Noah Berland1, Daniel Lugassy2, Aaron Fox3, Keith Goldfeld4, So-Young Oh5, Babak Tofighi4, Kathleen Hanley6. 1. Kings County Hospital, SUNY Downstate Medical Center , Brooklyn , New York , USA. 2. Department of Emergency Medicine and Toxicology, New York University School of Medicine , New York , New York , USA. 3. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Albert Einstein College of Medicine , Bronx , New York , USA. 4. Department of Population health, New York University School of Medicine , New York , New York , USA. 5. Institute for Innovations in Medical Education, New York University School of Medicine , New York , New York , USA. 6. Department of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine , New York , New York , USA.
Abstract
Purpose: In response to the opioid epidemic and efforts to expand substance use education in medical school, the authors introduced opioid overdose prevention training (OOPT) with naloxone for all first-year medical students (MS1s) as an adjunct to required basic life support training (BLST). The authors previously demonstrated improved knowledge and preparedness following in-person OOPT with BLST; however, it remains unclear whether online-administered OOPT would produce comparable results. In this study, the authors perform a retrospective comparison of online-administered OOPT with in-person-administered OOPT. Objectives: To compare the educational outcomes: knowledge, preparedness, and attitudes, for online versus in-person OOPT. Methods: In-person OOPT was administered in 2014 and 2015 during BLST, whereas online OOPT was administered in 2016 during BLST pre-work. MS1s completed pre- and post-training tests covering 3 measures: knowledge (11-point scale), attitudes (66-point scale), and preparedness (60-point scale) to respond to an opioid overdose. Online scores from 2016 and in-person scores from 2015 were compared across all 3 measures using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods. Results: After controlling for pre-test scores, there were statistical, but no meaningful, differences across all measures for in-person- and online-administered training. The estimated differences were knowledge: -0.05 (0.5%) points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.47, 0.36); attitudes: 0.65 (1.0%) points (95% CI: -0.22, 1.51); and preparedness: 2.16 (3.6%) points (95% CI: 1.04, 3.28). Conclusions: The educational outcomes of online-administered OOPT compared with in-person-administered OOPT were not meaningfully different. These results support the use of online-administered OOPT. As our study was retrospective, based on data collected over multiple years, further investigation is needed in a randomized controlled setting, to better understand the educational differences of in-person and online training. Further expanding OOPT to populations beyond medical students would further improve generalizability.
Purpose: In response to the opioid epidemic and efforts to expand substance use education in medical school, the authors introduced opioid overdose prevention training (OOPT) with naloxone for all first-year medical students (MS1s) as an adjunct to required basic life support training (BLST). The authors previously demonstrated improved knowledge and preparedness following in-personOOPT with BLST; however, it remains unclear whether online-administered OOPT would produce comparable results. In this study, the authors perform a retrospective comparison of online-administered OOPT with in-person-administered OOPT. Objectives: To compare the educational outcomes: knowledge, preparedness, and attitudes, for online versus in-personOOPT. Methods: In-personOOPT was administered in 2014 and 2015 during BLST, whereas online OOPT was administered in 2016 during BLST pre-work. MS1s completed pre- and post-training tests covering 3 measures: knowledge (11-point scale), attitudes (66-point scale), and preparedness (60-point scale) to respond to an opioid overdose. Online scores from 2016 and in-person scores from 2015 were compared across all 3 measures using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods. Results: After controlling for pre-test scores, there were statistical, but no meaningful, differences across all measures for in-person- and online-administered training. The estimated differences were knowledge: -0.05 (0.5%) points (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.47, 0.36); attitudes: 0.65 (1.0%) points (95% CI: -0.22, 1.51); and preparedness: 2.16 (3.6%) points (95% CI: 1.04, 3.28). Conclusions: The educational outcomes of online-administered OOPT compared with in-person-administered OOPT were not meaningfully different. These results support the use of online-administered OOPT. As our study was retrospective, based on data collected over multiple years, further investigation is needed in a randomized controlled setting, to better understand the educational differences of in-person and online training. Further expanding OOPT to populations beyond medical students would further improve generalizability.
Entities:
Keywords:
Medical education; naloxone; opioids; overdose; substance use disorders
Authors: David A Cook; Anthony J Levinson; Sarah Garside; Denise M Dupras; Patricia J Erwin; Victor M Montori Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-10 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Phillip O Coffin; Emily Behar; Christopher Rowe; Glenn-Milo Santos; Diana Coffa; Matthew Bald; Eric Vittinghoff Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-06-28 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Signe Rolskov Bojsen; Sune Bernd Emil Werner Räder; Anders Gaardsdal Holst; Lars Kayser; Charlotte Ringsted; Jesper Hastrup Svendsen; Lars Konge Journal: BMC Med Educ Date: 2015-03-07 Impact factor: 2.463
Authors: Tabitha E H Moses; Jody S Chou; Jessica L Moreno; Leslie H Lundahl; Eva Waineo; Mark K Greenwald Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2021-11-03 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Alexander J Savage; Patrick W McNamara; Thomas W Moncrieff; Gerard M O'Reilly Journal: Emerg Med Australas Date: 2022-02-27 Impact factor: 2.279