Development and Pretesting of an Electronic Learning Module to Train Health Care Professionals on the Use of the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure to Assess Acute Asthma Severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Severity-specific guidelines based on the Pediatric Respiratory Assessment Measure (PRAM), a validated clinical score, reduce pediatric asthma hospitalization rates. OBJECTIVE: To develop, pretest the educational value of and revise an electronic learning module to train health care professionals on the use of the PRAM. METHODS: The respiratory efforts of 32 children with acute asthma were videotaped and pulmonary auscultation was recorded. A pilot module, composed of a tutorial and 18 clinical cases, was developed in French and English. Health care professionals completed the module and provided feedback. The performance of participants, case quality and difficulty, and learning curve were assessed using the Rasch test; quantitative and qualitative feedback served to revise the module. RESULTS: Seventy-two participants (19 physicians, 22 nurses, four respiratory therapists and 27 health care trainees) with a balanced distribution across self-declared expertise (26% beginner, 35% competent and 39% expert) were included. The accuracy of experts was superior to beginners (OR 1.79, 1.15 and 2.79, respectively). Overall performance significantly improved between the first and latter half of cases (P<0.001). Participants assessed the module to be clear (96%), relevant (98%), realistic (94%) and useful (99%) to learn the PRAM. The qualitative⁄quantitative analysis led to the deletion of three cases, modification of remaining cases to further enhance quality and reordering within three levels of difficulty. DISCUSSION: Using rigorous educational methods, an electronic module was developed to teach health care professionals on use of the PRAM score. Using the back-translation technique, both French and English versions were developed and validated simultaneously. The pilot module comprised a tutorial and three case-scenario sections, and was tested on a target audience of physicians, nurses, respiratory therapists and medical trainees. CONCLUSION: The final electronic learning module met the clarity and quality requirements of a good teaching tool, with a demonstrated learning effect and high appreciation by health care professionals. Available in French and English, it is offered to facilitate implementation of PRAM-based acute pediatric asthma guidelines.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".