Comparing the effectiveness of delivery style in produce safety training for growers.

The Produce Safety Alliance grower training has been offered since 2016. Prior to the pandemic, the course was offered exclusively in-person. During the pandemic, trainers were allowed to offer the course remotely. The effectiveness of in-person and remote delivery options was compared utilizing four methods: course evaluations completed at the training; a pre- and post-training knowledge assessment; a 1-year follow-up survey; and focus groups with course trainers. All methods, except the focus groups, were used as evaluation tools starting before and continuing during the pandemic. On the course evaluations, remote delivery and in-person participants rated their satisfaction with the training and their confidence in their ability to make changes at the same high rate. The knowledge assessment found remote delivery participants scored higher on the posttest than in-person participants when controlling for pretest score (p < 0.001); the effect size was between low and medium (ηp 2 = 0.025). On the follow-up survey, remote delivery participants reported making changes to food safety practices or infrastructure at a higher rate than in-person participants (68% vs. 53%, respectively, Χ2 (1, N = 700) = 6.372, p = 0.012, Cramer's V = 0.012 (very low)). There were demographic differences in educational level, job description, and number of years farming between the two populations. The focus group revealed advantages and disadvantages of both delivery methods, including internet availability, engagement activity, and course logistics and planning. Because no practical differences in outcome were measured between delivery methods and each had unique strengths, researchers recommend that educators should utilize both methods in the future. PRACTICAL APPLICATION: 1. When deciding between offering in-person or synchronous virtual training, trainers can feel confident that both delivery methods result in positive experiences from participants, learning, and behavior change. 2. PSA trainers may choose to offer the training remotely to increase accessibility for people who live in areas where there may not be enough growers to warrant holding an in-person training nearby, but should also consider that reliable high-speed internet access may not be available to all. 3. Remote delivery trainings can be smoother by hosting remote delivery participants at local extension or other partner offices where high-speed internet is available.

Genetics providers' perspectives on the use of digital tools in clinical practice.

PURPOSE: Digital tools are increasingly incorporated into genetics practice to address challenges with the current model of care. Yet, genetics providers' perspectives on digital tool use are not well characterized. METHODS: Genetics providers across Canada were recruited. Semistructured interviews were conducted to ascertain their perspectives on digital tool use and the clinical practice factors that might inform digital tool integration. A qualitative interpretive description approach was used for analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-three genetics providers across 5 provinces were interviewed. Participants had favorable attitudes toward digital tool use. They were open to using digital tools in the pretest phase of the genetic testing pathway and for some posttest tasks or in a hybrid model of care. Participants expressed that digital tools could enhance efficiency and allow providers to spend more time practicing at the top of scope. Providers also described the need for careful consideration of the potential impact of digitalization on the clinician-patient dynamic, access to and equity of care, and unintended digital burden on providers. CONCLUSION: Genetics providers considered digital tools to represent a viable solution for improving access, efficiency, and quality of care in genetics practice. Successful use of digital tools in practice will require careful consideration of their potential unintended impacts.