Comparing an In-Person and Online Continuing Education Intervention to Improve Professional Decision-Making: A Mixed Methods Study

Abstract

Purpose: This paper compares two iterations (in-person and online) of a multi-stage continuing education program for improving high-risk decision-making among mental health workers. Methods: The mixed-methods study analyzed the following: (1) physiological and psychological arousal during simulated patient interviews; (2) physiological and psychological arousal recorded during real-time decision-making over four months; and (3) thoughts on the process and outcomes of the intervention raised in reflective interviews. Findings: Quantitatively, there were no statistical differences in stress measures between in-person and online simulated interviews or decision-making logs, suggesting they were effective in eliciting reactions commonly found in challenging clinical situations. Qualitatively, participants in both iterations indicated that the intervention caused them to reflect on practice, consider a wider range of factors related to the decisions, and enact approaches to improve decision-making. Conclusions: A carefully constructed online continuing education experience can result in outcomes for experienced social workers that are equivalent to an in-person iteration.