Non-Inferiority of Online Compared With In-Person Opioid Overdose Prevention Training in Medical Students.

Noah Berland, Aaron D Fox, Keith Goldfeld, Andrea Greene, Daniel Lugassy, Kathleen Hanley, Ian S deSouza
{"title":"Non-Inferiority of Online Compared With In-Person Opioid Overdose Prevention Training in Medical Students.","authors":"Noah Berland, Aaron D Fox, Keith Goldfeld, Andrea Greene, Daniel Lugassy, Kathleen Hanley, Ian S deSouza","doi":"10.1177/29767342251328755","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Drug overdose deaths have increased fivefold over the last 20 years, primarily fueled by synthetic opioids, which led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to declare an opioid overdose epidemic. Responding to this epidemic, we designed and implemented opioid overdose prevention (OOP) training for medical students to help promote effective naloxone usage. Previously, we compared online and in-person versions of OOP training over 2 years of training. To better establish the evidence for online training, we performed a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing in-person with online opioid prevention training.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Third-year medical students were randomized into groups to receive either in-person or online training in preparation for clinical rotations. Students randomized to receive online training were provided a link to the training modules. Students randomized to receive in-person training were trained in an in-person setting. We performed a non-inferiority per-protocol analysis with the primary outcome of knowledge using a non-inferiority margin of a -9.1% difference between groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 205 students were randomized, 103 students to in-person training and 102 to online training. Eighty-three in-person students and 104 online students were included. The online group had a higher post-training knowledge score compared to the in-person group by 0.44 points (0-11 point scale) with a 95% CI of (-0.04, 0.93) that did not cross the margin of non-inferiority.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Online training for OOP was effective and non-inferior to in-person training. Online OOP training may be considered an alternative to in-person training.</p>","PeriodicalId":516535,"journal":{"name":"Substance use & addiction journal","volume":" ","pages":"29767342251328755"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Substance use & addiction journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/29767342251328755","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Drug overdose deaths have increased fivefold over the last 20 years, primarily fueled by synthetic opioids, which led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to declare an opioid overdose epidemic. Responding to this epidemic, we designed and implemented opioid overdose prevention (OOP) training for medical students to help promote effective naloxone usage. Previously, we compared online and in-person versions of OOP training over 2 years of training. To better establish the evidence for online training, we performed a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial comparing in-person with online opioid prevention training.

Methods: Third-year medical students were randomized into groups to receive either in-person or online training in preparation for clinical rotations. Students randomized to receive online training were provided a link to the training modules. Students randomized to receive in-person training were trained in an in-person setting. We performed a non-inferiority per-protocol analysis with the primary outcome of knowledge using a non-inferiority margin of a -9.1% difference between groups.

Results: A total of 205 students were randomized, 103 students to in-person training and 102 to online training. Eighty-three in-person students and 104 online students were included. The online group had a higher post-training knowledge score compared to the in-person group by 0.44 points (0-11 point scale) with a 95% CI of (-0.04, 0.93) that did not cross the margin of non-inferiority.

Conclusions: Online training for OOP was effective and non-inferior to in-person training. Online OOP training may be considered an alternative to in-person training.

背景:在过去的 20 年里,药物过量致死的人数增加了五倍,这主要是由合成类阿片引起的,这导致美国疾病控制和预防中心宣布阿片类药物过量流行。为了应对这一流行病,我们为医科学生设计并实施了阿片类药物过量预防(OOP)培训,以帮助促进纳洛酮的有效使用。此前,我们曾在两年的培训过程中比较了在线和面对面版本的 OOP 培训。为了更好地确定在线培训的证据,我们进行了一项随机对照非劣效性试验,比较了面对面培训和在线阿片类药物预防培训:方法:三年级医学生被随机分为两组,分别接受面对面或在线培训,为临床轮转做准备。随机接受在线培训的学生将获得培训模块的链接。随机接受现场培训的学生则在现场接受培训。我们进行了非劣效性协议分析,主要结果为知识,非劣效性差异为组间-9.1%:共有 205 名学生接受了随机培训,其中 103 名学生接受了面对面培训,102 名学生接受了在线培训。其中包括 83 名面授学员和 104 名在线学员。在线组的培训后知识得分比面授组高 0.44 分(0-11 分制),95% CI 为 (-0.04, 0.93),未超过非劣效区:结论:OOP 在线培训效果显著,且不逊于面对面培训。在线 OOP 培训可作为面对面培训的替代方案。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信