Casey L Kinman1, Kate V Meriwether2, Cayse M Powell2, Deslyn T G Hobson2, Jeremy T Gaskins3, Sean L Francis2. 1. 1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. caseyk4408@gmail.com. 2. 1st floor, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Division of Female Pelvic Medicine and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Louisville, 550 S. Jackson St, Louisville, KY, 40202, USA. 3. Department of Bioinformatics & Biostatistics, School of Public Health and Information Sciences, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY, USA.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of an iPad™ application to the informed consent process for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery improves patient understanding and retention of information compared with standard verbal counseling (SVC) alone. METHODS:Patients scheduled for POP surgery were randomized to SVC alone or SVC augmented with an iPad™ application. Prior to counseling, immediately following counseling, and 6 weeks after surgery, patients completed a written quiz testing their understanding of POP and surgical repair (worst score 0; best score 20). Primary outcome was score change from pre- to immediately postcounseling. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and score change from postcounseling to 6 weeks after surgery. Twenty-six patients per group were needed to detect a 2.8-point difference in score change between groups (80% power; α = 0.05). RESULTS:Sixty patients were randomized, and 57 patients (29 SVC; 28 iPad) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference in score change between groups immediately postcounseling. Six weeks after surgery, patients in the iPad group had more deterioration of score (iPad -4.0 ± 2.8 vs. SVC -0.6 ± 2.3 points; p = 0.02). Both groups reported similar satisfaction with counseling. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a POP-based iPad™ application to the informed consent process for POP surgery did not improve patient comprehension immediately postcounseling and resulted in poorer retention of information 6 weeks after surgery compared with SVC alone.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS: The goal of this study was to evaluate whether the addition of an iPad™ application to the informed consent process for pelvic organ prolapse (POP) surgery improves patient understanding and retention of information compared with standard verbal counseling (SVC) alone. METHODS:Patients scheduled for POP surgery were randomized to SVC alone or SVC augmented with an iPad™ application. Prior to counseling, immediately following counseling, and 6 weeks after surgery, patients completed a written quiz testing their understanding of POP and surgical repair (worst score 0; best score 20). Primary outcome was score change from pre- to immediately postcounseling. Secondary outcomes were patient satisfaction and score change from postcounseling to 6 weeks after surgery. Twenty-six patients per group were needed to detect a 2.8-point difference in score change between groups (80% power; α = 0.05). RESULTS: Sixty patients were randomized, and 57 patients (29 SVC; 28 iPad) were included in the final analysis. There was no significant difference in score change between groups immediately postcounseling. Six weeks after surgery, patients in the iPad group had more deterioration of score (iPad -4.0 ± 2.8 vs. SVC -0.6 ± 2.3 points; p = 0.02). Both groups reported similar satisfaction with counseling. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a POP-based iPad™ application to the informed consent process for POP surgery did not improve patient comprehension immediately postcounseling and resulted in poorer retention of information 6 weeks after surgery compared with SVC alone.
Entities:
Keywords:
Informed consent; Pelvic organ prolapse; Pelvic reconstructive surgery; iPad
Authors: Mary Theresa Adams; Brian Chen; Renee Makowski; Scott Bevans; Mark Boseley Journal: Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg Date: 2011-12-12 Impact factor: 3.497
Authors: Jennifer T Anger; Una J Lee; Brita M Mittal; Matthew E Pollard; Christopher M Tarnay; Sally Maliski; Rebecca G Rogers Journal: Female Pelvic Med Reconstr Surg Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.091
Authors: Paul Kinnersley; Katie Phillips; Katherine Savage; Mark J Kelly; Elinor Farrell; Ben Morgan; Robert Whistance; Vicky Lewis; Mala K Mann; Bethan L Stephens; Jane Blazeby; Glyn Elwyn; Adrian G K Edwards Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2013-07-06
Authors: Jennifer M Wu; Catherine A Matthews; Mitchell M Conover; Virginia Pate; Michele Jonsson Funk Journal: Obstet Gynecol Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 7.661
Authors: Matthew Winter; Jonathan Kam; Sunny Nalavenkata; Ellen Hardy; Marcus Handmer; Hannah Ainsworth; Wai Gin Lee; Mark Louie-Johnsun Journal: BJU Int Date: 2016-08-25 Impact factor: 5.588
Authors: Ingrid Nygaard; Matthew D Barber; Kathryn L Burgio; Kimberly Kenton; Susan Meikle; Joseph Schaffer; Cathie Spino; William E Whitehead; Jennifer Wu; Debra J Brody Journal: JAMA Date: 2008-09-17 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Brook L McFadden; Melissa L Constantine; Sarah L Hammil; Megan E Tarr; Husam T Abed; Kimberly S Kenton; Vivian W Sung; Rebecca G Rogers Journal: Int Urogynecol J Date: 2013-07-02 Impact factor: 2.894
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