Online versus in-person training of community health workers to enhance hepatitis B virus screening among Korean Americans: Evaluating cost & outcomes

•Training-costs/participant were higher for in-person training than online training.•Workshop-costs/participant were lower for in-person training than online training.•Total costs were higher for the online-trained group than the in-person group.•In-person trained CHWs were more cost-effective than online-trained CHWs.•CHWs who attended live training outperformed their online-trained colleagues. From 2014 to 2018, we developed and implemented culturally appropriate interventions delivered by community health workers (CHWs) in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. To determine the most cost-effective approach, we recruited 40 predominantly foreign-born Korean American CHWs and used cluster sampling to assign them into two training groups (online training vs. in-person training). We prospectively assessed the cost of training 40 Korean American CHWs and the cost of subsequent HBV educational workshops delivered by the CHWs. We also assessed these costs relative to the success of each training approach in recruiting participants for HBV screening and vaccination. We found that the training costs per participant were higher for in-person training ($1.71 versus $1.12), while workshop costs per participant were lower for in-person training ($2.19 versus $4.22). Workshop attendee costs were comparable. After accounting for site clustering, there were no significant differences in total costs per participant ($24.55 for the online-trained group and $26.05 for the in-person group). In-person trained CHWs were able to generate higher HBV screening and vaccination rates (49.3% versus 21.4% and 17.0% versus 5.9%, respectively) among their participants compared with online-trained CHWs. Given better outcomes and no differences in costs, in-person training dominated the online training option. Despite the potential for efficiency to be gained with online training, CHWs who attended live training outperformed their online-trained colleagues. Elements of the didactic approach or practice with peers in the live session may have contributed to the superior training effectiveness and, ultimately, improved cost-effectiveness of the in-person approach.