Enzenhofer Manuel, Bludau Hans-Bernd, Komm Nadja, Wild Beate, Mueller Knut, Herzog Wolfgang, Hochlehnert Achim
Department of General Internal and Psychosomatic Medicine, University of Heidelberg, Medical University Hospital, Heidelberg, Germany.
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Jun 2;6(2):e16. doi: 10.2196/jmir.6.2.e16.
Before any invasive procedure, physicians have a legal obligation to inform patients. Traditionally, this involves a discussion with a physician, supplemented by written leaflet information directed at the specific procedure.
Comparison of the use and effectiveness of computer-based visualization opposed to standardized conversation for providing patients with information of forthcoming procedures (coronary catheters or endoscopy procedures).
Prospective, randomized trial with 56 participants allocated in two different groups: Visualization Group (standardized information supported by a tool for displaying two-dimensional pictures to explain medical facts as well as informative leaflet) or Control Group (standardized information and informative leaflet only). Detailed information was given about the indication, the probable complications and the details of the forthcoming procedures (coronary catheters or endoscopy procedures). All participants had to reach a Karnofsky Score of 70 points and be able to understand German or English. Main outcome measures were patient's satisfaction with physician-patient conversation, patient's acquired knowledge and duration of the intervention as described above.
Patients of the Visualization Group were more satisfied with the conversation and had higher knowledge scores after the conversation. A Mann-Whitney-U-Test between the two groups showed that these differences in satisfaction (P<0.001) and knowledge (P= or <0.006) were statistically significant. Length of time needed for the conversation was slightly higher in the Visualization Group, but this difference was not statistically significant (25 versus 23 min; P= 0.441). No differences could be found due to differing age or educational level in the results of the Visualization and the Control Group.
Using computerized visualization increased the satisfaction and knowledge of the patients. The presentation of the visualized information in the Visualization Group did not demand significantly more time than the standard conversation in the Control Group.
在进行任何侵入性操作之前,医生有告知患者的法律义务。传统上,这包括与医生进行讨论,并辅以针对特定操作的书面传单信息。
比较基于计算机的可视化与标准化对话在为患者提供即将进行的操作(冠状动脉导管插入术或内窥镜检查)信息方面的使用情况和效果。
一项前瞻性随机试验,56名参与者被分配到两个不同的组:可视化组(由用于展示二维图片以解释医学事实的工具以及信息传单支持的标准化信息)或对照组(仅标准化信息和信息传单)。详细介绍了适应症、可能的并发症以及即将进行的操作(冠状动脉导管插入术或内窥镜检查)的细节。所有参与者的卡氏评分必须达到70分,并且能够理解德语或英语。主要结局指标是患者对医患对话的满意度、患者获得的知识以及上述干预的持续时间。
可视化组的患者对对话更满意,对话后知识得分更高。两组之间的曼-惠特尼-U检验表明,满意度(P<0.001)和知识(P=或<0.006)的这些差异具有统计学意义。可视化组对话所需的时间略长,但这种差异无统计学意义(25分钟对23分钟;P=0.441)。在可视化组和对照组的结果中,未发现因年龄或教育水平不同而产生的差异。
使用计算机化可视化提高了患者的满意度和知识水平。可视化组中可视化信息的呈现比对照组的标准对话所需时间并未显著增加。