BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relative advantages of video versus internet-based decision aids to facilitate shared medical decision making. This study compared internet and video patient education modalities for men considering the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. METHODS:Two hundred and twenty-six men, aged 50 years or older, and scheduled to complete a physical examination at an HMO Health Appraisal Clinic were randomly assigned to access a website (N = 114) or view a 23-minute videotape in the clinic (N = 112) prior to deciding whether they wanted to be screened for prostate cancer. RESULTS: There were no between-groups differences in participants' ratings of convenience, effort, or satisfaction following exposure to the decision aid. Participants assigned to the video group were more likely to review the materials than individuals assigned to the internet group (98.2% vs 53.5%). Participants in the video group showed significantly greater increases in PSA knowledge and were more likely to decline the PSA test than individuals assigned to the internet group. However, participants in the internet group who reviewed the entire online presentation showed similar increases in PSA knowledge as video participants. Only 5% of all participants visited other websites to inform themselves about the PSA test. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the video was significantly more effective than the Internet in educating participants about benefits and risks of PSA screening.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Little is known about the relative advantages of video versus internet-based decision aids to facilitate shared medical decision making. This study compared internet and video patient education modalities for men considering the prostate specific antigen (PSA) test. METHODS: Two hundred and twenty-six men, aged 50 years or older, and scheduled to complete a physical examination at an HMO Health Appraisal Clinic were randomly assigned to access a website (N = 114) or view a 23-minute videotape in the clinic (N = 112) prior to deciding whether they wanted to be screened for prostate cancer. RESULTS: There were no between-groups differences in participants' ratings of convenience, effort, or satisfaction following exposure to the decision aid. Participants assigned to the video group were more likely to review the materials than individuals assigned to the internet group (98.2% vs 53.5%). Participants in the video group showed significantly greater increases in PSA knowledge and were more likely to decline the PSA test than individuals assigned to the internet group. However, participants in the internet group who reviewed the entire online presentation showed similar increases in PSA knowledge as video participants. Only 5% of all participants visited other websites to inform themselves about the PSA test. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the video was significantly more effective than the Internet in educating participants about benefits and risks of PSA screening.
Authors: Grace Lu-Yao; Peter C Albertsen; Janet L Stanford; Therese A Stukel; Elizabeth S Walker-Corkery; Michael J Barry Journal: BMJ Date: 2002-10-05
Authors: Joseph A Diaz; Rebecca A Griffith; James J Ng; Steven E Reinert; Peter D Friedmann; Anne W Moulton Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: V J Felitti; R F Anda; D Nordenberg; D F Williamson; A M Spitz; V Edwards; M P Koss; J S Marks Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 1998-05 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Patricia F Harris; Robert M Arnold; Ursula K Braun; Erik Fromme; Rahwa Ghermay; Stephanie Harman; Robert L Jayes; Anne M Walling Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-11-30 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: René Aloisio da Costa Vieira; Ana Helena Lopes; Almir José Sarri; Zuleica Caulada Benedetti; Cleyton Zanardo de Oliveira Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2017-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Sunil Kripalani; Jyoti Sharma; Elizabeth Justice; Jeb Justice; Cynthia Spiker; Larry E Laufman; Megan Price; Armin D Weinberg; Terry A Jacobson Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2007-08 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Carmen L Lewis; Jared Adams; Ming Tai-Seale; Qiwen Huang; Sarah B Knowles; Matthew E Nielsen; Michael P Pignone; Louise C Walter; Dominick L Frosch Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2015-02-10 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Meghan C Halley; Katharine A S Rendle; Katherine A Gillespie; Katherine M Stanley; Dominick L Frosch Journal: Health Expect Date: 2014-09-29 Impact factor: 3.377