Use of "Bug-in-the-Ear" Technology in Improving Pediatric Residents' Skills in Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD.

IF 3 3区医学 Q1 PEDIATRICS

Academic Pediatrics Pub Date : 2025-01-20 DOI:10.1016/j.acap.2025.102781

Alexa Coon, Diane Langkamp, Miraides Brown, Beth Wildman

{"title":"Use of \"Bug-in-the-Ear\" Technology in Improving Pediatric Residents' Skills in Diagnosis and Treatment of ADHD.","authors":"Alexa Coon, Diane Langkamp, Miraides Brown, Beth Wildman","doi":"10.1016/j.acap.2025.102781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To improve pediatric residents' skills in the diagnosis and treatment of children with ADHD by giving real-time feedback utilizing Bug-in-the-Ear technology (BIE).Methods: This prospective, controlled study had 2 treatment groups and 3 standardized patient (SP) sessions. Session-1 was baseline. In Session-2, the intervention group (IG) received feedback via BIE and the control group (CG) received traditional feedback. Session-3 (3 months later) assessed maintenance of skills, and neither group used BIE. Sessions were recorded and scored by research assistants trained with a novel scoring system called the Clinical Practice Index (CPI). The CPI is an observational instrument based on current AAP ADHD guidelines and DSM-5 criteria for ADHD and was reviewed by content experts in ADHD. CPI scores were analyzed using Repeated Measures ANOVA.Results: Twenty-five pediatric residents participated; 13 in the CG and 12 in the IG. Maximum obtainable CPI score was 44 points. The IG showed a significant increase in their CPI score from Session-1 to Session-3 (8.27, p<0.001). The CG's CPI scores from Session-1 to Session-3 did not change significantly (2.85, p=0.536). The IG and CG CPI scores were significantly different at Session-2 (11.7, p<0.001), but not Session-3 (5.03, p=0.1407).Conclusion: Immediate feedback via BIE showed significant improvement in the IG's skills in Session-2 and the IG's mean difference between Session-1 and Session-3. One exposure of BIE was not sufficient for the IG to maintain their skills, and further research is warranted to determine the number of BIE exposures needed for greater maintenance of skills.","PeriodicalId":50930,"journal":{"name":"Academic Pediatrics","volume":" ","pages":"102781"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Academic Pediatrics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2025.102781","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PEDIATRICS","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To improve pediatric residents' skills in the diagnosis and treatment of children with ADHD by giving real-time feedback utilizing Bug-in-the-Ear technology (BIE).

Methods: This prospective, controlled study had 2 treatment groups and 3 standardized patient (SP) sessions. Session-1 was baseline. In Session-2, the intervention group (IG) received feedback via BIE and the control group (CG) received traditional feedback. Session-3 (3 months later) assessed maintenance of skills, and neither group used BIE. Sessions were recorded and scored by research assistants trained with a novel scoring system called the Clinical Practice Index (CPI). The CPI is an observational instrument based on current AAP ADHD guidelines and DSM-5 criteria for ADHD and was reviewed by content experts in ADHD. CPI scores were analyzed using Repeated Measures ANOVA.

Results: Twenty-five pediatric residents participated; 13 in the CG and 12 in the IG. Maximum obtainable CPI score was 44 points. The IG showed a significant increase in their CPI score from Session-1 to Session-3 (8.27, p<0.001). The CG's CPI scores from Session-1 to Session-3 did not change significantly (2.85, p=0.536). The IG and CG CPI scores were significantly different at Session-2 (11.7, p<0.001), but not Session-3 (5.03, p=0.1407).

Conclusion: Immediate feedback via BIE showed significant improvement in the IG's skills in Session-2 and the IG's mean difference between Session-1 and Session-3. One exposure of BIE was not sufficient for the IG to maintain their skills, and further research is warranted to determine the number of BIE exposures needed for greater maintenance of skills.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Academic Pediatrics PEDIATRICS-

CiteScore

4.60

自引率

12.90%

发文量

300

审稿时长

60 days

期刊介绍： Academic Pediatrics, the official journal of the Academic Pediatric Association, is a peer-reviewed publication whose purpose is to strengthen the research and educational base of academic general pediatrics. The journal provides leadership in pediatric education, research, patient care and advocacy. Content areas include pediatric education, emergency medicine, injury, abuse, behavioral pediatrics, holistic medicine, child health services and health policy,and the environment. The journal provides an active forum for the presentation of pediatric educational research in diverse settings, involving medical students, residents, fellows, and practicing professionals. The journal also emphasizes important research relating to the quality of child health care, health care policy, and the organization of child health services. It also includes systematic reviews of primary care interventions and important methodologic papers to aid research in child health and education.