Effectiveness study of an online anaphylaxis training program for school personnel: overview of methods for a pilot study in a large Canadian school board
Bibliographic record
Abstract
All school personnel in Ontario need to be trained to recognize anaphylaxis, manage an anaphylactic reaction including the administration of an epinephrine auto-injector, and be aware of risk reduction strategies in their school. Training capacity is limited and costly; an online training program offers a potentially efficient, effective and cost-effective model for human resource training. To determine if an online anaphylaxis training program is effective for improving school personnel’s knowledge of anaphylaxis and required skills to recognize and respond to an anaphylactic reaction. Setting and Participants: A sample of volunteer personnel using the Toronto District School Board’s learning management system representing the key roles/positions employed within the Board. 72 participants will be recruited, comprised of 60 school-based staff (20 secondary school staff, 40 elementary school staff) and 12 administrative staff (e.g. vice-principals). Design : Prospective pretest/immediate post-test/delayed post-test educational research effectiveness study. Intervention : A 45 minute online training program on anaphylaxis, based on the second edition of the handbook, Anaphylaxis in Schools and Other Settings (2005-2009, CSACI) and training materials from Anaphylaxis Canada, and adapted for e-learning using best practices in multimedia training. Primary Outcomes: In addition to self-report of learning satisfaction and self-efficacy, knowledge acquisition and retention will be assessed via pretest, immediate post-test, and delayed post-test. Skills to recognize an anaphylactic reaction and administer an epinephrine auto-injector will be assessed by scenario-based questions and tasks. Utilization and completion rates of the program, as well as time on task, will be measured by the Learning Management System. Analysis : Repeated measures ANCOVA will be performed with co-variates of time on task, and pretest score to control for prior knowledge.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".