Rationale: The Program of Active Consumer Engagement in Epilepsy Self-management (PACES) is an 8-session small group self-management intervention for adults led by a trained epilepsy professional and peer dyad (Johnson et al., 2020). The evidence-based program is offered nationally (Fig. 1). Facilitator training was first conducted by 2 psychologists in 4-hour live didactic seminar over a 2-day period (TRAD model). While very well-received, program evaluations showed a need for more guided practice and self-paced didactics. The training was revised and since 2023, the hybrid (HYB) training model involves 4-hours of self-paced online didactics followed by a 2-hour live, interactive webinar emphasizing in vivo practice.
Methods: Trainees were recruited through epilepsy organizations and clinics. All were administered an evaluation with mixed methods metrics, which queried for Likert ratings (1-10) as to knowledge and skill acquisition and open-ended inquiry for strengths and weaknesses (Table 1). Forms were completed on paper, or electronically via REDCap. All who submitted an evaluation were awarded a certification of program completion.
Results: From 2018-2024, n=181 epilepsy professionals and peers were trained; n=145 (81.2%) sent course evaluations. Knowledge and skill acquisition (training efficacy) averaged 9.5/10 (“Very Well”) for TRAD and averaged< ![if !msEquation] >< ![if !vml] >
![]()
< ![endif] >< ![endif] >9.6/10 (“Very Well”) for HYB. Ratings were not significantly different (t = -1.100;
p = 0.278). Program strengths were stated by 91.7% in TRAD, such as detailed program information provided, resources, facilitation demonstration by the trainers, and trainers’ expertise. Training weaknesses were stated by 62.8%, such as wanting a longer course with breaks and more role play and interactive elements, and more information about program implementation logistics. In HYB, 88.0% stated strengths, such as the flexible, self-paced structure and practice delivering the content with real-time feedback from the trainer, while 41.7% stated weaknesses, including wanting more sessions and a more interactive online course. There was no association between training platform type and appraisal of training strengths or weaknesses (Table 1).
Conclusions: Data suggest the models are equally effective and satisfactory to participants; each training model provides excellent knowledge and skill transference to trainees. Qualitatively, the appraised strengths and weaknesses of each paradigm differ and provide insight into trainee expectancies. Evaluation data and analyses are important for dissemination strategy, facilitator development and support, and program fidelity. Training evaluation is one element of program evaluation, which is essential to public health. Adjusting training program design in response to evaluation data is relevant for the sustention of evidence-based self-management programs, which are known to improve self-efficacy, self-management, and quality of life in adults with epilepsy.
Funding: Health Promotion and Disease Prevention Research Center supported by Cooperative Agreement Number U48DP006398 from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.