OBJECTIVES: (1)To compare an interactive multimedia decision aid (IMDA) with a leaflet and a video to give information about prenatal screening for Down syndrome and (2) to determine the women's acceptance of IMDA. METHODS:Two hundred and one women were recruited from the prenatal clinic of a university teaching hospital and randomised into theintervention group (IMDA, video, and information leaflet) or the control group (video and information leaflet). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the initial decision for and the final uptake of the prenatal screening test between the control and intervention groups. The proportion of women who were undecided was less than 10% in both groups. Of the women in the intervention group, 86.6% and 78.9% agreed that IMDA was user-friendly and acceptable, respectively. Significantly more women aged < 35 (88.1%) accepted IMDA than women aged > or = 35 (68.3%) (P = 0.030), but the logistic regression analysis did not confirm this finding after adjusting for other factors (computer knowledge and usage of computer). CONCLUSION: The use of IMDA did not affect the women's overall uptake rate of the prenatal screening test for Down syndrome. More women less than 35 years accepted IMDA probably because they used computer more frequently and had more computer knowledge. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: (1)To compare an interactive multimedia decision aid (IMDA) with a leaflet and a video to give information about prenatal screening for Down syndrome and (2) to determine the women's acceptance of IMDA. METHODS: Two hundred and one women were recruited from the prenatal clinic of a university teaching hospital and randomised into the intervention group (IMDA, video, and information leaflet) or the control group (video and information leaflet). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the initial decision for and the final uptake of the prenatal screening test between the control and intervention groups. The proportion of women who were undecided was less than 10% in both groups. Of the women in the intervention group, 86.6% and 78.9% agreed that IMDA was user-friendly and acceptable, respectively. Significantly more women aged < 35 (88.1%) accepted IMDA than women aged > or = 35 (68.3%) (P = 0.030), but the logistic regression analysis did not confirm this finding after adjusting for other factors (computer knowledge and usage of computer). CONCLUSION: The use of IMDA did not affect the women's overall uptake rate of the prenatal screening test for Down syndrome. More women less than 35 years accepted IMDA probably because they used computer more frequently and had more computer knowledge. Copyright 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Authors: Heather A Hausenblas; Britton W Brewer; Judy L Van Raalte; Brian Cook; Danielle Symons Downs; Carol Ann Weis; Claudio Nigg; Amelia Cruz Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2008-02
Authors: Deb Feldman-Stewart; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kathryn McIssac; Joan Austoker; Agathe Charvet; Paul Hewitson; Karen R Sepucha; Tim Whelan Journal: Health Expect Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Beth K Potter; Natasha O'Reilly; Holly Etchegary; Heather Howley; Ian D Graham; Mark Walker; Doug Coyle; Yelena Chorny; Mario Cappelli; Isabelle Boland; Brenda J Wilson Journal: Health Expect Date: 2008-09-16 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Maria Esther Leiva Portocarrero; Mirjam M Garvelink; Maria Margarita Becerra Perez; Anik Giguère; Hubert Robitaille; Brenda J Wilson; François Rousseau; France Légaré Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2015-09-24 Impact factor: 2.796
Authors: Kirk D Wyatt; Gabriela Prutsky Lopez; Juan Pablo Domecq Garces; Patricia Erwin; William B Brinkman; Victor M Montori; Annie LeBlanc Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2013-07-01