Use of online opioid overdose prevention training for first-year medical students: A comparative analysis of online versus in-person training. Issue 2 (3rd April 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Berland, Noah; Lugassy, Daniel; Fox, Aaron; Goldfeld, Keith; Oh, So-Young; Tofighi, Babak; Hanley, Kathleen
• Is Part Of: Substance abuse. Volume 40:Issue 2(2019)
• Page Start: 240
• Page End: 246
• Publication Date: 2019-04-03
• Subjects: Medical education -- naloxone -- opioids -- overdose -- substance use disorders; Substance abuse -- Periodicals; Medical education -- Periodicals; Education, Medical -- periodicals; Substance Abuse -- periodicals; 362.29
• DOI: 10.1080/08897077.2019.1572048
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0889-7077

Abstract

Abstract: Purpose: In response to the opioid epidemic and efforts to expand substance use education in medical school, the authors introduced opioid overdose prevention training (OOPT) with naloxone for all first-year medical students (MS1s) as an adjunct to required basic life support training (BLST). The authors previously demonstrated improved knowledge and preparedness following in-person OOPT with BLST; however, it remains unclear whether online-administered OOPT would produce comparable results. In this study, the authors perform a retrospective comparison of online-administered OOPT with in-person-administered OOPT. Objectives: To compare the educational outcomes: knowledge, preparedness, and attitudes, for online versus in-person OOPT. Methods: In-person OOPT was administered in 2014 and 2015 during BLST, whereas online OOPT was administered in 2016 during BLST pre-work. MS1s completed pre- and post-training tests covering 3 measures: knowledge (11-point scale), attitudes (66-point scale), and preparedness (60-point scale) to respond to an opioid overdose. Online scores from 2016 and in-person scores from 2015 were compared across all 3 measures using analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) methods. Results: After controlling for pre-test scores, there were statistical, but no meaningful, differences across all measures for in-person- and online-administered training. The estimated differences were knowledge: −0.05 (0.5%) points (95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.47, 0.36); attitudes: 0.65 (1.0%) points (95% CI: −0.22, 1.51); and preparedness: 2.16 (3.6%) points (95% CI: 1.04, 3.28). Conclusions: The educational outcomes of online-administered OOPT compared with in-person-administered OOPT were not meaningfully different. These results support the use of online-administered OOPT. As our study was retrospective, based on data collected over multiple years, further investigation is needed in a randomized controlled setting, to better understand the educational differences of in-person and online training. Further expanding OOPT to populations beyond medical students would further improve generalizability.