Dataset Information

Comparisons of two diaphragm ultrasound-teaching programs: a multicenter randomized controlled educational study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:This study aims to ascertain whether (1) an educational program is sufficient to achieve adequate Diaphragm Ultrasound (DUS) assessments on healthy volunteers and (2) combining a video tutorial with a practical session is more effective in making learners capable to obtain accurate DUS measurements, as opposed to sole video tutorial. RESULTS:We enrolledstep 1: 172 volunteers naïve to ultrasound. After watching a video tutorial, a questionnaire was administered and considered to be passed when at least 70% of the questions were correctly answered. Course participants who passed the theoretical test were randomized to either intervention or control group. Learners randomized to the interventional group underwent to a practical training, tutored by an expert, before accessing DUS examination. Participants randomized to the control group directly accessed DUS examination, without any practical training. DUS measurements by learners and tutors were recorded and checked for accuracy, according to predefined criteria. Detection of both acoustic windows and accurate DUS assessment was achieved by 83.7% learners of the intervention group while 3.5% only among controls (p?

SUBMITTER: Garofalo E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6775177 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparisons of two diaphragm ultrasound-teaching programs: a multicenter randomized controlled educational study.

Garofalo Eugenio E Bruni Andrea A Pelaia Corrado C Landoni Giovanni G Zangrillo Alberto A Antonelli Massimo M Conti Giorgio G Biasucci Daniele Guerino DG Mercurio Giovanna G Cortegiani Andrea A Giarratano Antonino A Vetrugno Luigi L Bove Tiziana T Forfori Francesco F Corradi Francesco F Vaschetto Rosanna R Cammarota Gianmaria G Astuto Marinella M Murabito Paolo P Bellini Valentina V Zambon Massimo M Longhini Federico F Navalesi Paolo P Bignami Elena E

The ultrasound journal 20191003 1

<h4>Background</h4>This study aims to ascertain whether (1) an educational program is sufficient to achieve adequate Diaphragm Ultrasound (DUS) assessments on healthy volunteers and (2) combining a video tutorial with a practical session is more effective in making learners capable to obtain accurate DUS measurements, as opposed to sole video tutorial.<h4>Results</h4>We enrolledstep 1: 172 volunteers naïve to ultrasound. After watching a video tutorial, a questionnaire was administered and consi ...[more]

PMID: 31578700

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundFecal incontinence has a high prevalence in the nursing home population which cannot be explained by co-morbidity or anatomic and physiological changes of aging alone. Our hypothesis is that fecal incontinence can be prevented, cured, or ameliorated by offering care staff knowledge of best practice. However, it is not clear which educational model is most effective. To assess the effect of two educational programs for care staff, we planned a three armed cluster-randomized controlled trial. There is a lack of research reporting effects of interventions targeting improved continence care processes in older patients. Thus, to improve the quality of the planned trial, we decided to carry out a pilot study to investigate the feasibility of the planned design, the interventions (educational programs) and the outcome measures, and to enable a power calculation. This paper reports the results from the pilot study.MethodsThree nursing homes, representing each arm of the planned trial, were recruited. Criteria for assessing success of feasibility were pre-specified. Methods, outcome measures, acceptability, and adherence of the components of the intervention were evaluated by descriptive statistical analyses and qualitative content analysis of one focus group interview (n = 7) and four individual interviews.ResultsThe main study is feasible with one major and some minor modifications. Due to challenges with recruitment and indications supporting the assumption that a single intervention with one workshop is not sufficient as an implementation strategy, the main study will be reduced to two arms: a multifaceted education intervention and control. The components of the multifaceted intervention seemed to work well together and need only minor modification. Important barriers to consider were sub-optimal use of skill-mix, problems of communicating important assessments and care plans, and isolated nurses with an indistinct nurse identity.ConclusionsOverall, the main study is feasible. The pedagogical approach needs to consider the identified barriers. Thus, it is essential to empower nurses in their professional role, to facilitate clinical reasoning and critical thinking among care staff, and to facilitate processes to enable care staff to find, report, and utilize information in the electronic patient record.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01939821.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Intensified preventive regimen based on a 'high-risk' approach has been proposed instead the routine prevention that is generally given to the whole population. The effectiveness of these regimens may still be an issue. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare two preventive programs carried out in a Public School for kindergarten children. METHODS:The data from clinical examinations were used to assess the caries risk for 121 children. Children with at least 2 carious lesions were considered as high risk for dental caries development. These children were randomized into two groups. Half (High risk basic-HRB group) were provided the basic prevention regimen (oral-hygiene instruction and hands-on brushing practice for teachers and caregivers, daytime tooth brushing supervised by teachers at least once a week, newly erupted first permanent molar sealant, provision of toothbrush, fluoride-containing dentifrice, and a guidebook), which was also given to low-risk children (Low risk basic-LRB group). The other half (High risk intensive-HRI group) were additionally given an intensified preventive regimen (F-varnish application, primary molar sealant, and silver diamine fluoride (SDF) application on carious lesions). Clinical examinations were performed semiannually to determine the dmfs caries increment of the three groups. RESULTS:The 89 children completed the 24-month examination were 3- to 5-year-old with 19, 35, and 35 children in the LRB, HRB, and HRI group, respectively. The new caries development at 24?months of the HRB group (75%) was higher than that of the HRI group (65.7%) and the LRB group (21.1%). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated no significant differences of caries increment between the HRB and HRI groups at the end of our study (p?=?0.709). CONCLUSIONS:The negligible difference in caries increment between the HRI and HRB groups implies that intensified prevention produced minimal additional benefit. Offering all children only basic prevention could have obtained virtually the same preventive effect with substantially less effort and lower cost. TRIAL REGISTRATION:Thai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR), TCTR20180124001. Registered 24 January 2018 - Retrospectively registered.

Project description:The registration of clinical trials has been promoted to prevent publication bias and increase research transparency. Despite general agreement about the minimum amount of information needed for trial registration, we lack clear guidance on descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions in trial registries. We aimed to evaluate the quality of registry descriptions of non-pharmacologic interventions assessed in ongoing randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patient education.On 6 May 2009, we searched for all ongoing RCTs registered in the 10 trial registries accessible through the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We included trials evaluating an educational intervention (that is, designed to teach or train patients about their own health) and dedicated to participants, their family members or home caregivers. We used a standardized data extraction form to collect data related to the description of the experimental intervention, the centers, and the caregivers.We selected 268 of 642 potentially eligible studies and appraised a random sample of 150 records. All selected trials were registered in 4 registers, mainly ClinicalTrials.gov (61%). The median [interquartile range] target sample size was 205 [100 to 400] patients. The comparator was mainly usual care (47%) or active treatment (47%). A minority of records (17%, 95% CI 11 to 23%) reported an overall adequate description of the intervention (that is, description that reported the content, mode of delivery, number, frequency, duration of sessions and overall duration of the intervention). Further, for most reports (59%), important information about the content of the intervention was missing. The description of the mode of delivery of the intervention was reported for 52% of studies, the number of sessions for 74%, the frequency of sessions for 58%, the duration of each session for 45% and the overall duration for 63%. Information about the caregivers was missing for 70% of trials. Most trials (73%) took place in the United States or United Kingdom, 64% involved only one centre, and participating centers were mainly tertiary-care, academic or university hospitals (51%).Educational interventions assessed in ongoing RCTs of educational interventions are poorly described in trial registries. The lack of adequate description raises doubts about the ability of trial registration to help patients and researchers know about the treatment evaluated in trials of education.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) contraceptive effectiveness poster with a more patient-centered poster on factors affecting the likelihood of using effective contraceptives.MethodsThe posters were tested in a randomized controlled trial. Women were eligible if they were aged 18-44 years, could speak and read English, were not pregnant or trying to conceive, and had engaged in vaginal intercourse in the past 3 months. An online survey administered through Amazon Mechanical Turk was used to collect baseline and immediate follow-up data on three primary outcomes: contraceptive knowledge (measured using the Contraceptive Knowledge Assessment), perceived pregnancy risk, and the effectiveness of the contraceptive the woman intended to use in the next year. Subgroup analyses were conducted in women with prior pregnancy scares, low numeracy, and no current contraceptive. Within- and between-group differences were compared for the two randomized groups.ResultsFrom January 26 to February 13, 2018, 2,930 people were screened and 990 randomized. For the primary outcomes, the only significant result was that the patient-centered poster produced a greater improvement in contraceptive knowledge than the CDC poster (P<.001). Relative to baseline, both posters significantly improved contraceptive knowledge (CDC +3.6, patient-centered +6.4 percentage points, P<.001) and a constructed score measuring the effectiveness of the contraceptive that women intended to use in the next year (CDC and patient-centered +3 percentage points, P<.01). This is equivalent to 1-17 of every 100 women who viewed a poster changing their intentions in favor of a more effective contraceptive.ConclusionThis study suggests that both posters educate women about contraception and may reduce unplanned pregnancy risk by improving contraceptive intentions. Of the three primary outcomes, the patient-centered poster performs significantly better than the CDC poster at increasing contraceptive knowledge.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03372369.

Dataset Information

Comparisons of two diaphragm ultrasound-teaching programs: a multicenter randomized controlled educational study.

Publications

Comparisons of two diaphragm ultrasound-teaching programs: a multicenter randomized controlled educational study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets