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
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.