Suppr超能文献

针对消费者的关于处方药和非处方药的多媒体教育干预措施。

Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over-the-counter medications.

作者信息

Ciciriello Sabina, Johnston Renea V, Osborne Richard H, Wicks Ian, deKroo Tanya, Clerehan Rosemary, O'Neill Clare, Buchbinder Rachelle

机构信息

Department of Rheumatology, Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkville, Australia.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Apr 30;2013(4):CD008416. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008416.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health consumers increasingly want access to accurate, evidence-based information about their medications. Currently, education about medications (that is, information that is designed to achieve health or illness related learning) is provided predominantly via spoken communication between the health provider and consumer, sometimes supplemented with written materials. There is evidence, however, that current educational methods are not meeting consumer needs. Multimedia educational programs offer many potential advantages over traditional forms of education delivery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of multimedia patient education interventions about prescribed and over-the-counter medications in people of all ages, including children and carers.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 6), MEDLINE (1950 to June 2011), EMBASE (1974 to June 2011), CINAHL (1982 to June 2011), PsycINFO (1967 to June 2011), ERIC (1966 to June 2011), ProQuest Dissertation & Theses Database (to June 2011) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs of multimedia-based patient education about prescribed or over-the-counter medications in people of all ages, including children and carers, if the intervention had been targeted for their use.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of included studies. Where possible, we contacted study authors to obtain missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 24 studies that enrolled a total of 8112 participants. However, there was significant heterogeneity in the comparators used and the outcomes measured, which limited the ability to pool data. Many of the studies did not report sufficient information in their methods to allow judgment of their risk of bias. From the information that was reported, three of the studies had a high risk of selection bias and one was at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of the outcome assessors. None of the included studies reported the minimum clinically important difference for the outcomes that were measured. We have therefore reported results from the studies but have been unable to interpret whether differences were of clinical importance.The main findings of the review are as follows.Knowledge: There is low quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided as part of usual clinical care) or no education (standardised mean difference (SMD) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 1.58, six studies with 817 participants). There was considerable statistical heterogeneity (I(2) = 89%), however, all but one of the studies favoured the multimedia group. There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was not more effective at improving knowledge than control multimedia interventions (i.e. multimedia programs that do not provide information about the medication) (mean difference (MD) of knowledge scores 2.78%, 95% CI -1.48 to 7.0, two studies with 568 participants). There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective when added to a co-intervention (written information or brief standardised instructions provided by a health professional) compared with the co-intervention alone (MD of knowledge scores 24.59%, 95% CI 22.34 to 26.83, two studies with 381 participants).Skill acquisition: There is moderate quality evidence that multimedia education was more effective than usual care or no education (MD of inhaler technique score 18.32%, 95% CI 11.92 to 24.73, two studies with 94 participants) and written education (risk ratio (RR) of improved inhaler technique 2.14, 95% CI 1.33 to 3.44, two studies with 164 participants). There is very low quality evidence that multimedia education was equally effective as education by a health professional (MD of inhaler technique score -1.01%, 95% CI -15.75 to 13.72, three studies with 130 participants).Compliance with medications: There is moderate quality evidence that there was no difference between multimedia education and usual care or no education (RR of complying 1.02, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.08, two studies with 4552 participants).We could not determine the effect of multimedia education on other outcomes, including patient satisfaction, self-efficacy and health outcomes, due to an inadequate number of studies from which to draw conclusions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review provides evidence that multimedia education about medications is more effective than usual care (non-standardised education provided by health professionals as part of usual clinical care) or no education, in improving both knowledge and skill acquisition. It also suggests that multimedia education is at least equivalent to other forms of education, including written education and education provided by a health professional. However, this finding is based on often low quality evidence from a small number of trials. Multimedia education about medications could therefore be considered as an adjunct to usual care but there is inadequate evidence to recommend it as a replacement for written education or education by a health professional. Multimedia education may be considered as an alternative to education provided by a health professional, particularly in settings where provision of detailed education by a health professional is not feasible. More studies evaluating multimedia educational interventions are required in order to increase confidence in the estimate of effect of the intervention.Conclusions regarding the effect of multimedia education were limited by the lack of information provided by study authors about the educational interventions, and variability in their content and quality. Studies testing educational interventions should provide detailed information about the interventions and comparators. Research is required to establish a framework that is specific for the evaluation of the quality of multimedia educational programs. Conclusions were also limited by the heterogeneity in the outcomes reported and the instruments used to measure them. Research is required to identify a core set of outcomes which should be measured when evaluating patient educational interventions. Future research should use consistent, reliable and validated outcome measures so that comparisons can be made between studies.

摘要

背景

医疗消费者越来越希望获取有关其所用药物的准确、循证信息。目前,关于药物的教育(即旨在实现与健康或疾病相关学习的信息)主要通过医疗服务提供者与消费者之间的口头交流提供,有时辅以书面材料。然而,有证据表明,当前的教育方法无法满足消费者的需求。多媒体教育项目相较于传统教育方式具有诸多潜在优势。

目的

评估针对各年龄段人群(包括儿童及护理人员)开展的关于处方药和非处方药的多媒体患者教育干预措施的效果。

检索方法

我们检索了Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL,Cochrane图书馆2011年第6期)、MEDLINE(1950年至2011年6月)、EMBASE(1974年至2011年6月)、CINAHL(1982年至2011年6月)、PsycINFO(1967年至2011年6月)、ERIC(1966年至2011年6月)、ProQuest学位论文数据库(截至2011年6月)以及文章的参考文献列表。

入选标准

针对各年龄段人群(包括儿童及护理人员)开展的关于处方药或非处方药的基于多媒体的患者教育的随机对照试验(RCT)和半随机对照试验,前提是干预措施是针对他们使用的。

数据收集与分析

两位综述作者独立提取数据并评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。如有可能,我们联系研究作者以获取缺失信息。

主要结果

我们识别出24项研究,共纳入8112名参与者。然而,所使用的对照和测量的结局存在显著异质性,这限制了数据合并的能力。许多研究在其方法中未报告足够信息,无法判断其偏倚风险。根据所报告的信息,其中三项研究存在高度选择偏倚风险,一项研究因结局评估者未设盲而存在高度偏倚风险。纳入的研究均未报告所测量结局的最小临床重要差异。因此,我们报告了这些研究的结果,但无法解读差异是否具有临床重要性。该综述的主要发现如下。

知识

低质量证据表明,多媒体教育比常规护理(作为常规临床护理一部分提供的非标准化教育)或无教育更有效(标准化均数差(SMD)为1.04,95%置信区间(CI)为0.49至1.58,六项研究,817名参与者)。然而,存在相当大的统计异质性(I² = 89%),除一项研究外,所有研究均支持多媒体组。中等质量证据表明,多媒体教育在提高知识方面并不比对照多媒体干预措施(即不提供药物信息的多媒体项目)更有效(知识得分的平均差(MD)为2.78%,95% CI为 -1.48至7.0,两项研究,568名参与者)。中等质量证据表明,与单独的联合干预措施(由卫生专业人员提供的书面信息或简短标准化指导)相比,多媒体教育与联合干预措施一起使用时更有效(知识得分的MD为24.59%,95% CI为22.34至26.83,两项研究,381名参与者)。

技能获取

中等质量证据表明,多媒体教育比常规护理或无教育更有效(吸入技术得分的MD为18.32%,95% CI为11.92至24.73,两项研究,94名参与者),且比书面教育更有效(吸入技术改善的风险比(RR)为2.14,95% CI为1.33至3.44,两项研究,164名参与者)。极低质量证据表明,多媒体教育与卫生专业人员进行的教育效果相当(吸入技术得分的MD为 -1.01%,95% CI为 -15.75至13.72,三项研究,130名参与者)。

药物依从性

中等质量证据表明,多媒体教育与常规护理或无教育之间无差异(依从的RR为1.02,95% CI为0.96至1.08,两项研究,4552名参与者)。

由于可供得出结论的研究数量不足,我们无法确定多媒体教育对其他结局的影响,包括患者满意度、自我效能感和健康结局。

作者结论

本综述提供的证据表明,关于药物的多媒体教育在提高知识和技能获取方面比常规护理(卫生专业人员作为常规临床护理一部分提供的非标准化教育)或无教育更有效。它还表明,多媒体教育至少等同于其他教育形式,包括书面教育和卫生专业人员提供的教育。然而,这一发现基于少数试验中通常质量较低的证据。因此,关于药物的多媒体教育可被视为常规护理的辅助手段,但尚无足够证据推荐其替代书面教育或卫生专业人员提供的教育。多媒体教育可被视为卫生专业人员提供教育的替代方式,特别是在卫生专业人员提供详细教育不可行的情况下。需要更多评估多媒体教育干预措施的研究,以增强对干预措施效果估计的信心。

关于多媒体教育效果的结论受到研究作者提供的关于教育干预措施信息不足以及其内容和质量变异性的限制。测试教育干预措施的研究应提供有关干预措施和对照的详细信息。需要开展研究以建立一个专门用于评估多媒体教育项目质量的框架。结论还受到所报告结局及其测量工具的异质性的限制。需要开展研究以确定在评估患者教育干预措施时应测量的一组核心结局。未来的研究应使用一致、可靠且经过验证的结局测量方法,以便能够在研究之间进行比较。

相似文献

5
Cultural competence education for health professionals.针对卫生专业人员的文化能力教育。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 May 5;2014(5):CD009405. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009405.pub2.
6
7
Telerehabilitation services for stroke.中风的远程康复服务
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Jan 31;1(1):CD010255. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD010255.pub3.
8
Home-based educational interventions for children with asthma.针对哮喘儿童的家庭式教育干预措施。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2025 Feb 6;2(2):CD008469. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008469.pub3.

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
6
WITHDRAWN: Self-management education for adults with epilepsy.撤回:针对癫痫成人患者的自我管理教育。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Oct 6(10):CD004723. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004723.pub3.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验