No abstract

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

No abstract

Background: Active learning methods, audience response system (ARS) and flipped classroom (FC), have applied in higher education internationally. However, these outcomes in Japan are uncertain. This study presents a comparison of teaching methods such as the traditional face-to-face (TFF), ARS, and FC plus ARS that are used to enhance student pharmacists’ understanding of pharmacology.Methods: Sophomores at Ohu University were recruited for this study from 2017 to 2019. The TFF were performed in 2017; the ARS were performed in 2018; and the FC plus ARS were performed in 2019. Exam scores were compared between the three methods and anonymous questionnaires were also surveyed in 2018 and 2019 to compare students’ preferences. The Kruskal-Wallis test and ANOVA were carried out depending on data distributions. Categorical data were analyzed using the Chi square test and the Fisher’s exact test. The ANCOVA was performed if background information between the three cohorts was significantly different.Results: The groupings of the participants went as follows: 49 students in 2017, 78 students in 2018, and 90 students in 2019. Their academic backgrounds of each year at the end of their freshman year were similar except for their grade point averages (GPAs). The medians of their pharmacology exam correct rates for the TFF, ARS, and FC plus ARS were 73.3%, 90.0%, and 93.3%, respectively. ANCOVA utilizing GPA as the covariance revealed that the ARS and the FC plus ARS significantly improved exam correct rates compared with the TFF (p < 0.001). There was no significant difference between the ARS and the FC plus ARS groups (p = 0.487). A subgroup analysis in terms of gender difference revealed that the ARS was a significantly improved method compared to the FC plus ARS for female students (p = 0.009), whereas the ARS was not for male students (p = 0.819). Anonymous questionnaires revealed that students in the FC plus ARS lectures had good readiness, enjoyed their classes, and felt fulfillment compared with the ARS lectures. Conclusions: Active learning methods including the ARS and FC plus ARS are significantly more effective than TFF methods.

The repeated administration of methamphetamine (MAP) causes behavioral sensitization in animals. We previously reported that the high accumulation of MAP was observed in the MAP-sensitized animal brain, which suggested that this phenomenon is an important factor in the development or expression of behavioral sensitization. The purpose of the present study is to elucidate the MAP distribution in the MAP-sensitized rat using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). As a result, the MAP distribution in the heart at 10 min when showing a high accumulation of MAP in the MAP-sensitized rat brain was significantly higher than that of the control rat, whereas no significant differences in the liver, kidney, abdominal muscle, femoral muscle and blood were observed. In the brain and heart, there was no different distribution at 1 min, reflecting only the influx process from blood to brain and heart. On the contrary, there was the significant difference at 10 min, reflecting both the influx and efflux process, suggesting that the efflux process of MAP from brain or heart to blood may be slow due to MAP sensitization. In conclusion, it was clear that the brain and heart specific alteration of the MAP distribution occurred in the MAP sensitization. It was considered that the high accumulation of MAP in the MAP-sensitized rat brain may be related to the expression of behavioral sensitization and that the delayed efflux of MAP in the MAP-sensitized rat heart may be connected with the cardiac toxicity.