The CPCRN is funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with the National Cancer Institute and is one of several thematic research networks within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Prevention Research Centers program. CPCRN includes eight centers nationwide that collaborate on research and practice initiatives to accelerate EBI adoption and implementation. For most of its 18-year funding history, CPCRN has included a cross-center workgroup that focused on building community-based practitioners’ capacity to select, adopt, and implement evidence-based health promotion and disease prevention interventions (Ribisl et al., 2017).

The CPCRN’s capacity building work is guided by the Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation, developed by Wandersman et al. (2008; Wandersman, Chien, & Katz, 2012). The ISF describes how three systems interact to promote the use of EBIs: (1) synthesis and translations systems identify, translate, and disseminate EBIs; (2) delivery systems adopt and implement EBIs; and (3) support systems provide training, technical assistance, and tools to increase delivery system capacity to adopt and implement EBIs. Viewed through the lens of the ISF, the CPCRN functions as a prevention support system that provides training, technical assistance, and tools to build the capacity of practitioners working in public health departments, prevention coalitions, community-based organizations, and other prevention delivery systems (Fernandez et al., 2014). The ISF describes two different types of delivery system capacity that are required to use EBIs effectively: general and EBI-specific. General capacity refers to the knowledge, skills, and resources needed to perform all components of the evidence-based decision-making process. These components include assessing the local context, identifying goals and objectives, selecting an EBI that aligns with the identified goals and objectives, adapting the EBI to fit with the local context, implementing the EBI, and evaluating processes and outcomes (Brownson et al., 2011; Chinman et al., 2008; Leeman et al., 2015). EBI-specific capacity refers to knowledge, skills, and resources needed to adapt, implement, and evaluate a specific EBI.

During the CPCRN’s 2009–2014 funding cycle, a cross-center workgroup developed the “Putting Public Health Evidence in Action” curriculum to build practitioners’ general capacity for evidence-based decision making. The curriculum builds on prior curricula developed by Chinman et al. (2008) and the National Cancer Institute (Boyle & Homer, n.d.) and includes content similar to the curriculum developed by Brownson and colleagues (Brownson et al., 2011; Jacobs et al., 2014). Delivery of CPCRN’s training has been shown to have a positive impact on participants’ competencies related to EBI adoption and implementation (Escoffery, Carvalho, & Kegler, 2012).

As outlined in Table 1, the curriculum includes seven modules that address each component of the evidence-based decision making process. Each module is designed to apply adult learning principles by including opportunities for interaction, reflection, and application (Setliff, Porter, Malison, Frederick, & Balderson, 2003). A distinctive feature of the curriculum is the inclusion of tools that serve as the basis for group activities during the training and that participants can apply to guide evidence-based decision making when they return to their worksites. Examples of tools include a checklist for assessing implementation readiness and a template for developing an evaluation plan. Furthermore, the curriculum materials and tool-based activities are designed to be adapted to the priorities of different audiences (e.g., obesity prevention vs. cancer screening) so that activities and illustrations pertain to health problems, EBIs, and practice settings that are relevant to participants. For example, the curriculum includes PowerPoint (PPT) slides and activities for use with audiences that are focused on community-based obesity prevention (e.g., activities have participants apply tools to search for obesity prevention EBIs and to identify allowable adaptions, assess readiness for, and create implementation and evaluation plans for Body and Soul, an obesity prevention EBI). Similarly, for participants working in cancer prevention and control, the curriculum includes alternative versions of PPTs and activities that are related to colorectal cancer screening EBIs.

The CPCRN curriculum is available online for public health educators to adopt and adapt. Online materials include PPT slides and speakers’ notes for each module, tools, tool-based activities, and a facilitator’s guide (http://cpcrn.org/pub/evidence-in-action/). Between 2009 and 2014, CPCRN members delivered the curriculum in a traditional, in-person format in 14 workshops to 600+ practitioners nationwide.

In-person trainings allow participants to work together on activities, to network with others doing work similar to their own, and to learn from the experiences of their peers (Jacobs et al., 2014). However, delivering the trainings in person is resource-intensive for both the trainers and participants, who must take time off from work and travel to the training site. The full training takes 2 days and therefore requires that participants who have traveled from a distance to spend the night in a hotel. With increasing frequency, travel restrictions, budget cuts, and staff shortages are preventing participants from attending in-person trainings (Ballew et al., 2013). Videoconferences, webinars, and online modules have potential to reduce barriers to practitioners’ participation by reducing travel costs and time away from the office (Jacobs et al., 2014). Distance formats may, however, lose the interactive, hands-on quality critical to adult learning (Setliff et al., 2003).

The CPCRN has applied a blended learning approach to scale up its curriculum that incorporates webinars, videoconferences, and online learning modules (See Table 2). Videoconferences are delivered by CPCRN staff to remote classrooms using videoconferencing technology that allows participants to see both the instructor and presentation materials (e.g., PPTs) and also allows the instructor to see participants. Health educators staff the remote classrooms and facilitate group activities and discussions. Each classroom includes 10 to 25 participants. Webinars are delivered using the Adobe Connect webinar platform. Participants sign into the webinars from their personal computers. They only see presentation materials but can interact with the instructor and other participants via audio and via an on-screen chat box. Online learning modules include a modified version of the PPT presentations used for in-person trainings with voice-over narration. Online modules also include interactive elements such as short quizzes that provide immediate feedback. Because they are the most expensive format to develop, CPCRN staff identified those aspects of the curriculum that could be most effectively delivered in an online module while ensuring that they maintain the same learning outcomes. Three training modules for online delivery were adapted, scripted, and professionally recorded. Table 2 provides an overview of how CPCRN’s general training has been delivered in distance formats.

Trainings that build practitioners’ general capacity to engage in evidence-based decision making provide a foundation of essential skills and knowledge (Jacobs et al., 2014). Training also is needed to build practitioners’ capacity to adopt and implement specific EBIs (Katz & Wandersman, 2016). To build EBI-specific capacity, the CPCRN offered additional trainings to a subset of the participants who attended the general trainings. CPCRN staff queried participants to see which EBIs they were planning to implement in the next six months. CPCRN staff then engaged individuals with expertise in those EBIs to partner in developing short topic-specific presentations. The new trainings were all delivered via webinar and are described in greater detail in Table 3.

Since little is known about how to extend the reach of EBI trainings and tailor curriculum content for specific EBIs, the purpose of this article is to evaluate training participants’ satisfaction with the adaptations to content and delivery format of eight trainings conducted over 3 years with local practitioner audiences.

The study employed a cross-sectional survey design. Satisfaction surveys with closed- and open-ended questions were administered to participants following the completion of each round of trainings.

This study was conducted in North Carolina and Oregon. In North Carolina, the University of North Carolina’s CPCRN center partnered with the North Carolina Institute of Public Health to deliver six general EBI trainings to 189 local public health practitioners across the state (including 12 repeat attendees). Twenty-two of these practitioners also participated in EBI-specific webinars following the general training. In Oregon, the Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) CPCRN center provided two trainings to 63 recipients of the OHSU Knight Cancer Institute Community Partnership Program grants, which awards funding for community-driven cancer prevention and control projects from organizations throughout the state of Oregon. Six trainees also participated in EBI-specific webinars following the general training.

In North Carolina, the general EBI trainings evolved from an exclusive 2-day, in-person training to a blended training that included both in-person sessions and online modules. In Oregon, general EBI trainings were delivered using a blended format that integrated online modules with a 1-day videoconference, in which North Carolina trainers delivered the training content concurrently for two community OHSU locations, providing easier access for attendees in rural regions of the state.

Surveys were administered following each training. For this article we report findings from survey questions that addressed training overall, perceptions that content was relevant to their job, and intent to apply what they learned. The item were as follows:

Open-ended questions asked participants what they most liked and what they would recommend to improve trainings.

Descriptive analyses were conducted detailing the frequency and percentage of responses to each survey question. Thematic analysis was applied to synthesize responses to open-ended questions. Two members of the team read all responses and independently identified themes and then met to compare themes and reconcile any discrepancies (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Table 4 provides a summary of findings from close-ended survey questions. Participants’ perceptions of the general training’s relevance to their job remained steady across delivery formats. Their overall satisfaction with trainings was similar for the in-person and online module training formats, with 88% and 92% satisfied, respectively, but dropped to 75% satisfaction with the videoconferencing. Satisfaction with the EBI-specific training webinars was 80% (n = 20). Participants also varied in their reported intent to apply what they learned, with fewer (74%) reporting that they intended to apply what they learned in the online modules compared to 91% and 85% for the videoconferencing and EBI-specific webinars, respectively.

Four factors were identified that influenced practitioners’ satisfaction with trainings: interaction with peers and trainers, tools they could use, comprehensive versus tailored content, and ability to fit trainings into busy work schedules. Practitioners appreciated the opportunity for interaction with peers and trainers. One participant reported that the most beneficial aspects of the trainings included the team activities, immediate feedback from presenters, and hearing other participants. Interaction with peers was greatest at the in-person trainings and occurred during both group activities and breaks. Participants in the EBI-specific webinar trainings appreciated the opportunity webinars provided for networking with peers working on similar EBIs. Several participants made observations similar to the following, “It was helpful to hear of the struggles other communities have had. I was also encouraged to get feedback about the work we have already done.” Participants reported that videoconferencing limited interactions with both peers and trainers. One participant noted that the training could have rather been done “at worksite if was all electronic.”

Across training modes, practitioners appreciated the opportunity for hands-on activities that included tools they can use when they return to their worksites. As noted by one participant, “I will move forward with confidence in my current position and use as many of the tools as often as possible.”

The comprehensive content offered in the general capacity building trainings was appreciated. In the words of one participant,

The comprehensive overview that the training provided was particularly helpful to practitioners who were new to evidence-based decision making. More experienced practitioners requested that trainings, particularly online modules, be designed so that they could go at their own pace, rather than having to wait for the recorded narrator to finish talking prior to progressing to the next slide. Although they appreciated the general training, practitioners also requested “follow-up training—how do we move to “the next level”? and noted, “It would be nice to work from a personal experience and discuss EBI interventions the participants are currently working on.” Participants also appreciated the webinars that focused on a specific EBI because they were able to learn from both instructors and peers about their experiences implementing the same or similar EBIs.

Practitioners’ reported the greatest difficulty fitting trainings into busy work schedules when trainings were delivered in a webinar format. Each round of webinars involved three scheduled sessions that participants signed into from their worksites. The other trainings were either delivered off-site (in-person and teleconferenced) or could be accessed online at the trainees’ convenience (online modules).