Naloxone Coprescribing and the Prevention of Opioid Overdoses: Quasi-Experimental Metacognitive Assessment of a Novel Education Initiative.

IF 3.2 Q1 EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES JMIR Medical Education Pub Date : 2024-10-28 DOI:10.2196/54280
Michael Enich, Cory Morton, Richard Jermyn
{"title":"Naloxone Coprescribing and the Prevention of Opioid Overdoses: Quasi-Experimental Metacognitive Assessment of a Novel Education Initiative.","authors":"Michael Enich, Cory Morton, Richard Jermyn","doi":"10.2196/54280","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Critical evaluation of naloxone coprescription academic detailing programs has been positive, but little research has focused on how participant thinking changes during academic detailing.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The dual purposes of this study were to (1) present a metacognitive evaluation of a naloxone coprescription academic detailing intervention and (2) describe the application of a metacognitive evaluation for future medical education interventions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Data were obtained from a pre-post knowledge assessment of a web-based, self-paced intervention designed to increase knowledge of clinical and organizational best practices for the coprescription of naloxone. To assess metacognition, items were designed with confidence-weighted true-false scoring. Multiple metacognitive scores were calculated: 3 content knowledge scores and 5 confidence-weighted true-false scores. Statistical analysis examined whether there were significant differences in scores before and after intervention. Analysis of overall content knowledge showed significant improvement at posttest.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a significant positive increase in absolute accuracy of participant confidence judgments, confidence in correct probability, and confidence in incorrect probability (all P values were <.05). Overall, results suggest an improvement in content knowledge scores after intervention and, metacognitively, suggest that individuals were more confident in their answer choices, regardless of correctness.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Implications include the potential application of metacognitive evaluations to assess nuances in learner performance during academic detailing interventions and as a feedback mechanism to reinforce learning and guide curricular design.</p>","PeriodicalId":36236,"journal":{"name":"JMIR Medical Education","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11534273/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR Medical Education","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/54280","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Critical evaluation of naloxone coprescription academic detailing programs has been positive, but little research has focused on how participant thinking changes during academic detailing.

Objective: The dual purposes of this study were to (1) present a metacognitive evaluation of a naloxone coprescription academic detailing intervention and (2) describe the application of a metacognitive evaluation for future medical education interventions.

Methods: Data were obtained from a pre-post knowledge assessment of a web-based, self-paced intervention designed to increase knowledge of clinical and organizational best practices for the coprescription of naloxone. To assess metacognition, items were designed with confidence-weighted true-false scoring. Multiple metacognitive scores were calculated: 3 content knowledge scores and 5 confidence-weighted true-false scores. Statistical analysis examined whether there were significant differences in scores before and after intervention. Analysis of overall content knowledge showed significant improvement at posttest.

Results: There was a significant positive increase in absolute accuracy of participant confidence judgments, confidence in correct probability, and confidence in incorrect probability (all P values were <.05). Overall, results suggest an improvement in content knowledge scores after intervention and, metacognitively, suggest that individuals were more confident in their answer choices, regardless of correctness.

Conclusions: Implications include the potential application of metacognitive evaluations to assess nuances in learner performance during academic detailing interventions and as a feedback mechanism to reinforce learning and guide curricular design.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
纳洛酮共同处方与阿片类药物过量的预防:对一项新教育计划的准实验性元认知评估。
背景:对纳洛酮处方学术细化项目的批判性评价是积极的,但很少有研究关注参与者在学术细化过程中的思维变化:本研究的双重目的是:(1) 对纳洛酮复方制剂学术细化干预进行元认知评估;(2) 描述元认知评估在未来医学教育干预中的应用:方法:我们对一项基于网络、自定进度的干预措施进行了前后期知识评估,旨在增加纳洛酮共同处方的临床和组织最佳实践知识。为评估元认知,设计了置信度加权真假计分项目。计算了多个元认知分数:3 个内容知识得分和 5 个信心加权真假得分。统计分析检验了干预前后的得分是否存在显著差异。对整体内容知识的分析表明,干预后的成绩有明显提高:结果:受试者信心判断的绝对准确性、对正确概率的信心和对错误概率的信心都有明显的正增长(所有 P 值均为结论):结论:元认知评估可用于评估学习者在学术细节干预过程中的细微差别,也可作为强化学习和指导课程设计的反馈机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JMIR Medical Education
JMIR Medical Education Social Sciences-Education
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
54
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
ChatGPT-4 Omni Performance in USMLE Disciplines and Clinical Skills: Comparative Analysis. Leveraging the Electronic Health Record to Measure Resident Clinical Experiences and Identify Training Gaps: Development and Usability Study. The Potential of Artificial Intelligence Tools for Reducing Uncertainty in Medicine and Directions for Medical Education. A Pilot Project to Promote Research Competency in Medical Students Through Journal Clubs: Mixed Methods Study. Transforming the Future of Digital Health Education: Redesign of a Graduate Program Using Competency Mapping.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1