Online food allergy and anaphylaxis education for school personnel is effective and scalable: experience with the allergyaware e-learning portal from 2015 to 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Providing training to school personnel on how to prevent, recognize, and manage anaphylaxis is critical. Asynchronous e-learning (where instructional material is available on-demand) may be well-suited to help with the implementation, scale, and dissemination of this training. In this paper, we report on the design, pilot testing, widespread implementation, and evaluation of an online course for school personnel. METHODS: Best practices in evidence-based instructional design for e-learning were incorporated into the course. Content was based on consensus guidelines and reviewed by experts. Initial pilot testing demonstrated large gains in post-course knowledge and self-confidence, as well as several suggestions for improvement. A website was developed to facilitate self-enrolment and delivery of the course modules in 2015 and has since been freely available. RESULTS: From 2015 to 2022 there have been over 170,000 course completions, with over one quarter of users completing the course more than once. Most completions occur at the start of the school year in the month of September. The median time to completion was about 25–30 min. Post-course participant self-reported confidence with epinephrine auto-injectors (EAIs) and emergency management of anaphylaxis was very high, and over 95% of participants would recommend the course to others. The average score on the 10-item post-course quiz was 9.05, with a pass rate of over 95%. CONCLUSIONS: The AllergyAware e-learning course for school personnel is highly satisfactory to users, with high post-course quiz performance and self-reported confidence in anaphylaxis management. It provides a scalable and accessible approach to training school personnel on this critical topic. Future research is needed to assess participants’ application of knowledge in real-world settings. TRIAL REGISTRY: The Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board reviewed the study protocol and granted exemption from full review per their review process, as this was considered a quality improvement initiative.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".