4.0 Article

Randomised controlled trial comparing effectiveness of touch screen system with leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests

期刊

BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL
卷 320, 期 7228, 页码 155-159

出版社

BRITISH MED JOURNAL PUBL GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.320.7228.155

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective To compare the effectiveness of touch screen system with information leaflet for providing women with information on prenatal tests. Design Randomised controlled trial; participants allocated to intervention group (given access to touch screen and leaflet information) or control group (leaflet information only). Setting Antenatal clinic in university teaching hospital. Subjects 875 women booking antenatal care. Interventions All participants received a leaflet providing information on prenatal tests. Women in the intervention arm also had access to touch screen information system in antenatal clinic. Main outcome measures Women's informed decision making on prenatal testing as measured by their uptake of and understanding of the purpose of specific tests; their satisfaction with information provided; and their levels of anxiety. Results All women in the trial had a good baseline knowledge of prenatal tests. Women in the intervention group did not show any greater understanding of the purpose of the tests than control women. However, uptake of detailed anomaly scans was significantly higher in intervention group lan the control group (94% (351/375)v 87% (310/358), P = 0.0014). Levels of anxiety among nulliparous women in intervention group declined significantly over time (P < 0.001). Conclusions The touch screen seemed to convey no benefit over well prepared leaflets in improving understanding of prenatal tests among the pregnant women. It did, however, seem to reduce levels of anxiety and may be most effective for providing information to selected women who have a relevant adverse history or abnormal results from tests in their current pregnancy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据