Non-physician healthcare professionals’ perceptions of the training and development process in Jordanian public hospitals: a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study

Background: The training and development (T&D) process, encompassing analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation (ADDIE), plays a critical role in strengthening healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) competencies. Yet its effectiveness depends on how HCPs perceive each stage, which is shaped by influences at multiple levels, including individual and contextual factors. In resource-constrained settings such as Jordanian public hospitals, understanding these perceptions and their determinants is essential for shaping a responsive, contextually relevant T&D. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate and explain HCPs’ perceptions of the T&D process and the factors that influence them.

Methods: A sequential explanatory mixed-methods study was conducted in Jordanian public hospitals. Quantitatively, a total of 358 HCPs from six public hospitals were surveyed using a structured questionnaire. Descriptive and inferential analyses, including correlation and multiple regression, were conducted to identify key predictors. The qualitative phase involved semi-structured interviews with 12 purposively selected participants and was analyzed using thematic analysis. Integration was achieved through joint display analysis.

Results: The overall mean perception score for the T&D process was mean (M) =3.54 [standard deviation (SD) =0.67]. More than half (57%) perceived the T&D process positively, particularly regarding “implementation” and “development” practices, whereas 43% expressed negative views, specifically with respect to “analysis” and “evaluation” practices. Regression analysis identified hospital support, T&D program availability and relevance as significant predictors [F(4, 353)=217.34, P<0.001, adjusted R²=0.71]. Qualitative findings clarified the discrepancy between overall perception scores and the comparatively lower ratings of specific T&D stages. They revealed structural deficiencies across the T&D process, including the absence of systematic needs analysis, outdated and misaligned content, ineffective delivery methods, and superficial evaluation practices. The narrative expanded on how hospital, individual, and program factors influenced perceptions. Integration highlighted that, although the T&D process is formally established, its execution is fragmented and poorly aligned with workforce needs. Perceptions were influenced more by program attributes and institutional support than by physical or personal characteristics.

Conclusions: This study underscores that HCPs’ perceptions of the T&D process are dynamic and context-specific. Strengthening the T&D process requires moving beyond structural presence toward strategies that ensure responsiveness, effectiveness, and alignment with workforce requirements. Prioritizing the accessibility, relevance, and practical value of T&D programs, alongside hospital support, is critical for advancing professional development and improving healthcare delivery in Jordanian public hospitals. Future research should explore longitudinal and intervention-based approaches to further examine how improvements in the T&D process influence workforce and organizational outcomes.