JMIR Med Educ. 2024 Oct 28;10:e54280. doi: 10.2196/54280.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Critical evaluation of naloxone coprescription academic detailing programs has been positive, but little research has focused on how participant thinking changes during academic detailing.
OBJECTIVE: The dual purposes of this study were to (1) present a metacognitive evaluation of a naloxone coprescription academic detailing intervention and (2) describe the application of a metacognitive evaluation for future medical education interventions.
METHODS: Data were obtained from a pre-post knowledge assessment of a web-based, self-paced intervention designed to increase knowledge of clinical and organizational best practices for the coprescription of naloxone. To assess metacognition, items were designed with confidence-weighted true-false scoring. Multiple metacognitive scores were calculated: 3 content knowledge scores and 5 confidence-weighted true-false scores. Statistical analysis examined whether there were significant differences in scores before and after intervention. Analysis of overall content knowledge showed significant improvement at posttest.
RESULTS: There was a significant positive increase in absolute accuracy of participant confidence judgments, confidence in correct probability, and confidence in incorrect probability (all P values were <.05). Overall, results suggest an improvement in content knowledge scores after intervention and, metacognitively, suggest that individuals were more confident in their answer choices, regardless of correctness.
CONCLUSIONS: Implications include the potential application of metacognitive evaluations to assess nuances in learner performance during academic detailing interventions and as a feedback mechanism to reinforce learning and guide curricular design.
PMID:39467302 | DOI:10.2196/54280
