Background
Methods
Context
Participants
Intervention
Outcome measures
-
Knowledge We designed a questionnaire consisting of 40 multiple-choice questions (the minimum for a reliable MCQ exam [33]) on weight management. We designed three equivalent questionnaires to ensure that each participant would complete an alternative list of questions every time. The questions were based on GPs’ guidelines on obesity [26, 34‐36], and reviewed by two experts.
-
Attitudes We translated an instrument measuring attitudes toward weight management, using forward–backward translation. This self-assessment instrument, consisting of 20 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores representing a more positive attitude, has not been formally validated, but has already been used successfully in previous studies [37, 38] (see Table 5 in Appendix 1).
-
Role modelling We developed and validated a tool for assessing the role model behaviour of clinical trainers: the RoMAT [39] (see Table 6 in Appendix 2). This tool was developed on the basis of a systematic review of the literature [9] aimed at identifying the attributes of good role models. It consists of 17 items scored on a 5-point Likert scale, split into two components: ‘Caring Attitude’ and ‘Effectiveness.’ Both components include an equal number of items addressing personal, teaching, and clinical qualities, with high reliabilities (Cronbach’s alpha 0.92 and 0.84, respectively).To evaluate the extent to which the trainers were aware of their role model behaviour, we also asked the GP trainers to score themselves, and the trainees to score their trainers as role models using a 5-point Likert scale.
-
Behaviour We asked trainers and trainees whether they discussed the subject of the intervention and whether they used the booklets in their practice as an objective measurement of implementation in daily practice.
Assessment (Fig. 2)
Analyses
Results
Response

Intervention mandatory | Intervention voluntary | Controls | |
---|---|---|---|
Number of patients in practice (%) | |||
<2,000 | 17.9 | 32.0 | 9.4 |
2,000–2,500 | 29.3 | 44.0 | 34.5 |
>2,500 | 51.1 | 20.0 | 52.0 |
Location of practice (%) | |||
Village | 17.9 | 32.0 | 32.2 |
Small town | 9.2 | 4.0 | 12.3 |
City | 29.3 | 28.0 | 29.8 |
Big City | 42.4 | 28.0 | 22.8 |
Trainer/trainee couples (%) | |||
♂ + ♂ | 13.8 | 40.0 | 21.7 |
♀ + ♀ | 32.5 | 20.0 | 17.4 |
♀ + ♂/♂ + ♀ | 53.6 | 40.0 | 60.8 |
Improvements in knowledge, attitudes, and role model skills (Table 3)
Trainers | Trainees | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Intervention mandatory | Controls | Intervention voluntary | Intervention mandatory | Controls | Intervention voluntary | ||
Knowledge Mean (SD) | T1 | 16.5 (3.8) | 15.9 (3.0) | 16.2 (3.7) | 15.1 (3.7) | 15.5 (3.5) | 14.9 (4.4) |
T2 | 18.2 (4.1) | 22.4 (3.6) | |||||
T3 | 18.0 (4.3) | 15.1 (3.6) | 19.0 (3.7) | 15.4 (3.9) | 16.9 (4.1) | 16.7 (2.6) | |
Mean Δa
| T3–T1 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 2.8 | 0.3 | 1.4 | 2.2 |
p Δa (Int-Cont) | 0.00* | 0.02* | |||||
ESb
| 0.81 | 0.37 | |||||
Attitude Mean (SD) | T1 | 3.3 (0.2) | 3.3 (0.2) | 3.3 (0.3) | 3.3 (0.3) | 3.3 (0.2) | 3.3 (0.2) |
T2 | 3.4 (0.2) | 3.3 (0.2) | |||||
T3 | 3.4 (0.3) | 3.3 (0.2) | 3.7 (0.8) | 3.3 (0.3) | 3.3 (0.3) | 3.5 (0.7) | |
Mean Δa
| T3–T1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 |
p Δa (Int-Cont) | 0.15 | 0.43 | |||||
ESb
| 0.50 | 0.00 | |||||
RoMAT Caring Attitude Mean (SD) | T1 | 4.3 (0.6) | 4.3 (0.5) | 4.4 (0.5) | |||
T3 | 4.3 (0.5) | 4.3 (0.5) | 4.3 (0.6) | ||||
Mean Δa
| T3–T1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | −0.1 | |||
p Δa (Int-Cont) | 0.87 | ||||||
ESb
| 0.00 | ||||||
RoMAT Effectiveness Mean (SD) | T1 | 4.1 (0.5) | 4.0 (0.6) | 4.2 (0.5) | |||
T3 | 4.1 (0.5) | 4.1 (0.5) | 4.0 (0.5) | ||||
Mean Δa
| T3–T1 | 0.0 | 0.1 | −0.2 | |||
p Δa (Int-Cont) | 0.48 | ||||||
ESb
| 0.00 |
Influence of the respondents’ characteristics
Trainers (n = 80) | Knowledge Δa
| Attitude Δa
| RoMAT Δa Caring Attitude | RoMAT Δa Effectiveness | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
p mean | 95 % CI | p mean | 95 % CI | p mean | 95 % CI | p mean | 95 % CI | |
Weight change | 0.03* |
Bf 1<>2
| 0.46 | 0.32 | 0.94 | |||
(1) <0 | 4.5 | 2.30–6.70 | 0.05 | −0.07 to 0.16 | 0.23 | −0.25 to 0.71 | 0.07 | −0.21 to 0.36 |
(2) =0 | 1.3 | −0.33 to 2.90 | 0.11 | 0.04–0.18 | −0.01 | −0.19 to 0.16 | 0.20 | −0.15 to 0.19 |
(3) >0 | 1.5 | −0.10 to 3.10 | 0.08 | −0.06 to 0.13 | −0.00 | −0.13–0.13 | 0.02 | −0.14 to 0.17 |
Years of experience as trainer | 0.14 | 0.04* | 0.25 | 0.05* | ||||
(1) <6 | 3.0 | 1.50–4.40 | 0.12 | 0.05–0.20 | −0.03 | −0.25 to 0.18 | −0.07 | −0.24 to 0.10 |
(2) ≥6 | 1.5 | 0.09–2.90 | 0.01 | −0.06 to 0.08 | 0.10 | −0.02 to 0.22 | 0.13 | 0.01–0.25 |
No. of GPs in practice | 0.68 | 0.95 | 0.02* |
Bf 1<>2
| 0.08 | |||
(1) 1 | 2.3 | 0.37–4.20 | 0.08 | −0.02 to 0.18 | 0.37 | 0.02–0.71 | 0.17 | −0.10 to 0.45 |
(2) 2 | 2.1 | −0.00 to 4.10 | 0.06 | −0.04 to 0.17 | −0.16 | −0.43 to 0.11 | −0.18 | −0.43 to 0.06 |
(3) ≥3 | 0.9 | −0.95 to 2.60 | 0.05 | −0.09 to 0.19 | 0.01 | −0.10 to 0.25 | 0.08 | −0.11 to 0.26 |
(4) Health centre | 2.2 | −0.04 to 4.50 | 0.03 | −0.07 to 0.13 | 0.06 | −0.06 to 0.18 | 0.12 | −0.07 to 0.31 |
No. of patients in practice | 0.81 | 0.30 | 0.04* |
Bf 2<>3
| 0.01* |
Bf 1<>3
| ||
(1) <2000 | 1.5 | −1.10 to 4.00 | −0.02 | −0.14 to 0.10 | 0.14 | −0.04 to 0.33 | 0.30 | 0.10–0.50 |
(2) 2,000–2,500 | 2.5 | 0.35–4.60 | 0.10 | −0.00 to 0.20 | 0.22 | −0.04 to 0.48 | 0.14 | −0.07 to 0.35 |
(3) >2,500 | 2.1 | 0.77–3.50 | 0.06 | −0.01 to 0.13 | −0.10 | −0.25 to 0.05 | −0.10 | −0.23 to 0.03 |
Influence of role model behaviour on the trainees
Discussion
Strengths and limitations of the study
Comparison with existing literature
Conclusions
Implications for future courses and research
-
Integrating knowledge, attitude, and role model behaviour in one course leads to improvements in the knowledge of clinical trainers.
-
More research is necessary to establish how to improve the effectiveness of train-the-trainer courses in terms of professional gains for the trainee.
-
Effectiveness of courses needs to be assessed by means of objective evaluation among the target population and in daily practice.