which the training workshop to support
reemployment was conducted.
After the subjects used the program, we surveyed
them using a constitutive questionnaire and a group
interview. The contents of the questionnaire include
the evaluation of educational materials, the mode of
offering them, and their improvement of both the
training program and mentor functional system, and
how the users’ concerns might be changed using
them.
Regarding methods of analysis, basic
information was analyzed using descriptive
statistics. Qualitative data were processed using
qualitative descriptive analysis.
3.5 Ethical Considerations
The ethical affairs committee for research of the
school to which all of our study group members
belong approved the study project we conducted.
4 RESULTS
4.1 Basic Attributes
The 13 subjects were all women: 3 were in their 30s,
and 10 were in their 40s. Regarding marriage status,
3 were unmarried, 10 were married, and one was
divorced or bereaved. The average service year as a
nurse was 6.3±5.2 years. The average
unemployment duration was 12.9±7.1 years. The
retirement reasons (multiple answers allowed) were
marriage (answered by 6), job relations (by 4),
health problems (by 4), and pregnancy and delivery
(by 3).
4.2 Evaluation of the Training
Program Material
The gross utility hours of the program were mode
values of 21–24 hr. Regarding the access frequency,
five subjects used it 2–3 times, four used it 4–5
times, and four used it 10–11 times. Regarding
comprehensive evaluation of the program, three
subjects answered “very good,” six answered
“good,” and four answered “not very good.”
As for evaluation of the educational material
contents of the program, the following answers were
extracted: “rich in content,” “easily comprehended,”
“The procedure can be confirmed by images,” and
“The nurses’ approach shown in the example is
realistic and good,” and “Knowledge cards and
problem learning are informative.” As for learning
effects, “The concerns for reemployment can be
reduced.”
4.3 Offering Ways for Improvement in
the Training Program
In terms of the system, it was judged as “easily
accessible”, but “It is difficult to find educational
materials,” “It takes much time to find it,” and “I’m
not familiar with using a PC, so I prefer to use
books.”
4.4 Evaluation of the Mentor System
The users of the mentor functional system were
seven (50%). The questions asked by them were 13,
which were related to confirmation of the contents
of imaging techniques, newly provided information,
and system problems (Table 1).
As for the comprehensive evaluation of the
mentor functional system, five of seven answered
“good,” and the other two answered “not very
good.” About their asking the mentor questions, they
reported: “I can ask about what would make me feel
ashamed if I now asked about it in someone’s face”;
“Thinking that I can ask the mentor any question
makes me feel confident.” About the answers from
the mentor, they said “They are respectful, easily
understandable and friendly”; “Because the mentor
showed the training program (educational material
contents), it was good.” About the time when they
received the answer from the mentor, the following
were extracted: “I wanted to receive an answer
quickly,” and “It was not easy access because I did
not know when I would be answered.”
4.5 Offering a Method and
Improvement in the Mentor System
Regarding the window, “The space is small and
unreadable.” As for improvements, the following
were extracted: “To make the button prominent” and
“to take example questions.” As a manner of
utilization, the following suggestion was offered:
“The questions might be put displayed for others.”
4.6 Change of Users’ Concerns about
Reemployment using the Mentor
System
As for concerns related to reemployment, ten users
(71.4%) evaluated it, saying “Concerns can be
reduced by the training program.” As concerns, the
EvaluationofaWeb-basedMentorFunctionalSystemforEmploymentSupportTrainingofNurseswhoHaveNotbeen
Employed
329