Mixed methods evaluation finds improved knowledge in medical professionals after an online family medicine course, suggesting effective training in primary care.
A BSTRACT Background: The World Health Organization and the Government of India have taken several policy decisions to promote training in family medicine to meet the healthcare challenges in the country. An online foundation course on the basics of family medicine was conducted by All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Kalyani, West Bengal, in collaboration with the Academy of Family Physicians of India. The present study was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the online foundation course in family medicine by using Kirkpatrick’s model, levels 1 and 2. Method: Study Type: Mixed Methods. Study Design: Quantitative—Quasi-experimental, Qualitative—Thematic analysis. Population (P): Medical professionals working in India. Intervention (I): The online foundation course in family medicine for eight days with two hours per day. Comparison (C): Pre- and post-course knowledge. Outcome (O): Change in knowledge and participants’ feedback. Results: In the family medicine foundation course, a total of 398 participants consented to take part in the study. Kirkpatric Model Level 1 (Reaction): Course feedback was provided by 273 participants. Most participants strongly agreed on the benefits of the course. Most participants appreciated the case/scenario-based interactive learning, patient-centered approach, communication skills, confidence building, and knowledgeable resource persons. Kirkpatrick Model Level 2 (Learning): Only 257 candidates (64.57%) were able to complete both pretest and posttest. A paired-samples t -test shows a significant improvement in the percentage scores in pretest ( M = 49.25, SD = 13.19) and posttest ( M = 65.76, (SD = 16.91), P < 0.0001. Conclusions: Online foundation course in family medicine is an effective educational approach to fill the knowledge gap on primary care among medical professionals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Dutt et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: