Kings County Hospital, SUNY Downstate Medical Center , Brooklyn , New York , USA.
Department of Emergency Medicine and Toxicology, New York University School of Medicine , New York , New York , USA.
Subst Abus. 2019;40(2):240-246. doi: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1572048. Epub 2019 Feb 15.
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. To compare the educational outcomes: knowledge, preparedness, and attitudes, for online versus in-person OOPT. 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. 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). 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.
针对阿片类药物流行和在医学院扩大药物使用教育的努力，作者为所有一年级医学生（MS1）引入了纳洛酮辅助的阿片类药物过量预防培训（OOPT），作为基本生命支持培训（BLST）的补充。作者之前已经证明，在进行面对面的 OOPT 与 BLST 培训后，知识和准备情况得到了改善；然而，在线管理的 OOPT 是否会产生类似的结果仍不清楚。在这项研究中，作者对在线管理的 OOPT 与面对面管理的 OOPT 进行了回顾性比较。比较在线与面对面 OOPT 的教育结果：知识、准备情况和态度。面对面的 OOPT 于 2014 年和 2015 年在 BLST 期间进行，而在线 OOPT 于 2016 年在 BLST 前工作期间进行。MS1 完成了涵盖 3 项措施的培训前和培训后测试：知识（11 分制）、态度（66 分制）和应对阿片类药物过量的准备情况（60 分制）。使用协方差分析（ANCOVA）方法比较 2016 年在线分数和 2015 年面对面分数在所有 3 项措施上的差异。在控制了前测分数后，面对面和在线管理的培训在所有措施上都存在统计学差异，但没有实际意义。估计的差异为知识：-0.05（0.5%）点（95%置信区间[CI]：-0.47，0.36）；态度：0.65（1.0%）点（95% CI：-0.22，1.51）；和准备情况：2.16（3.6%）点（95% CI：1.04，3.28）。在线管理的 OOPT 的教育结果与面对面管理的 OOPT 没有明显差异。这些结果支持使用在线管理的 OOPT。由于我们的研究是回顾性的，基于多年收集的数据，需要在随机对照环境中进行进一步调查，以更好地了解面对面和在线培训的教育差异。进一步将 OOPT 扩展到医学生以外的人群将进一步提高普遍性。
