Effect of Different Single-Session Educational Modalities on Improving Medical Students' Ability to Demonstrate Proper Pressurized Metered Dose Inhaler Technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Pressurized metered dose inhalers (pMDIs) remain important therapeutic options for obstructive lung diseases. The ability to instruct and evaluate inhaler technique is a crucial skill that all medical professionals should possess; unfortunately, many professionals lack proficiency with pMDIs. We aimed to determine if brief education interventions of differing modalities can positively affect medical students' skills over the long term. METHODS: The baseline ability of medical students and first year residents to use pMDIs was scored via a 10-point scoring system. Students were randomized to receive no education, one-on-one instruction, or video instruction. Students were then retested immediately after the education and at the 3-month mark for retention of acquired skills. RESULTS: Video, one-on-one and the placebo groups modalities statistically improved the average medical student's score in the immediate retesting (7.5 and 7.4 vs. 4.7, p < .01, respectively). Moreover, the proportion of passing grades at the immediate recall significantly improved for both modalities. During retention testing, only video education had a statistically significant improvement in pass rate over the control group, as defined by an average score of 7 or better (8 vs. 1, p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: One-on-one teaching and video education were able to improve medical students' ability to use pMDIs in short-term testing. However, only video education retained significant improvement compared with control after 3 months. This suggests that compared with traditional one-on-one teaching, video education is an effective means of teaching medical students how to improve their pMDI technique.
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 | 0.000 | 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".