Knowledge of health professional students on waterpipe tobacco smoking: curricula implications
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Tobacco prevention research traditionally focuses upon cigarette smoking, but there is also a need to implement and evaluate the usefulness of waterpipe tobacco smoking (WTS) interventions since it is considered less harmful than cigarettes. This study aimed to assess the impact of an educational intervention on WTS knowledge of health professional students in three academic health institutions in Bahrain. METHODS: A quasi-experimental design was used to include medical students from the Arabian Gulf University, medical and nursing students from the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland-Bahrain and nursing students from the University of Bahrain. Two hundred fifty students participated in the three phases of the study during October 2015-June 2016 from an original sample of 335. The participants answered knowledge questions on WTS before and after an intervention, which included a lecture by an expert and a video on the awareness about the health hazards of WTS. RESULTS: The mean age of starting cigarette and WTS was 16.8 ± 2.8 and 17.5 ± 1.7 years, respectively. The prevalence of ever smoking any type of tobacco among students was 22.4% (medical 25.8% and nursing 37.5%) and that of WTS, 17.7% (medical 20.0%, nursing 13.6%). The prevalence of current cigarette smoking was 9.6% among medical and nursing students combined with 10.3 and 8.5% for medical and nursing students, respectively. WTS was prevalent at a proportion of 6.8% among medical and nursing students combined with 6.5% in medical and 14.8% in nursing students. The university curriculum as the main source of knowledge on WTS increased from 14.2 to 33.3% after the intervention (p < 0.005). Knowledge about the hazards of WTS increased in 16 of the 20 statements. The difference in overall knowledge score was significant (p < 0.05) for nursing (77. 5 ± 1.5 vs 85.8 ± 2.2) compared to medical students (85.3 ± 1.0 vs 87.3 ± 0.9) after the intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Our educational intervention with health professional students improved their knowledge about the health effects of WTS. Medical and nursing institutions may consider using various methods such as informative videos and expert lectures to include in their teaching curricula as part of WTS prevention strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».