Literature DB >> 10634736

Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of touch screen system with leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests.

W Graham1, P Smith, A Kamal, A Fitzmaurice, N Smith, N Hamilton.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of touch screen system with information leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests.
DESIGN: Randomised controlled trial; participants allocated to intervention group (given access to touch screen and leaflet information) or control group (leaflet information only).
SETTING: Antenatal clinic in university teaching hospital.
SUBJECTS: 875 women booking antenatal care.
INTERVENTIONS: All participants received a leaflet providing information on prenatal tests. Women in the intervention arm also had access to touch screen information system in antenatal clinic. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women's informed decision making on prenatal testing as measured by their uptake of and understanding of the purpose of specific tests; their satisfaction with information provided; and their levels of anxiety.
RESULTS: All women in the trial had a good baseline knowledge of prenatal tests. Women in the intervention group did not show any greater understanding of the purpose of the tests than control women. However, uptake of detailed anomaly scans was significantly higher in intervention group than the control group (94% (351/375) v 87% (310/358), P=0.0014). Levels of anxiety among nulliparous women in intervention group declined significantly over time (P<0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The touch screen seemed to convey no benefit over well prepared leaflets in improving understanding of prenatal tests among the pregnant women. It did, however, seem to reduce levels of anxiety and may be most effective for providing information to selected women who have a relevant adverse history or abnormal results from tests in their current pregnancy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2000        PMID: 10634736      PMCID: PMC27263          DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7228.155

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  BMJ        ISSN: 0959-8138


  18 in total

1.  Research and development for the National Health Service.

Authors:  M Peckham
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1991-08-10       Impact factor: 79.321

2.  Development of a self-administered questionnaire to measure women's knowledge of prenatal screening and diagnostic tests.

Authors:  T M Marteau; M Johnston; M Plenicar; R W Shaw; J Slack
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 3.006

3.  Consumer-oriented studies in relation to prenatal screening tests.

Authors:  M Reid
Journal:  Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol       Date:  1988-04       Impact factor: 2.435

Review 4.  Prenatal diagnosis.

Authors:  M E D'Alton; A H DeCherney
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-01-14       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 5.  Large-scale randomized evidence: large, simple trials and overviews of trials.

Authors:  R Peto; R Collins; R Gray
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  1993-12-31       Impact factor: 5.691

6.  Antenatal screening for carriers of cystic fibrosis: randomised trial of stepwise v couple screening.

Authors:  Z H Miedzybrodzka; M H Hall; J Mollison; A Templeton; I T Russell; J C Dean; K F Kelly; T M Marteau; N E Haites
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1995-02-11

7.  Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.

Authors:  K F Schulz; I Chalmers; R J Hayes; D G Altman
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1995-02-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  The crisis of childbirth: can information and childbirth education help?

Authors:  J Astbury
Journal:  J Psychosom Res       Date:  1980       Impact factor: 3.006

9.  Can anxiety in pregnant women be measured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory.

Authors:  V Hundley; E Gurney; W Graham; A M Rennie
Journal:  Midwifery       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.372

10.  Presenting a routine screening test in antenatal care: practice observed.

Authors:  T M Marteau; J Slack; J Kidd; R W Shaw
Journal:  Public Health       Date:  1992-03       Impact factor: 2.427

View more
  15 in total

1.  Patient information systems are not more expensive than leaflets.

Authors:  R Jones; N Craig
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2000-04-29

Review 2.  Increasing informed uptake and non-uptake of screening: evidence from a systematic review.

Authors:  R G Jepson; C A Forbes; A J Sowden; R A Lewis
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 3.  Computer-generated patient education materials: do they affect professional practice? A systematic review.

Authors:  Shaun P Treweek; Claire Glenton; Andrew D Oxman; Alister Penrose
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2002 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 4.497

Review 4.  Improving communication between health professionals and women in maternity care: a structured review.

Authors:  Rachel E Rowe; Jo Garcia; Alison J Macfarlane; Leslie L Davidson
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2002-03       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 5.  Measuring informed choice in population-based reproductive genetic screening: a systematic review.

Authors:  Alice Grace Ames; Sylvia Ann Metcalfe; Alison Dalton Archibald; Rony Emily Duncan; Jon Emery
Journal:  Eur J Hum Genet       Date:  2014-05-21       Impact factor: 4.246

Review 6.  Medical utilization of kiosks in the delivery of patient education: a systematic review.

Authors:  Yu-Feng Yvonne Chan; Roxanne Nagurka; Suzanne Bentley; Edgardo Ordonez; William Sproule
Journal:  Health Promot Perspect       Date:  2014-07-12

7.  A randomized trial of a prenatal genetic testing interactive computerized information aid.

Authors:  Lynn M Yee; Michael Wolf; Rebecca Mullen; Ashley R Bergeron; Stacy Cooper Bailey; Robert Levine; William A Grobman
Journal:  Prenat Diagn       Date:  2014-03-18       Impact factor: 3.050

8.  Developing a computer touch-screen interactive colorectal screening decision aid for a low-literacy African American population: lessons learned.

Authors:  Sarah Bauerle Bass; Thomas F Gordon; Sheryl Burt Ruzek; Caitlin Wolak; Dominique Ruggieri; Gabriella Mora; Michael J Rovito; Johnson Britto; Lalitha Parameswaran; Zainab Abedin; Stephanie Ward; Anuradha Paranjape; Karen Lin; Brian Meyer; Khaliah Pitts
Journal:  Health Promot Pract       Date:  2012-11-06

9.  An Evaluation of the Timing and Use of Healthcare during Pregnancy in Birmingham, UK and Pretoria, South Africa.

Authors:  Mark Robert Openshaw; Hlwelekazi N Bomela; Sam Pretlove
Journal:  ISRN Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2011-01-26

10.  The effect of credibility-related design cues on responses to a web-based message about the breast cancer risks from alcohol: randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Peter R Harris; Elizabeth Sillence; Pamela Briggs
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2009-08-25       Impact factor: 5.428

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.