OBJECTIVE:Computer-based patient education is an effective (therapeutic) tool. More and more studies prove that it can be an effective additive for face-to-face education, but it is still unclear if it is possible to educate patients by only using a computer. Our objective was to compare knowledge levels and satisfaction scores after computer-based patient education versus doctor-based patient education. METHODS: We started a randomised and stratified trial in a large plastic surgery clinic in the Netherlands. One hundred thirteen patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), scheduled for operation were included. One group received CTS education by a doctor using a checklist (group A). The other group received the same CTS education by specially designed interactive computer program (group B). After 2 weeks, knowledge levels and satisfaction scores were tested by using a questionnaire. RESULTS:One hundred thirteen patients were included, 96 patients finished the questionnaire. With respect to knowledge levels the doctor group (A) scored 20.2 points (max 40 points), and the computer group (B) scored 23.5 points. After correction the difference was 2.8 points (p=0.001). The total satisfaction score in group A was 7.6 and in group B 7.5; a difference of -0.16 (p=0.585). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that educating patients can result in a higher knowledge levels by using a computer than by using a doctor. Satisfaction seems equal after both methods of education. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Knowing that you can educate patients without seeing a doctor or nurse seems promising. Patient can be educated by computer-based education programs leaving more time in a consultation for asking questions and discussing treatment options. The discussion will be at a more equal level of knowledge. Possibly it can save time and money resulting in a more efficient patient care, without dissatisfying our patients.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: Computer-based patient education is an effective (therapeutic) tool. More and more studies prove that it can be an effective additive for face-to-face education, but it is still unclear if it is possible to educate patients by only using a computer. Our objective was to compare knowledge levels and satisfaction scores after computer-based patient education versus doctor-based patient education. METHODS: We started a randomised and stratified trial in a large plastic surgery clinic in the Netherlands. One hundred thirteen patients with carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), scheduled for operation were included. One group received CTS education by a doctor using a checklist (group A). The other group received the same CTS education by specially designed interactive computer program (group B). After 2 weeks, knowledge levels and satisfaction scores were tested by using a questionnaire. RESULTS: One hundred thirteen patients were included, 96 patients finished the questionnaire. With respect to knowledge levels the doctor group (A) scored 20.2 points (max 40 points), and the computer group (B) scored 23.5 points. After correction the difference was 2.8 points (p=0.001). The total satisfaction score in group A was 7.6 and in group B 7.5; a difference of -0.16 (p=0.585). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that educating patients can result in a higher knowledge levels by using a computer than by using a doctor. Satisfaction seems equal after both methods of education. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Knowing that you can educate patients without seeing a doctor or nurse seems promising. Patient can be educated by computer-based education programs leaving more time in a consultation for asking questions and discussing treatment options. The discussion will be at a more equal level of knowledge. Possibly it can save time and money resulting in a more efficient patient care, without dissatisfying our patients.
Authors: Vincent C H Chung; Robin S T Ho; Siya Liu; Marc K C Chong; Albert W N Leung; Benjamin H K Yip; Sian M Griffiths; Benny C Y Zee; Justin C Y Wu; Regina W S Sit; Alexander Y L Lau; Samuel Y S Wong Journal: CMAJ Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Wouter K G Leclercq; Bram J Keulers; Marc R M Scheltinga; Paul H M Spauwen; Gert-Jan van der Wilt Journal: World J Surg Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Christopher Eccleston; Emma Fisher; Lorraine Craig; Geoffrey B Duggan; Benjamin A Rosser; Edmund Keogh Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2014-02-26