BACKGROUND: In fast-paced dermatology clinics, the process of obtaining informed consents for biopsies and providing postprocedure instructions may be incomplete and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To compare effectiveness of video-based education with that of verbal education for giving informed consent and providing postprocedure wound care instructions in patients undergoing skin biopsies. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, participants were randomized to receive either video education on portable video devices or conventional verbal instructions regarding skin biopsies. Participants completed a skin-biopsy knowledge assessment, patient satisfaction assessment and evaluation of educational medium. Main outcome measures were differences in the changes in the prestudy and poststudy knowledge assessment scores, patient satisfaction and evaluation of the educational medium. RESULTS:Eight-four patients undergoing skin biopsies at the University of California Davis dermatology clinic participated in the study. Participants in the control group had a nonstatistically significant increase in knowledge score (mean ± SD 1·12 ± 1·74), whereas those in the video group had a statistically significant increase in knowledge score (mean ± SD 1·55 ± 1·71). The difference in knowledge scores between the video and verbal groups was not statistically significant. Participants in both groups were highly satisfied with the biopsy education. On a 10-point scale, the mean ± SD usefulness and appeal of the videos were 9·01 ± 1·5 and 9·01 ± 1·66, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge score following video education, but not following oral education. Although between-group comparisons did not achieve statistical significance, portable video media for presenting informed consent and wound care instructions for skin biopsies appear to be more effective and result in higher satisfaction than traditional oral education.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: In fast-paced dermatology clinics, the process of obtaining informed consents for biopsies and providing postprocedure instructions may be incomplete and inconsistent. OBJECTIVES: To compare effectiveness of video-based education with that of verbal education for giving informed consent and providing postprocedure wound care instructions in patients undergoing skin biopsies. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, participants were randomized to receive either video education on portable video devices or conventional verbal instructions regarding skin biopsies. Participants completed a skin-biopsy knowledge assessment, patient satisfaction assessment and evaluation of educational medium. Main outcome measures were differences in the changes in the prestudy and poststudy knowledge assessment scores, patient satisfaction and evaluation of the educational medium. RESULTS: Eight-four patients undergoing skin biopsies at the University of California Davis dermatology clinic participated in the study. Participants in the control group had a nonstatistically significant increase in knowledge score (mean ± SD 1·12 ± 1·74), whereas those in the video group had a statistically significant increase in knowledge score (mean ± SD 1·55 ± 1·71). The difference in knowledge scores between the video and verbal groups was not statistically significant. Participants in both groups were highly satisfied with the biopsy education. On a 10-point scale, the mean ± SD usefulness and appeal of the videos were 9·01 ± 1·5 and 9·01 ± 1·66, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Our study demonstrated a significant increase in knowledge score following video education, but not following oral education. Although between-group comparisons did not achieve statistical significance, portable video media for presenting informed consent and wound care instructions for skin biopsies appear to be more effective and result in higher satisfaction than traditional oral education.
Authors: Christopher A Harle; Elizabeth H Golembiewski; Kiarash P Rahmanian; Janice L Krieger; Dorothy Hagmajer; Arch G Mainous; Ray E Moseley Journal: J Am Med Inform Assoc Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 4.497
Authors: Johanna Glaser; Sarah Nouri; Alicia Fernandez; Rebecca L Sudore; Dean Schillinger; Michele Klein-Fedyshin; Yael Schenker Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2020-01-16 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Mohamad-Hani Temsah; Ayman Al-Eyadhy; Fahad Alsohime; Khalid A Alhasan; Fahad A Bashiri; Hashim Bin Salleeh; Gamal M Hasan; Ali Alhaboob; Narjes Al-Sabei; Abdullah Al-Wehaibi; Omar Temsah; Ali M Somily; Fahad Al-Zamil Journal: Int J Pediatr Adolesc Med Date: 2020-11-19
Authors: Jo McDonall; Anastasia F Hutchinson; Bernice Redley; Patricia M Livingston; Mari Botti Journal: Health Expect Date: 2019-09-05 Impact factor: 3.377