“The ABCs of AD”: A prospective evaluation of the efficacy of an educational intervention to increase knowledge of autonomic dysreflexia management among emergency health care professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT/OBJECTIVE: Despite the availability of consensus-based resources, first responders and emergency room (ER) health care professionals (HCPs) have limited knowledge regarding autonomic dysreflexia (AD) recognition and treatment. The purpose of this study was to assess the efficacy of "The ABCs of AD" educational seminar for improving HCPs' short- and long-term knowledge of AD recognition, diagnosis, and management. DESIGN: Multi-center prospective pre, post, and follow-up questionnaire study. SETTING: Level I trauma centers with emergency departments in British Columbia, Manitoba, and Ontario. METHODS: ER professionals completed measures immediately before and after (n = 108), as well as 3-months following (n = 23), attendance at "The ABCs of AD" seminar. OUTCOME MEASURES: AD knowledge test; seminar feedback. RESULTS: Following the seminar, participants had higher ratings of their AD knowledge and had significantly higher AD knowledge test scores (M ± SD pre = 11.85 ± 3.88, M ± SD post = 18.95 ± 2.39, out of 22; P < 0.001, d = 2.21). Most participants believed the seminar changed their AD knowledge, and rated the seminar information as having the potential to influence and change their practice. AD knowledge test scores significantly decreased between post-seminar and 3-month follow-up (M ± SD 3mo = 17.04 ± 3.28; P = 0.004, d = -0.70); however, 3-month scores remained significantly higher than baseline. CONCLUSION: "The ABCs of AD" seminar improves HCPs' perceived and actual AD knowledge in the short-term. To enhance knowledge retention in both the short- and long-term, the inclusion of additional active learning strategies and follow-up activities are recommended. The seminar is being translated into an online training module to enhance the dissemination of the AD clinical practice guidelines among first responders, ER staff, and SCI practitioners.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".