Knowledge and confidence in managing obstructive sleep apnea patients in Canadian otolaryngology - head and neck surgery residents: A cross sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea is an expected competency for Otolaryngology - Head and Neck surgery residents and tested on the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons examination. Our objective was to evaluate the knowledge, attitudes and confidence of Canadian Otolaryngology - Head and Neck surgery residents in managing Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) patients. METHODS: An anonymous, online, cross-sectional survey was distributed to all current Canadian Otolaryngology-Head and Neck surgery residents according to the Dillman Tailored Design Method in English and French. The previously validated OSA Knowledge and Attitudes (OSAKA) questionnaire was administered, along with questions exploring resident confidence levels with performing OSA surgeries. Descriptive statistics, Wilcoxon Rank Sum and unpaired Student's t tests were calculated in Excel. RESULTS: Sixty-six (38.4%) out of 172 residents responded (60.6% male; 80.3% English-speaking). Median OSAKA knowledge score was 16/18 (88.9%; Interquartile range: 14-16). Although all respondents believed that OSA was an important clinical disorder, only 45.5% of residents felt confident in managing OSA patients, while only 15.2% were confident in managing continuous positive airway pressure therapy (CPAP). Senior residents were more confident than junior residents in identifying OSA patients (96.7% vs 69.4%; p < 0.005) and managing the disease (60.0% vs. 33.3%; p = 0.03), including CPAP (26.7% vs. 5.6%; p = 0.01). Residents had lowest confidence levels in performing tongue base suspension (1.5%), transpalatal advancement pharyngoplasty (3.0%), and laser assisted uvulopalatoplasty (6.1%). Highest confidence levels were described in performing septoplasty (56.1%), adult tonsillectomy (75.8%), and tracheotomy (77.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Otolaryngology - Head and Neck surgery residents' knowledge of OSA was very good; however, confidence levels for managing OSA and performing OSA surgeries were varied. Several areas of perceived strengths and weaknesses in OSA training were identified by Canadian Otolaryngology - Head and Neck surgery residents.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".