Respiratory disease PPT

There is no universal template for making PPT related to respiratory diseases. The core logic is to "anchor the audience's needs first, and then match the depth of the content. Professional accuracy is the bottom line, and communication efficiency is the core goal. Pure literature accumulation and unfounded eye-catching content are not advisable."

Don’t believe it, I stepped through this big pit when I was doing a PPT on influenza science for a community hospital the year before last. At the beginning, I listed the protein structure, pathogenic mechanism of influenza A virus, and the epidemic trends in the past 10 years for three full pages. The elders and aunts sitting in the audience raised their heads for the first five minutes, and then lowered their heads to chat and take out the food basket. In the middle of the lecture, some people raised their hands and asked, "Young man, just tell me if I can take amoxicillin when I have a fever. Don't talk about those who can't understand." Later, I overturned everything and started all over again. On the first page, I directly put the statistics from the community health service center: "In the past 10 days, 127 people in our community had a fever of 38°C or above, 82 of them had influenza A, half of them had to cough up yellow phlegm, and 3 of them had been hospitalized with pneumonia." The audience fell silent instantly.

To be interesting, last year I made a PPT about cases shared by young doctors for the respiratory department annual meeting, and a PPT about hand, foot and mouth prevention for the kindergarten next door. Except for the three words "respiratory" in the title, the content has nothing to do with it. If you are making an academic PPT for your peers, then the down-to-earth gameplay just now is completely useless - you have to clearly mark the indications for medication in the 2024 version of the "Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Mycoplasma Pneumonia in Children", compare the lung CT in the case, and put the reference number after the corresponding conclusion. If you dare to put a cartoon pathogen diagram, you will be asked by an old professor during the defense. There has been controversy in the industry over the production logic of these two types of PPTs: the academic group believes that all conclusions must be supported by evidence-based medical evidence, and content that has not been verified by RCT cannot be mentioned even a word; the popular science group believes that telling the general audience about the RCT study number is equivalent to talking to a cow, and it is better to say "The probability of getting myocarditis from strenuous exercise immediately after recovery is three times higher than if you won the 5 million lottery." It is easier to remember. In fact, both statements are correct. The key point is to see who you want to show the PPT to.

Don’t tell me, in the respiratory disease prevention PPT I made for primary school last time, I specially made three cartoon images of COVID-19, influenza, and mycoplasma, labeled "little thorn ball", "high fever monster" and "coughing non-stop" respectively. It also included different symptom emoticons: "high fever monster" held up a 39°C thermometer, "coughing non-stop" and held his chest while coughing until tears came out. When children go home after reading this book, they can clearly explain the differences between the three diseases to their parents. The effect is much better than me reciting a 10-page list of symptoms. But if you are doing health science popularization for middle and high schools, then this approach is a bit childish. Why not show some real photos of lungs that have become black due to long-term smoking? The impact is stronger than anything else.

There is another point that many people struggle with: Can folk dietary remedies be included in popular science PPT? For example, steamed oranges with salt can cure coughs, and rock sugar and snow pears can soothe your throat. I asked two doctors in the respiratory department before, and one said that it should not be used at all. If there is no evidence-based evidence, it would mislead the public. The other said that as long as it is not harmful, there is no problem if people are willing to try it. It is better than buying antiviral granules indiscriminately. My current habit is to mention it, but always add a parenthetical note after it: "There is no clear clinical research support for the above dietary therapy. You can try it according to your personal taste. If you have cough or fever symptoms for more than 3 days, please seek medical treatment in time." If you take both sides into consideration, nothing will go wrong.

The last time I did a PPT for employee health training for an Internet company, I specially added a page that was not in the outline: "Guidelines for Preventing Colds in the Office", which said not to share a mouse with a colleague who has a cough, ask the administrator to wash the air-conditioning filter once a week, and remember to cover the cup when taking it from the tea room. You see, making PPT is not about cramming in all the professional knowledge you know, but about allowing the viewers to get what they need - uncles and aunts want to know whether they should go to the hospital if they have a fever, doctors want to know the latest diagnosis and treatment plans, and office workers want to know how to avoid catching colds from colleagues. You have explained these points thoroughly, which is more useful than any fancy animation.

Oh, by the way, if you are really not sure whether the content is correct or not, find a clinical respiratory doctor friend to check it. It is much more reliable than reading 10 self-media articles. After all, any wrong information about respiratory diseases may mislead people and delay their illness. This bottom line must be kept firmly.