Institute for Teaching and Learning homepage

University of Sydney homepage
Issue 17, April 2002  

Submit an article

articles regulars other issues

Ed-Health Conference Abstract
Dr Sinthia Bosnic-Anticevich,
Faculty of Pharmacy

Comparison of two methods of training of undergraduate pharmacy students in asthma knowledge, confidence and skills

This study compared the impact of an evidence-based asthma health promotion program (the Adolescent Asthma Action or Triple A Program) with an asthma problem-based learning (PBL) case on asthma knowledge, confidence and skills of final year pharmacy students.

A parallel study was conducted in which final year pharmacy students received asthma education either as part of their usual undergraduate PBL curriculum (Control group) or as part of the Triple A program (Triple A group). Prior to the training, all students completed questionnaires assessing their baseline asthma knowledge (AK) and asthma confidence and skills (AC&S). Eight tutorial groups, (approximately 16 students per group) were then allocated either to the Control or Triple A groups. Both Control and Triple A groups completed their training in 3 x 1 ½ hour sessions, at the end of which students completed follow-up AK and AC&S questionnaires.

In all, 117 students completed the study. There were no statistically significant differences in students AK scores (mean=22.4, sd=4 and mean=21, sd=3 respectively) and the AC&S scores (mean=20, sd=7 and mean=18, sd=4 respectively) in the Control and Triple A groups at baseline. Although both models of training improved the AK and AC&S scores, greater improvements were seen in the Triple A group with respect to both AK scores (mean=26, sd=4 and mean=23, sd=3, p<.05) and AC&S scores (mean=25, sd=4 and mean=21, sd=4, p<.05).

An evidence-based asthma health promotion program which trains students as Triple A Educators is more effective than PBL in improving asthma knowledge, confidence and skills in final year undergraduate pharmacy students.

^ top