good

Good

Good

GOOD

Good

Good

Good

رائع

like

---

ok

H

G

S

I thought the instructor was good, interesting, and professional. I did learn some things, but it was beyond rudimentary. For instance, the simulations dealt with only one situation, in which "Gina" was only mildly distressed to begin with (almost "eustressed" to use my new vocabulary). A variety of situations would have been much better. Also, the real life video, about the fire and those who experienced it, was fine, only the professor never weighed in or discussed the assessment and prioritization of the different people. I really missed this, because this one incident would have covered a lot of the ground that I missed in the simulations.

On the whole, I believe you could have put in a good deal more work in order to make this a stellar course, without making it much longer or impossibly difficult for beginners.

The information contained in the course was very valuable to anyone dealing with victims of highly stressful events.

I personally found the scenarios to be too forced, un natural.

The real life footage and the feedback from actual victims /first responders was excellent.

The assessment questions were the main reason for not awarding more stars. I found many to be ambiguous, perhaps equivocal. There was, in my opinion, too much emphasis on definition of terminology.

Some of the dialogue was too saccharine for our culture (Australia) -for example I could never use the phrase

"May I reach out to you?"

Overall ,thank you for some excellent thought provoking information. Well done.

It is a good course and foundation for PDF.

I think you push & consist to make it in RAPID acronym !

such as Assessment and Prioritization can be in a one phase.

Prioritization sometimes were mentioned as Triage (which is easier but T letter is not RAPID)

introducing so many tools were confusing me, e.g. i don't know what to use Risk or Evidence based in prioritization

the scenario was Awesome, course language was clear but too many tools were confusing.

Finally, I would like to thank you so much for making this important course available.

I feel misled - at no point before or during the course was it mentioned that the certificate would have to be purchased. On the cover - there is mention of "a sharable certificate". After completing the course, and searching high and low for how to print my certificate, I now understand if I want to have my certificate I must part with USD 50. That's unfair. How can prove to people, employers and the Allied Health Practitioners Council that I am capable?

However - useful content.

Pros: Course was not boring. There were videos to show examples of PFA (but definitely not enough)

Cons: Took the course to feel more confident and prepared to provide PFA but this course did not give me that. Many examples of validation, normalizing and reframing statements could have been provided but were not.

If your PFA knowledge is zero, you may benefit from this course. But if you already know things about PFA and want to learn more, this is not the course for you.

The course overall is good. I thought it would be more about PTSD and helping those who have went through a psychological hardship personally, not necessarily about big disasters such as fires, terrorist attacks and other things. Overall the course was cool but I wouldn't say it was the most immersive or the most impressive course I've taken. I'd do it if you are interested in the topic and the amount of time it took was roughly nothing (about 4-6 hours).

The MCQ quizzes could use work. I felt that the quizzes were too short and the options and questions themselves gave hints to what the answers might be, which I feel may put into question the validity of grades. I think that I was able to score higher than I should have because of this. Adding more questions per quiz and altering the options to make it a little tougher would definitely bump my review to a 5 star. Course material is excellent though.

The general premise of the course is one that I think is important to address, but I expected more from a Johns Hopkins course. Even for a rudimentary course, there was a lot of repetition. The professor was not that engaging and the slides that accompanied the lectures were dry and didn't add anything to the material itself. Some of the quiz questions were awkwardly worded. I learned a little from the course, but I had expected much more.

material was interesting and relevant. Module quizzes were worded in confusing terms. Questions seemed more based on verbiage than on an understanding of the concepts learned. The course gave me an overview but doesn't leave me feeling confidence in moving forward into this arena. I would need more follow-up training and practice before considering entry level situations requiring these skills

The information was extremely valuable and very well explained, but the presentation was unappealing and not very engaging. Personally, a person reading a slide is the easiest way to lose me. Also I would have appreciated more than one example of intervention, instead of reviewing the same one over and over. Nevertheless, I am very grateful this course exists.