Teaching Internal Medicine Residents to Critically Appraise the Role of Race in Pulmonary Function Testing.

Q3 Medicine
Ananya Bhatia-Lin, Nirav Bhakta, Neha Deshpande, Laura Granados, Rosemary Adamson
{"title":"Teaching Internal Medicine Residents to Critically Appraise the Role of Race in Pulmonary Function Testing.","authors":"Ananya Bhatia-Lin, Nirav Bhakta, Neha Deshpande, Laura Granados, Rosemary Adamson","doi":"10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11498","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Race-specific equations for spirometry reference values are one example of race-specific algorithms traditionally used in medicine. The American Thoracic Society now recommends use of race-neutral reference equations instead of race-specific equations. However, no published curricula on interpretation of spirometry using race-based compared to race-neutral reference equations exist. We developed a curriculum for internal medicine residents to address this gap and equip providers to interpret spirometry in a race-conscious fashion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>An internal medicine resident and an attending in pulmonary medicine developed the curriculum and invited other experts to review and edit the material. The internal medicine resident delivered an hour-long, interactive, slide-based, didactic presentation during a weekly, residency-wide videoconference to 45 participants. The presentation included the following components: (1) history of spirometry and race, (2) race-specific equations, (3) race-neutral equations, and (4) clinical implications. The presentation opened with a clinical case and small-group discussions. We conducted pre- and posttest surveys; the posttest survey was designed using the Kirkpatrick model to assess reaction, learning, and anticipated behavioral change. Mean score differences were evaluated for level 2 questions using Cohen's <i>d</i> effect size.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty-eight respondents completed the pretest survey, and 24 completed the posttest survey. Test scores significantly improved after session participation, with Cohen's <i>d</i> ranging from 0.27 to 1.17.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>This curriculum was successful in engaging participants in critically appraising race-based interpretations of pulmonary function testing. The structure of the curriculum could be repurposed to create didactic content on other examples of race-based clinical algorithms.</p>","PeriodicalId":36910,"journal":{"name":"MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources","volume":"21 ","pages":"11498"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11839840/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MedEdPORTAL : the journal of teaching and learning resources","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15766/mep_2374-8265.11498","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Race-specific equations for spirometry reference values are one example of race-specific algorithms traditionally used in medicine. The American Thoracic Society now recommends use of race-neutral reference equations instead of race-specific equations. However, no published curricula on interpretation of spirometry using race-based compared to race-neutral reference equations exist. We developed a curriculum for internal medicine residents to address this gap and equip providers to interpret spirometry in a race-conscious fashion.

Methods: An internal medicine resident and an attending in pulmonary medicine developed the curriculum and invited other experts to review and edit the material. The internal medicine resident delivered an hour-long, interactive, slide-based, didactic presentation during a weekly, residency-wide videoconference to 45 participants. The presentation included the following components: (1) history of spirometry and race, (2) race-specific equations, (3) race-neutral equations, and (4) clinical implications. The presentation opened with a clinical case and small-group discussions. We conducted pre- and posttest surveys; the posttest survey was designed using the Kirkpatrick model to assess reaction, learning, and anticipated behavioral change. Mean score differences were evaluated for level 2 questions using Cohen's d effect size.

Results: Thirty-eight respondents completed the pretest survey, and 24 completed the posttest survey. Test scores significantly improved after session participation, with Cohen's d ranging from 0.27 to 1.17.

Discussion: This curriculum was successful in engaging participants in critically appraising race-based interpretations of pulmonary function testing. The structure of the curriculum could be repurposed to create didactic content on other examples of race-based clinical algorithms.

教导内科住院医师批判性地评价种族在肺功能检查中的作用。
介绍:肺量测定参考值的种族特异性方程是传统医学中使用的种族特异性算法的一个例子。美国胸科学会现在建议使用种族中立的参考方程,而不是种族特定的方程。然而,目前还没有出版的关于使用基于种族的参考方程与种族中立的参考方程来解释肺活量测定的课程。我们为内科住院医师开发了一个课程,以解决这一差距,并使提供者能够以种族意识的方式解释肺活量测定。方法:由一名内科住院医师和一名肺内科主治医师编写课程,并邀请其他专家审阅和编辑教材。在每周一次的全院范围的视频会议上,内科住院医师向45名参与者发表了长达一小时的互动式、基于幻灯片的教学演讲。该报告包括以下内容:(1)肺量测定和种族史,(2)种族特异性方程,(3)种族中性方程,(4)临床意义。报告以一个临床病例和小组讨论开始。我们进行了测试前后的调查;测试后调查采用柯克帕特里克模型来评估反应、学习和预期的行为改变。使用Cohen's d效应量评估二级问题的平均分差异。结果:38人完成了测前调查,24人完成了测后调查。参加会议后,考试成绩显著提高,科恩的d值在0.27到1.17之间。讨论:本课程成功地吸引了参与者批判性地评价基于种族的肺功能测试解释。课程结构可以重新调整,以创建基于种族的临床算法的其他例子的教学内容。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
83
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信