4.7 Article

Multimedia Support for Improving Preoperative Patient Education: A Randomized Controlled Trial Using the Example of Radical Prostatectomy

Journal

ANNALS OF SURGICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 20, Issue 1, Pages 15-23

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1245/s10434-012-2536-7

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Foundation of the Federal Bank of Baden-Wuerttemberg [2008020007]
  2. German Academic Exchange Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Growing evidence supports the use of multimedia presentations for informing patients. Therefore, we supported preoperative education by adding a multimedia tool and examined the effects in a randomized controlled trial. We randomized German-speaking patients scheduled for radical prostatectomy at our center to receive either a multimedia-supported (MME) or a standard education (SE). Outcomes were measured in a structured interview. Primary outcome was patient satisfaction. In addition, we applied validated instruments to determine anxiety and measures of decision-making. Results were given by mean and standard deviation. For comparison of groups we used t test and chi-square test. For an explorative analysis we applied multivariate logistic regression. We randomized 203 patients to receive MME (n = 102) or SE (n = 101). Complete satisfaction with preoperative education was more frequent in the MME group (69 vs 52 %, p = .016) and patients after MME reported more questions (5.7 vs 4.2, p = .018). There was no difference concerning the duration of talks and the number of recalled risks. However, perceived knowledge was higher after MME (1.3 vs 1.6, p = .037). Anxiety and measures of decision-making were comparable. Patients judged the multimedia tool very positive, and 74 % of the MME group thought that their preoperative education had been superior to SE. Multimedia support should be considered worthwhile for improving the informed consent process before surgery (www.germanctr.de DRKS00000096).

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available