Search

BackgroundSaudi Arabia implemented a plain tobacco packaging regulation, one of the World Health Organization’s recommended initiatives to help reduce smoking rates, in August 2019. A few weeks after implementation, a large number of smokers complained via various media channels, especially social media (eg, Twitter), that an extreme change in cigarette taste had occurred, frequency of coughing had increased, and for some, shortness of breath had led to hospitalization. ObjectiveThe main objective is to determine whether smokers blinded to cigarette branding report differences in taste between branded and unbranded cigarettes. The secondary objective is to observe the frequency of immediate cough or shortness of breath. MethodsThis study employed a within-person, randomized crossover design that recruited current smokers 18 years and older who were cleared upon physical assessment before the experiment. Participants received 6 sequences of different random exposures (3 puffs) to 3 plain-packaged cigarettes (2 from their favorite brand and 1 from another brand as a control) and 3 branded cigarettes (2 from the favorite brand and 1 from another brand as a control). Participants wore virtual reality goggles accompanied by special software to alter visual reality and gloves to alter the touch sensation. ResultsThis study recruited 18 participants, measured at 6 time points, to produce 108 experiments. Participants were not able to identify the correct type of cigarettes (plain or branded, estimate of fixed effect=−0.01, P=.79). Moreover, there were no differences in the ability of the participants to identify their favorite brand (t107=−0.63, mean 0.47, P=.53). In terms of immediate coughing, out of the 108 experiments, 1 episode of short coughing was observed, which was attributed to the branded cigarette, not the plain-packaged cigarette. ConclusionsAfter controlling the visual and touch sensations, participants were not able to differentiate between branded and plain-packaged cigarettes in terms of taste or inducing immediate shortness of breath or cough. Interestingly, participants were not able to identify their favorite brand.

Abstract Background Script Concordance Test (SCT) is a new assessment tool that reliably assesses clinical reasoning skills. Previous descriptions of developing SCT-question banks were merely subjective. This study addresses two gaps in the literature: 1) conducting the first phase of a multistep validation process of SCT in Plastic Surgery, and 2) providing an objective methodology to construct a question bank based on SCT. Methods After developing a test blueprint, 52 test items were written. Five validation questions were developed and a validation survey was established online. Seven reviewers were asked to answer this survey. They were recruited from two countries, Saudi Arabia and Canada, to improve the test’s external validity. Their ratings were transformed into percentages. Analysis was performed to compare reviewers’ ratings by looking at correlations, ranges, means, medians, and overall scores. Results Scores of reviewers’ ratings were between 76% and 95% (mean 86% ± 5). We found poor correlations between reviewers (Pearson’s: +0.38 to −0.22). Ratings of individual validation questions ranged between 0 and 4 (on a scale 1–5). Means and medians of these ranges were computed for each test item (mean: 0.8 to 2.4; median: 1 to 3). A subset of test items comprising 27 items was generated based on a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Conclusion This study proposes an objective methodology for validation of SCT-question bank. Analysis of validation survey is done from all angles, i.e., reviewers, validation questions, and test items. Finally, a subset of test items is generated based on a set of criteria.

Background: After almost a decade of implementing competency-based programs in post-graduate training programs, the assessment of technical skills remains more subjective than objective. National data on the assessment of technical skills during surgical training are lacking. We conducted this study to document the assessment tools for technical skills currently used in different surgical specialties, their relationship with remediation, the recommended tools from the program directors' perspective, and program directors' attitudes toward the available objective tools to assess technical skills. Methods: This study was a cross-sectional survey of surgical program directors (PDs). The survey was initially developed using a focus group and was then sent to 116 PDs. The survey contains demographic information about the program, the objective assessment tools used, and the reason for not using assessment tools. The last section discusses the recommended tools to be used from the PDs' perspective and the PDs' attitude and motivation to apply these tools in each program. The associations between the responses to the assessment questions and remediation were statistically evaluated. Results: Seventy-one (61%) participants responded. Of the respondents, 59% mentioned using only nonstandardized, subjective, direct observation for technical skills assessment. Sixty per-cent use only summative evaluation, whereas 15% perform only formative evaluations of their residents, and the remaining 22% conduct both summative and formative evaluations of their residents' technical skills. Operative portfolios are kept by 53% of programs. The percentage of programs with mechanisms for remediation is 29% (19 of 65). Conclusion: The survey showed that surgical training programs use different tools to assess surgical skills competency. Having a clear remediation mechanism was highly associated with reporting remediation, which reflects the capability to detect struggling residents. Surgical training leadership should invest more in standardizing the assessment of surgical skills. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]