OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the physicians' point of view of multimedia support in preoperative patient education for radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We evaluated the view of physicians performing multimedia supported preoperative educations within a randomized controlled trial. Therein 8 physicians educated 203 patients for radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: All physicians rated multimedia supported education better than the standard procedure. Main reasons were better comprehensibility, the visual presentation, and greater ease in explaining complex issues. Objective time measurement showed no difference between both educations. The major disadvantage was the impression, that multimedia supported education lasted longer. Moreover, they had the impression that some details could be further improved. Given the choice, every physician would decide for multimedia support. CONCLUSION: Physicians appreciate multimedia support in preoperative education and contrary to their impression, multimedia support does not prolong patient education. Therefore, patients and physicians likewise profit from multimedia support for education and counseling. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The readiness of physicians is a possible obstacle to this improvement, as their view is a key factor for the transition to everyday routine. Therefore, our results could alleviate this possible barrier for establishing multimedia supported education in clinical routine.
OBJECTIVE: To systematically assess the physicians' point of view of multimedia support in preoperative patient education for radical prostatectomy. METHODS: We evaluated the view of physicians performing multimedia supported preoperative educations within a randomized controlled trial. Therein 8 physicians educated 203 patients for radical prostatectomy. RESULTS: All physicians rated multimedia supported education better than the standard procedure. Main reasons were better comprehensibility, the visual presentation, and greater ease in explaining complex issues. Objective time measurement showed no difference between both educations. The major disadvantage was the impression, that multimedia supported education lasted longer. Moreover, they had the impression that some details could be further improved. Given the choice, every physician would decide for multimedia support. CONCLUSION: Physicians appreciate multimedia support in preoperative education and contrary to their impression, multimedia support does not prolong patient education. Therefore, patients and physicians likewise profit from multimedia support for education and counseling. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: The readiness of physicians is a possible obstacle to this improvement, as their view is a key factor for the transition to everyday routine. Therefore, our results could alleviate this possible barrier for establishing multimedia supported education in clinical routine.