MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2607325460 · doi:10.1080/08897077.2016.1275927

Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education: Increasing Dissemination with a Train-The-Trainer Program

2017· article· en· W2607325460 on OpenAlexaff
Lara Zisblatt, Sean M. Hayes, Patrice Lazure, Ilana Hardesty, Julie L. White, Daniel P. Alford

Bibliographic record

VenueSubstance Abuse · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOpioid Use Disorder Treatment
Canadian institutionsAxdev Group (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationTrainer(+)-NaloxoneOpioidOpioid abusePsychologyOpioid epidemicMedicineApplied psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Due to the high prevalence of prescription opioid misuse, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) mandated a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) requiring manufacturers of extended-release/long-acting (ER/LA) opioids to fund continuing education based on an FDA curricular Blueprint. This paper describes the Safe and Competent Opioid Prescribing Education (SCOPE of Pain) train-the-trainer program and its impact on (1) disseminating the SCOPE of Pain curriculum and (2) knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and performance of the participants of trainer-led compared with expert-led meetings. METHODS: SCOPE of Pain is a 3-hour ER/LA opioid REMS education. In addition to expert-led live statewide meetings, a 2-hour train-the-trainer (TTT) workshop was developed to increase dissemination nationally. The trainers were expected to conduct SCOPE of Pain meetings at their institutions. Participants of both the trainer-led and expert-led SCOPE of Pain programs were surveyed immediately post and 2 months post meetings to assess improvements in knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported safe opioid prescribing practices. RESULTS: During 9 months (May 2013 to February 2014), 89 trainers were trained during 9 TTT workshops in 9 states. Over 24 months (May 2013 to April 2015), 33% of the trainers conducted at least 1 SCOPE of Pain training, with a total of 79 meetings that educated 1419 participants. The average number of meetings of those who conducted at least 1 meeting was 2.8 (range: 1-19). The participants of the trainer-led programs were significantly more likely to be practicing in rural settings than those who participated in the expert-led meetings (39% vs. 26%, P < .001). At 2 months post training, there were no significant differences in improvements in participant knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and performance between expert-led and trainer-led meetings. CONCLUSIONS: The SCOPE of Pain TTT program holds promise as an effective dissemination strategy to increase guideline-based safe opioid prescribing knowledge, confidence, attitudes, and self-reported practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.458
Threshold uncertainty score0.456

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations35
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSubstance AbuseSame topicOpioid Use Disorder TreatmentFrench-language works237,207