Nadine Sauvé1, Raymond O Powrie2, Lucia Larson2, Maureen G Phipps3, Sherry Weitzen3, Donna Fitzpatrick4, Karen Rosene-Montella2. 1. Division of Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine , Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke, Affiliated to Université de Sherbrooke , Québec , Canada. 2. Division of Obstetric and Consultative Medicine, Department of Medicine. 3. Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Research. 4. Assistant Nurse Manager, Antepartum Ward, Women and Infants Hospital of Rhode Island , Affiliated to Brown University , Providence, RI , USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate whether or not an educational pamphlet could improve knowledge without increasing anxiety in women with preeclampsia. METHODS:One hundred women recruited from an inpatient setting with suspected or proven preeclampsia were asked to answer a questionnaire assessing demographics, knowledge (primary outcome), anxiety and satisfaction (secondary outcomes) after being randomized to an intervention group (who received a pamphlet) or a control group (who did not received a pamphlet). The pamphlet and questionnaire, both designed by a multidisciplinary team, were read and answered at the same time. RESULTS: Baseline and demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. Knowledge about the symptoms of pre-eclampsia was excellent in both groups (61% to 100% correct answers). Women in both groups were well aware that preeclampsia in the past (P = 0.22) and a family history of preeclampsia (P = 0.57) were risk factors. There was a significant difference in knowledge about the risk of some fetal complications, including death (90% versus 39%, P < 0.01) and all maternal complications (P < 0.05) favouring the intervention group. Despite increased knowledge about preeclampsia and its risks, anxiety was not greater in the intervention group. Overall, there was a trend towards less knowledge in vulnerable subgroups (non-white, low income and schooling levels), but the improvement of knowledge with the pamphlet was equivalent. Baseline anxiety was higher in the vulnerable groups, but was generally not increased by the pamphlet. CONCLUSION: An educational pamphlet for women with suspected preeclampsia was able to increase knowledge without increasing anxiety.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to evaluate whether or not an educational pamphlet could improve knowledge without increasing anxiety in women with preeclampsia. METHODS: One hundred women recruited from an inpatient setting with suspected or proven preeclampsia were asked to answer a questionnaire assessing demographics, knowledge (primary outcome), anxiety and satisfaction (secondary outcomes) after being randomized to an intervention group (who received a pamphlet) or a control group (who did not received a pamphlet). The pamphlet and questionnaire, both designed by a multidisciplinary team, were read and answered at the same time. RESULTS: Baseline and demographic characteristics were similar between the two groups. Knowledge about the symptoms of pre-eclampsia was excellent in both groups (61% to 100% correct answers). Women in both groups were well aware that preeclampsia in the past (P = 0.22) and a family history of preeclampsia (P = 0.57) were risk factors. There was a significant difference in knowledge about the risk of some fetal complications, including death (90% versus 39%, P < 0.01) and all maternal complications (P < 0.05) favouring the intervention group. Despite increased knowledge about preeclampsia and its risks, anxiety was not greater in the intervention group. Overall, there was a trend towards less knowledge in vulnerable subgroups (non-white, low income and schooling levels), but the improvement of knowledge with the pamphlet was equivalent. Baseline anxiety was higher in the vulnerable groups, but was generally not increased by the pamphlet. CONCLUSION: An educational pamphlet for women with suspected preeclampsia was able to increase knowledge without increasing anxiety.
Authors: Michael D Hnat; Baha M Sibai; Steve Caritis; John Hauth; Marshall D Lindheimer; Cora MacPherson; J Peter VanDorsten; Mark Landon; Menachem Miodovnik; Richard Paul; Paul Meis; Gary Thurnau; Mitchell Dombrowski Journal: Am J Obstet Gynecol Date: 2002-03 Impact factor: 8.661
Authors: M R George; L C O'Dowd; I Martin; K O Lindell; F Whitney; M Jones; T Ramondo; L Walsh; J Grissinger; J Hansen-Flaschen; R A Panettieri Journal: Arch Intern Med Date: 1999 Aug 9-23