{"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.