Skip to main content

Table 4 Post-survey qualitative themes

From: Evaluation of a brief virtual implementation science training program: the Penn Implementation Science Institute

Theme

Sample ouotes

Overall impressions

“The energy of the facilitators, course leaders, and guest speakers was next level and infectious. It really helped with motivation.”

“This course was incredibly helpful and I’m so grateful to have participated this summer. I attained many of my goals to learn more about the terminology and how to apply it to my own research.”

PennISI content

“As a relative novice, I at times felt some of the lectures were too advanced for more and were focused more on those writing an NIH grant using implementation science. It would have been nice to hear more about smaller scale uses of implementation science.”

“I particularly liked the health equity seminar and the succeeding in implementation research panel.”

PennISI structure

“The virtual format was very convenient, especially for someone with a young child and for those in other countries. However, in-person institutes/workshops are always more energizing and engaging for me, even though the leaders did a fantastic job engaging attendees in a virtual format.”

“I think the combination of lectures (with ability to ask questions” and small group sessions worked very well. Overall this was an outstanding training session.”

Suggestions for improvement

“It may be helpful to incorporate a ‘Terminology Toolkit’ that provides definitions to some of the key terminology that will be used throughout the institute. It may be helpful for those with limited knowledge to more easily follow along with talks throughout the week.”

“The course might be strengthened by adding workshops (practicing some of the most basic concepts) to the small groups. Small group discussions were helpful and facilitators were great, but more structure would be helpful.”

“I wonder if the organizers will consider having some breakout sessions based on experience level, as being in a group with [multiple] funded investigators who were also actively doing D&I research (and were very talkative) made me really not want to participate in any group activities or make any commentary because I felt totally out of my depth at times.”