牙医学专业学生过敏反应知识的评价需要更多的培训

IF 0.3 Q4 ALLERGY
A. Baccioglu, A. F. Kalpaklioglu, Dilek Çimşir
{"title":"牙医学专业学生过敏反应知识的评价需要更多的培训","authors":"A. Baccioglu, A. F. Kalpaklioglu, Dilek Çimşir","doi":"10.21911/aai.621","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: Anaphylaxis is a serious reaction that needs rapid intervention. However, some healthcare professionals may have inadequate knowledge about anaphylaxis to manage this situation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge about anaphylaxis in dentistry students (DS) in comparison with medical school ones (MS). Materials and Methods: Students were recruited from the Dentistry (n=81) and Medical (n=144) Faculties of the University Hospital. The level of knowledge about anaphylaxis was evaluated by using a questionnaire with 26 items that was used previously. Results: The overall response rate was 89.9%. One tenth of the study group had ever encountered a case with anaphylaxis, but 2.8% of them stated that they had involved in the treatment by themselves. Almost all of the participants stated that allergy might be a life-threatening reaction. Additionally, 43.3% reported that they had epinephrine in their department. DS knew less than MS about the primary use of epinephrine after assessing the airway, breathing and circulation in the treatment of anaphylaxis, and even in suspicious cases (59.3% vs. 98.6%, and 42% vs. 94.4%, all p<0.001). DS had significantly less knowledge about anaphylaxis treatment and epinephrine application than medical ones (all p <0.001). Furthermore, the information of that “the minimum duration for re-administration of epinephrine as 10 minutes” was known by the half of MS, and one fourth of DS (p<0.001). The appropriate follow-up duration of patients with anaphylaxis was unknown in half of DS, and one fifth of MS (p<0.001). Even though MS had a higher rate of knowledge about the responsible and closest department dealing with anaphylaxis than dental students (p=0.02), DS were more aware of referring the patient with anaphylaxis to an allergy clinic (77.8% vs. 62.9%, p<0.001). Almost all MS had heard about the epinephrine auto-injector, in contrast to one third of the DS (p<0.001). Most of the participants, but mainly the MS knew that anaphylaxis could be diagnosed clinically. The case questions about diagnosis of anaphylaxis related to local anesthetic and beta-lactam antibiotic use were answered correctly in a higher rate in MS than DS (p=0.01 and p<0.001), whereas the rate of correct diagnosis of anaphylaxis following a bee sting was similar between the groups. Conclusion: This study showed the gaps about the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis not only in MS, but also in dentistry ones. It is possible to encounter a case of anaphylaxis for every student during clinical practice in the future. Thus, education about anaphylaxis should be included in the national dentistry core education programme and be improved in the medical school as well. Keywords: Anaphylaxis, epinephrine, student, medical, denta","PeriodicalId":42004,"journal":{"name":"Astim Allerji Immunoloji","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Knowledge About Anaphylaxis in Dentistry and Medical Faculty Students; Need for More Training\",\"authors\":\"A. Baccioglu, A. F. Kalpaklioglu, Dilek Çimşir\",\"doi\":\"10.21911/aai.621\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective: Anaphylaxis is a serious reaction that needs rapid intervention. However, some healthcare professionals may have inadequate knowledge about anaphylaxis to manage this situation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge about anaphylaxis in dentistry students (DS) in comparison with medical school ones (MS). Materials and Methods: Students were recruited from the Dentistry (n=81) and Medical (n=144) Faculties of the University Hospital. The level of knowledge about anaphylaxis was evaluated by using a questionnaire with 26 items that was used previously. Results: The overall response rate was 89.9%. One tenth of the study group had ever encountered a case with anaphylaxis, but 2.8% of them stated that they had involved in the treatment by themselves. Almost all of the participants stated that allergy might be a life-threatening reaction. Additionally, 43.3% reported that they had epinephrine in their department. DS knew less than MS about the primary use of epinephrine after assessing the airway, breathing and circulation in the treatment of anaphylaxis, and even in suspicious cases (59.3% vs. 98.6%, and 42% vs. 94.4%, all p<0.001). DS had significantly less knowledge about anaphylaxis treatment and epinephrine application than medical ones (all p <0.001). Furthermore, the information of that “the minimum duration for re-administration of epinephrine as 10 minutes” was known by the half of MS, and one fourth of DS (p<0.001). The appropriate follow-up duration of patients with anaphylaxis was unknown in half of DS, and one fifth of MS (p<0.001). Even though MS had a higher rate of knowledge about the responsible and closest department dealing with anaphylaxis than dental students (p=0.02), DS were more aware of referring the patient with anaphylaxis to an allergy clinic (77.8% vs. 62.9%, p<0.001). Almost all MS had heard about the epinephrine auto-injector, in contrast to one third of the DS (p<0.001). Most of the participants, but mainly the MS knew that anaphylaxis could be diagnosed clinically. The case questions about diagnosis of anaphylaxis related to local anesthetic and beta-lactam antibiotic use were answered correctly in a higher rate in MS than DS (p=0.01 and p<0.001), whereas the rate of correct diagnosis of anaphylaxis following a bee sting was similar between the groups. Conclusion: This study showed the gaps about the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis not only in MS, but also in dentistry ones. It is possible to encounter a case of anaphylaxis for every student during clinical practice in the future. Thus, education about anaphylaxis should be included in the national dentistry core education programme and be improved in the medical school as well. Keywords: Anaphylaxis, epinephrine, student, medical, denta\",\"PeriodicalId\":42004,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Astim Allerji Immunoloji\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-12-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Astim Allerji Immunoloji\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21911/aai.621\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"ALLERGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Astim Allerji Immunoloji","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21911/aai.621","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"ALLERGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:过敏反应是一种需要快速干预的严重反应。然而,一些医疗保健专业人员可能对过敏反应的了解不足,无法应对这种情况。本研究的目的是评估牙科学生(DS)与医学院学生(MS)对过敏反应的认识水平。材料和方法:学生来自大学医院牙医学院(n=81)和医学院(n=144)。通过使用一份包含26个项目的问卷来评估过敏反应的知识水平。结果:总有效率为89.9%。十分之一的研究组曾遇到过敏反应,但2.8%的研究组表示自己参与了治疗。几乎所有的参与者都表示过敏可能是一种危及生命的反应。此外,43.3%的患者报告他们所在科室有肾上腺素。在评估了过敏反应治疗中的气道、呼吸和循环,甚至在可疑病例中,DS对肾上腺素的主要用途的了解少于MS(59.3%对98.6%,42%对94.4%,均p<0.001)。DS对过敏反应治疗和肾上腺素应用的知识明显少于医学知识(均p<0.01)。此外,一半的MS和四分之一的DS知道“再给药肾上腺素的最短持续时间为10分钟”的信息(p<0.001)。一半的DS不知道过敏反应患者的适当随访时间,和五分之一的MS(p<0.001)。尽管MS对处理过敏反应的责任部门和最接近的部门的了解率高于牙科学生(p=0.02),但DS更清楚地将过敏反应患者转诊到过敏诊所(77.8%对62.9%,p>0.001)。几乎所有MS都听说过肾上腺素自动注射器,与三分之一的DS相比(p<0.001)。大多数参与者,但主要是MS,都知道过敏反应可以在临床上诊断。关于诊断与局部麻醉剂和β-内酰胺类抗生素使用有关的过敏反应的病例问题,MS的正确回答率高于DS(p=0.01和p<0.001),而蜜蜂蜇伤后过敏反应的正确诊断率在两组之间相似。结论:本研究不仅在MS过敏反应的诊断和治疗方面存在空白,在牙科过敏反应的治疗方面也存在空白。在未来的临床实践中,每个学生都有可能遇到过敏反应。因此,有关过敏反应的教育应纳入国家牙科核心教育计划,并在医学院得到改进。关键词:过敏反应,肾上腺素,学生,医学,牙科
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of Knowledge About Anaphylaxis in Dentistry and Medical Faculty Students; Need for More Training
Objective: Anaphylaxis is a serious reaction that needs rapid intervention. However, some healthcare professionals may have inadequate knowledge about anaphylaxis to manage this situation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the level of knowledge about anaphylaxis in dentistry students (DS) in comparison with medical school ones (MS). Materials and Methods: Students were recruited from the Dentistry (n=81) and Medical (n=144) Faculties of the University Hospital. The level of knowledge about anaphylaxis was evaluated by using a questionnaire with 26 items that was used previously. Results: The overall response rate was 89.9%. One tenth of the study group had ever encountered a case with anaphylaxis, but 2.8% of them stated that they had involved in the treatment by themselves. Almost all of the participants stated that allergy might be a life-threatening reaction. Additionally, 43.3% reported that they had epinephrine in their department. DS knew less than MS about the primary use of epinephrine after assessing the airway, breathing and circulation in the treatment of anaphylaxis, and even in suspicious cases (59.3% vs. 98.6%, and 42% vs. 94.4%, all p<0.001). DS had significantly less knowledge about anaphylaxis treatment and epinephrine application than medical ones (all p <0.001). Furthermore, the information of that “the minimum duration for re-administration of epinephrine as 10 minutes” was known by the half of MS, and one fourth of DS (p<0.001). The appropriate follow-up duration of patients with anaphylaxis was unknown in half of DS, and one fifth of MS (p<0.001). Even though MS had a higher rate of knowledge about the responsible and closest department dealing with anaphylaxis than dental students (p=0.02), DS were more aware of referring the patient with anaphylaxis to an allergy clinic (77.8% vs. 62.9%, p<0.001). Almost all MS had heard about the epinephrine auto-injector, in contrast to one third of the DS (p<0.001). Most of the participants, but mainly the MS knew that anaphylaxis could be diagnosed clinically. The case questions about diagnosis of anaphylaxis related to local anesthetic and beta-lactam antibiotic use were answered correctly in a higher rate in MS than DS (p=0.01 and p<0.001), whereas the rate of correct diagnosis of anaphylaxis following a bee sting was similar between the groups. Conclusion: This study showed the gaps about the diagnosis and management of anaphylaxis not only in MS, but also in dentistry ones. It is possible to encounter a case of anaphylaxis for every student during clinical practice in the future. Thus, education about anaphylaxis should be included in the national dentistry core education programme and be improved in the medical school as well. Keywords: Anaphylaxis, epinephrine, student, medical, denta
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊介绍: Asthma Allergy Immunology has been published three times a year in April, August and December as the official and periodical journal of the Turkish National Society of Allergy and Clinical Immunology since 2003. All articles published in the journal have been available online since 2003. A peer reviewed system is used in evaluation of the manuscripts submitted to Asthma Allergy Immunology. The official language of the journal is English. The aim of the journal is to present advances in the field of allergic diseases and clinical immunology to the readers. In accordance with this goal, manuscripts in the format of original research, review, case report, articles about clinical and practical applications and editorials, short report and letters to the editor about allergic diseases and clinical immunology are published in the journal. The target reader population of the Asthma Allergy Immunology includes specialists and residents of allergy and clinical immunology, pulmonology, internal medicine, pediatrics, dermatology and otolaryngology as well as physicians working in other fields of medicine interested in allergy and immunological diseases.
×
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