4.5 Article

A randomized controlled trial of an online educational video intervention to improve glaucoma eye drop technique

Journal

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
Volume 102, Issue 5, Pages 937-943

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2018.12.019

Keywords

Eye drop technique; Glaucoma; Patient education; Self-efficacy; Video; Online

Funding

  1. Glaucoma Research Foundation Shaffer Grant
  2. PhRMA Foundation Predoctoral Fellowship in Health Outcomes

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To determine the effectiveness of an online video intervention in improving self-efficacy and eye drop application technique in glaucoma patients. Methods: We randomized ninety-two patients with primary open-angle glaucoma, all who self-administer their eye drops, to either watch the 4-minute Meducation (R) eye drop technique video in the intervention group, or a nutrition video in the control group. We assessed five eye drop technique steps using objective video recordings at baseline, immediately after watching the video, and 1 month later. We used linear regression models to determine whether the intervention group had better self-efficacy and technique than the control group. Results: Adjusted for baseline technique and other covariates, eye drop technique averaged 0.73 steps better in intervention patients than controls immediately after the video (p = 0.003) and 0.63 steps better at 1 month (p = 0.01). Adjusted for baseline self-efficacy, intervention patients had better eye drop technique self-efficacy than controls immediately after the video (p = 0.02) and at 1 month (p = 0.02). Conclusion: A short educational video can significantly improve glaucoma patients' short-term self-efficacy and eye drop technique. Practice implications: Videos may provide an inexpensive, convenient way to deliver eye drop technique education in any provider's office or online. (C) 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available