; 2Consultant Virtual Trainings In-Person Trainings So, Virtual or In-Person? Which is better? All three course modalities perform similarly in improving students’ ability and confidence in answering questions from the community about microbicides. Students in the conventional classroom setting were less likely to have a deep knowledge of all of the course content because they study in a much shorter timeframe, but they were better empowered to become microbicides educators. Students in the Virtual Classroom settings demonstrated a stronger understanding but were not as well equipped to educate others. Making the decision about the cost-effectiveness of each modality therefore depends on the goal of the training. For more information on GCM’s Prevention Research Literacy Training please e-mail info@global-campaign.org or visit www.Global-Campaign.org