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

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.