RESUMO
Introduction: Self-assessed confidence is not a reliable indicator of knowledge levels, as multiple studies have shown; however, it is often used as a measure of knowledge. The purpose of this study is to identify whether the confidence of graduating students in a US medical school to diagnose and treat diabetes is correlated with their diabetes-related knowledge. Methods: We developed a 38-question survey, targeting students' external experiences, knowledge, and confidence related to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of diabetes. The survey includes six self-reported confidence questions and 15 multiple choice-style questions, to test diabetes knowledge. The survey was administered electronically using REDCap to the graduating medical school class (n=176) at Upstate Medical University. We calculated mean knowledge scores and confidence scores were calculated. We used Pearson correlation and t tests to assess for correlations and differences in the collected data. We also reviewed diabetes content in the current curriculum. Results: The response rate was 38%. The mean confidence score was 19.97 out of 30 (SD=3.92) and the mean knowledge score was 9.63 out of 15 (SD=2.09). Total knowledge and confidence scores were not correlated. A positive correlation between confidence in prescribing/adjusting medications to treat patients with type 1 diabetes and knowledge levels was found (R=.325, P=.007). Academic electives, external experiences with diabetes, and demographics did not correlate with knowledge and confidence differences. Conclusions: Students overestimated their ability to adequately manage people with diabetes. Better approaches are needed to prepare future physicians to diagnose and treat diabetes.
RESUMO
Introduction: Operating in-person instruction, residential living, and other activities at institutions of higher education (IHEs) in the context of the pandemic of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov2) have posed a multitude of challenges. Identification of asymptomatic cases at IHEs is crucial, as a large reservoir of virus can potentially develop among students. Unfortunately, despite the advantages, rapid antigen tests (RATs) have variously been shown to perform poorly when used with asymptomatic individuals. Methods: In order to address the appropriateness of RAT use in screening asymptomatic populations like those at IHEs, we conducted a rapid review of published evaluations of RATs available in the United States, where sensitivity and specificity were reported specifically from asymptomatic populations. We extracted sensitivity and specificity for asymptomatic populations reported in each article, along with location and important notes. The data are presented narratively. Results: A total of 11 articles were included for evaluation and presentation, representing tests from four manufacturers. Sensitivity ranged from 35.8% to a high of about 71%, with caveats to the higher number about exposure. Both the low and high sensitivity rates were observed in Abbott BinaxNOW RATs. Due to heterogeneity and publishing differences, a meta-analysis was not feasible, but RAT tests in asymptomatic populations tended to identify roughly half of those identified as infected via reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction. Specificity ranged from 97.8% to 100%. Conclusion: The results of this rapid review indicate serious issues in misidentifying asymptomatic individuals as COVID-19 negative, when in fact they are infected and carrying the SARS-Cov2 virus.