AIM: To explore the impact of sharing personalized written clinical information with diabetes outpatients on patient involvement in the clinical consultation. METHODS:One hundred and six patients attending diabetes outpatient clinics for a review visit were allocated to receive either a patient information sheet containing personalized clinical information (prior to their consultation) or no information sheet. Both groups were compared by observing the number of patients raising any of the 17 topics included on the patient information sheet, the number of topics raised by each individual and the proportion of the total consultation time in which the patient was involved in conversation. A mean patient score was calculated by summing the number of topics raised by each patient. RESULTS: Patients in the intervention group were more likely to initiate a conversation on all 17 topics during the consultation than those in the control group. These differences were significant for all topics except glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and diabetes complications. The mean patient score was significantly higher in the intervention group (5 vs. 1, P < 0.005), with the highest patient score in the intervention group being 14 compared with 4 in the control group. The mean patient conversation time for the intervention group was significantly longer than for the control group (6.34 vs. 3.34 min, P < 0.01). The overall consultation time did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients with personalized clinical information in a routine clinical setting can increase patients' involvement in the consultation without significantly increasing the length of the consultation.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To explore the impact of sharing personalized written clinical information with diabetes outpatients on patient involvement in the clinical consultation. METHODS: One hundred and six patients attending diabetesoutpatient clinics for a review visit were allocated to receive either a patient information sheet containing personalized clinical information (prior to their consultation) or no information sheet. Both groups were compared by observing the number of patients raising any of the 17 topics included on the patient information sheet, the number of topics raised by each individual and the proportion of the total consultation time in which the patient was involved in conversation. A mean patient score was calculated by summing the number of topics raised by each patient. RESULTS:Patients in the intervention group were more likely to initiate a conversation on all 17 topics during the consultation than those in the control group. These differences were significant for all topics except glycated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)) and diabetes complications. The mean patient score was significantly higher in the intervention group (5 vs. 1, P < 0.005), with the highest patient score in the intervention group being 14 compared with 4 in the control group. The mean patient conversation time for the intervention group was significantly longer than for the control group (6.34 vs. 3.34 min, P < 0.01). The overall consultation time did not significantly differ between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Providing patients with personalized clinical information in a routine clinical setting can increase patients' involvement in the consultation without significantly increasing the length of the consultation.