-
All Events
Critical Care Canada Forum 2023Mechanical Ventilation Symposium 2023Critical Care Canada Forum 2022Neuro Critical MasterclassMechanical Ventilation SymposiumCritical Care Canada Forum 2021 - Virtual ConferenceCritical Care Canada Forum 2020 - Virtual Conference -
All Content TypesAbstractePosterLearning moduleLive StreamPPT SharedWebcast
-
Sort ByRelevance
-
All TopicsAll Topics▸Acute Kidney Injury-Renal Replacement Therapy-Complications/Outcomes▸Acute Respiratory Failure and Mechanical Ventilation-Acute Respiratory Failure / ARDS-Mechanical Ventilation-Non-Invasive Ventilation-Weaning and Liberation▸COVID-19-Perspectives on the Pandemic-Pandemic Preparedness, Resource Allocation, and Triage-Management-Complications/Outcomes-Emerging Research/Future Directions-End of Life Care▸Extracorporeal Life Support-Respiratory Failure/ARDS-Cardiac Arrest/Cardiogenic Shock-Complications/Outcomes-Medical Education▸Neurocritical Care-Mechanical Ventilation-Traumatic Brain Injury/Sub-Arachnoid Hemorrhage-Imaging and Neuromonitoring-Post-Cardiac Arrest Care & Neuroprognostication-Seizures▸Organ Donation-Impacts of COVID on Organ Donation-Death by Neurologic Criteria-Death by Circulatory Criteria▸Patient Safety/Health Care Quality/ICU system-Healthcare Quality/Patient Safety-ICU System/Organization▸Pediatric Critical Care-Respiratory Failure/ARDS-Sepsis▸Prognostication, Recovery, and Outcomes-Prognostication-Recovery/Rehabilitation-Long-term Outcomes-Research-Sedation and Delirium▸Sepsis-Management-Complications/Outcomes-Specific Infections-Emerging Research/Future Directions-Sepsis Pathophysiology▸Shock and Resuscitation-Fluid Management-Vasopressors/Inotropes▸Special Populations-Chronic Critical Illness-Geriatrics/Frailty-Obstetrical Critical Care-Oncologic Critical Care-Trauma▸Wellness, Burnout, and Equity-Wellness/Burnout-Equity-Mental Health▸Cardiac Critical Care-Cardiogenic Shock-RV Function/dysfunction-Peri-cardiac arrest care-Atrial fibrillation-Post-cardiac arrest care▸Imaging/Monitoring-Ultrasound/POCUS-Neuroimaging/Neuromonitoring-Hematology-Career Development▸Patient-Centred Care/Ethics/Communication-Patient/Family Perspectives-Ethics-Communication with Patients/Families▸Hematology-Hypercoagulability/Thrombosis-Population Health-GI dysfunction
Topic: Education
Takaoka, Alyson1; O' Grady, Heather K. 2; Reid, Julie C.2; Kho, Michelle E2,3
1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 2 School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 3 Department of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton; The Research Institute of St. Joe's, Hamilton
Introduction: Previous studies suggest that knowledge of key research concepts may help individuals better understand clinical research and critically appraise health claims1,2.
Objectives: To teach high school students 5 key randomized controlled trial (RCT) concepts: randomization, blinding, intervention and control groups, independent and dependent variables, and average treatment effect.
Methods: Grade 11 and 12 students enrolled in an “Introduction to Healthcare” course participated in an RCT experiential learning activity nested within an interactive ICU workshop hosted in Hamilton, Canada. Before the activity, we administered a questionnaire to collect demographic information and evaluate baseline knowledge of RCT concepts with 5 multiple choice questions (Table 1). Using sealed, opaque envelopes, we then randomized students to 1 of 2 groups using coloured indicators (orange=intervention, blue=control). Groups were separated and completed 2 ICU physical function outcome measures (30-second sit-to-stand (30STS)3, 2-minute walk test (2MWT)4) with equipment to simulate ICU-acquired weakness. The intervention group was incentivized by a prize if they surpassed age- and sex-matched mean scores on outcome measures. The control group received no incentive. To teach blinding of participants, neither group was aware of study conditions in the other group. The independent and dependent variable exemplars were incentivization, and performance on the 30STS and 2MWT, respectively. We tabulated individual and group scores for each outcome measure. Post-activity, students participated in a semi-structured discussion to reveal the intervention, identify key RCT concepts, and share outcome measure results. We then administered the questionnaire to re-test students' knowledge. We descriptively summarized demographics, and compared pre- and post-questionnaires using a paired t-test for overall scores, and McNemar's test for individual questions. We compared outcome measure scores between intervention and control groups using Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.
Results: Twenty students (90% female, mean (standard deviation) age 16.7 (0.8) years) participated, 8 (40%) of which had not previously learned about research outside of high school classes. Eighteen (90%) and 20 (100%) students completed pre- and post-questionnaires, respectively. Overall scores increased from pre- to post-questionnaires (mean difference=1.39, 95% confidence interval (0.80, 1.98), p<0.001). Two individual question scores increased: experimental variables (p=0.031) and blinding (p=0.004). Scores on the remaining 3 questions (treatment and control groups, randomization, and average treatment effect) did not demonstrate significant improvement (Table 2). Within the activity, students in the incentivized group achieved higher scores on both the 30STS (p=0.029) and the 2MWT (p=0.035).
Conclusion: An experiential learning activity improved students' overall knowledge of 5 key RCT concepts and 2 questions on experimental variables and blinding. Lack of improvement on the remaining 3 questions may be due to high levels of baseline knowledge or small sample size. Interestingly, physical function outcome measure scores within the RCT activity favoured the intervention group. Future research to study the generalizability of our results to other high school students, critical care content, and health settings is warranted.
Image Image Image
References:
1-Chalmers I, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Ryan-Vig S, Pannell S et al. Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018; 23(1): 29-33. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110829
2- Nsangi A, Semaula D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman M et al. Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390(10092):374-388. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6
3-Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 1999;70(2):113-119. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028
4-Bohannon RW, Wang Y-C, Gershon RC. Two-Minute Walk Test Performance by Adults 18 to 85 Years: Normative Values, Reliability, and Responsiveness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(3):472-477. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.006
Topic: Education
Takaoka, Alyson1; O' Grady, Heather K. 2; Reid, Julie C.2; Kho, Michelle E2,3
1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 2 School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 3 Department of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton; The Research Institute of St. Joe's, Hamilton
Introduction: Previous studies suggest that knowledge of key research concepts may help individuals better understand clinical research and critically appraise health claims1,2.
Objectives: To teach high school students 5 key randomized controlled trial (RCT) concepts: randomization, blinding, intervention and control groups, independent and dependent variables, and average treatment effect.
Methods: Grade 11 and 12 students enrolled in an “Introduction to Healthcare” course participated in an RCT experiential learning activity nested within an interactive ICU workshop hosted in Hamilton, Canada. Before the activity, we administered a questionnaire to collect demographic information and evaluate baseline knowledge of RCT concepts with 5 multiple choice questions (Table 1). Using sealed, opaque envelopes, we then randomized students to 1 of 2 groups using coloured indicators (orange=intervention, blue=control). Groups were separated and completed 2 ICU physical function outcome measures (30-second sit-to-stand (30STS)3, 2-minute walk test (2MWT)4) with equipment to simulate ICU-acquired weakness. The intervention group was incentivized by a prize if they surpassed age- and sex-matched mean scores on outcome measures. The control group received no incentive. To teach blinding of participants, neither group was aware of study conditions in the other group. The independent and dependent variable exemplars were incentivization, and performance on the 30STS and 2MWT, respectively. We tabulated individual and group scores for each outcome measure. Post-activity, students participated in a semi-structured discussion to reveal the intervention, identify key RCT concepts, and share outcome measure results. We then administered the questionnaire to re-test students' knowledge. We descriptively summarized demographics, and compared pre- and post-questionnaires using a paired t-test for overall scores, and McNemar's test for individual questions. We compared outcome measure scores between intervention and control groups using Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.
Results: Twenty students (90% female, mean (standard deviation) age 16.7 (0.8) years) participated, 8 (40%) of which had not previously learned about research outside of high school classes. Eighteen (90%) and 20 (100%) students completed pre- and post-questionnaires, respectively. Overall scores increased from pre- to post-questionnaires (mean difference=1.39, 95% confidence interval (0.80, 1.98), p<0.001). Two individual question scores increased: experimental variables (p=0.031) and blinding (p=0.004). Scores on the remaining 3 questions (treatment and control groups, randomization, and average treatment effect) did not demonstrate significant improvement (Table 2). Within the activity, students in the incentivized group achieved higher scores on both the 30STS (p=0.029) and the 2MWT (p=0.035).
Conclusion: An experiential learning activity improved students' overall knowledge of 5 key RCT concepts and 2 questions on experimental variables and blinding. Lack of improvement on the remaining 3 questions may be due to high levels of baseline knowledge or small sample size. Interestingly, physical function outcome measure scores within the RCT activity favoured the intervention group. Future research to study the generalizability of our results to other high school students, critical care content, and health settings is warranted.
Image Image Image
References:
1-Chalmers I, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Ryan-Vig S, Pannell S et al. Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018; 23(1): 29-33. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110829
2- Nsangi A, Semaula D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman M et al. Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390(10092):374-388. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6
3-Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 1999;70(2):113-119. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028
4-Bohannon RW, Wang Y-C, Gershon RC. Two-Minute Walk Test Performance by Adults 18 to 85 Years: Normative Values, Reliability, and Responsiveness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(3):472-477. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.006
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University
Topic: Education
Takaoka, Alyson1; O' Grady, Heather K. 2; Reid, Julie C.2; Kho, Michelle E2,3
1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 2 School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 3 Department of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton; The Research Institute of St. Joe's, Hamilton
Introduction: Previous studies suggest that knowledge of key research concepts may help individuals better understand clinical research and critically appraise health claims1,2.
Objectives: To teach high school students 5 key randomized controlled trial (RCT) concepts: randomization, blinding, intervention and control groups, independent and dependent variables, and average treatment effect.
Methods: Grade 11 and 12 students enrolled in an “Introduction to Healthcare” course participated in an RCT experiential learning activity nested within an interactive ICU workshop hosted in Hamilton, Canada. Before the activity, we administered a questionnaire to collect demographic information and evaluate baseline knowledge of RCT concepts with 5 multiple choice questions (Table 1). Using sealed, opaque envelopes, we then randomized students to 1 of 2 groups using coloured indicators (orange=intervention, blue=control). Groups were separated and completed 2 ICU physical function outcome measures (30-second sit-to-stand (30STS)3, 2-minute walk test (2MWT)4) with equipment to simulate ICU-acquired weakness. The intervention group was incentivized by a prize if they surpassed age- and sex-matched mean scores on outcome measures. The control group received no incentive. To teach blinding of participants, neither group was aware of study conditions in the other group. The independent and dependent variable exemplars were incentivization, and performance on the 30STS and 2MWT, respectively. We tabulated individual and group scores for each outcome measure. Post-activity, students participated in a semi-structured discussion to reveal the intervention, identify key RCT concepts, and share outcome measure results. We then administered the questionnaire to re-test students' knowledge. We descriptively summarized demographics, and compared pre- and post-questionnaires using a paired t-test for overall scores, and McNemar's test for individual questions. We compared outcome measure scores between intervention and control groups using Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.
Results: Twenty students (90% female, mean (standard deviation) age 16.7 (0.8) years) participated, 8 (40%) of which had not previously learned about research outside of high school classes. Eighteen (90%) and 20 (100%) students completed pre- and post-questionnaires, respectively. Overall scores increased from pre- to post-questionnaires (mean difference=1.39, 95% confidence interval (0.80, 1.98), p<0.001). Two individual question scores increased: experimental variables (p=0.031) and blinding (p=0.004). Scores on the remaining 3 questions (treatment and control groups, randomization, and average treatment effect) did not demonstrate significant improvement (Table 2). Within the activity, students in the incentivized group achieved higher scores on both the 30STS (p=0.029) and the 2MWT (p=0.035).
Conclusion: An experiential learning activity improved students' overall knowledge of 5 key RCT concepts and 2 questions on experimental variables and blinding. Lack of improvement on the remaining 3 questions may be due to high levels of baseline knowledge or small sample size. Interestingly, physical function outcome measure scores within the RCT activity favoured the intervention group. Future research to study the generalizability of our results to other high school students, critical care content, and health settings is warranted.
Image Image Image
References:
1-Chalmers I, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Ryan-Vig S, Pannell S et al. Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018; 23(1): 29-33. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110829
2- Nsangi A, Semaula D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman M et al. Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390(10092):374-388. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6
3-Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 1999;70(2):113-119. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028
4-Bohannon RW, Wang Y-C, Gershon RC. Two-Minute Walk Test Performance by Adults 18 to 85 Years: Normative Values, Reliability, and Responsiveness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(3):472-477. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.006
Topic: Education
Takaoka, Alyson1; O' Grady, Heather K. 2; Reid, Julie C.2; Kho, Michelle E2,3
1 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 2 School of Rehabilitation Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada; 3 Department of Physiotherapy, St. Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton; The Research Institute of St. Joe's, Hamilton
Introduction: Previous studies suggest that knowledge of key research concepts may help individuals better understand clinical research and critically appraise health claims1,2.
Objectives: To teach high school students 5 key randomized controlled trial (RCT) concepts: randomization, blinding, intervention and control groups, independent and dependent variables, and average treatment effect.
Methods: Grade 11 and 12 students enrolled in an “Introduction to Healthcare” course participated in an RCT experiential learning activity nested within an interactive ICU workshop hosted in Hamilton, Canada. Before the activity, we administered a questionnaire to collect demographic information and evaluate baseline knowledge of RCT concepts with 5 multiple choice questions (Table 1). Using sealed, opaque envelopes, we then randomized students to 1 of 2 groups using coloured indicators (orange=intervention, blue=control). Groups were separated and completed 2 ICU physical function outcome measures (30-second sit-to-stand (30STS)3, 2-minute walk test (2MWT)4) with equipment to simulate ICU-acquired weakness. The intervention group was incentivized by a prize if they surpassed age- and sex-matched mean scores on outcome measures. The control group received no incentive. To teach blinding of participants, neither group was aware of study conditions in the other group. The independent and dependent variable exemplars were incentivization, and performance on the 30STS and 2MWT, respectively. We tabulated individual and group scores for each outcome measure. Post-activity, students participated in a semi-structured discussion to reveal the intervention, identify key RCT concepts, and share outcome measure results. We then administered the questionnaire to re-test students' knowledge. We descriptively summarized demographics, and compared pre- and post-questionnaires using a paired t-test for overall scores, and McNemar's test for individual questions. We compared outcome measure scores between intervention and control groups using Wilcoxon's rank-sum test.
Results: Twenty students (90% female, mean (standard deviation) age 16.7 (0.8) years) participated, 8 (40%) of which had not previously learned about research outside of high school classes. Eighteen (90%) and 20 (100%) students completed pre- and post-questionnaires, respectively. Overall scores increased from pre- to post-questionnaires (mean difference=1.39, 95% confidence interval (0.80, 1.98), p<0.001). Two individual question scores increased: experimental variables (p=0.031) and blinding (p=0.004). Scores on the remaining 3 questions (treatment and control groups, randomization, and average treatment effect) did not demonstrate significant improvement (Table 2). Within the activity, students in the incentivized group achieved higher scores on both the 30STS (p=0.029) and the 2MWT (p=0.035).
Conclusion: An experiential learning activity improved students' overall knowledge of 5 key RCT concepts and 2 questions on experimental variables and blinding. Lack of improvement on the remaining 3 questions may be due to high levels of baseline knowledge or small sample size. Interestingly, physical function outcome measure scores within the RCT activity favoured the intervention group. Future research to study the generalizability of our results to other high school students, critical care content, and health settings is warranted.
Image Image Image
References:
1-Chalmers I, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Ryan-Vig S, Pannell S et al. Key Concepts for Informed Health Choices: a framework for helping people learn how to assess treatment claims and make informed choices. BMJ Evid Based Med 2018; 23(1): 29-33. doi: 10.1136/ebmed-2017-110829
2- Nsangi A, Semaula D, Oxman AD, Austvoll-Dahlgren A, Oxman M et al. Effects of the Informed Health Choices primary school intervention on the ability of children in Uganda to assess the reliability of claims about treatment effects: a cluster-randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2017;390(10092):374-388. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31226-6
3-Jones CJ, Rikli RE, Beam WC. A 30-s chair-stand test as a measure of lower body strength in community-residing older adults. Res Q Exerc Sport 1999;70(2):113-119. doi:10.1080/02701367.1999.10608028
4-Bohannon RW, Wang Y-C, Gershon RC. Two-Minute Walk Test Performance by Adults 18 to 85 Years: Normative Values, Reliability, and Responsiveness. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2015;96(3):472-477. doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2014.10.006
