4.5 Review

A systematic review of computer-based softwares for educating patients with coronary heart disease

期刊

PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 21-28

出版社

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2006.09.006

关键词

patient education; software; coronary heart disease

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To evaluate the use of computer-based softwares for educating patients with coronary heart disease. Methods: A systematic electronic search for randomised controlled trials and comparison studies published from 1999 to the end of 2005 using the MEDLINE (1999-2005), EMBASE (1999-2005) and CINAHL (1999-2005) was carried out. Articles including the reference lists in the following joumals were hand-searched: Patient Education and Counselling and Patient Counselling and Health Education. Results: A total of 487 articles were identified. Based on a review of abstracts, five studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria of the review. A scoring sheet was used to assess the papers' quality. All studies reported significantly increased knowledge in patients using the educational software when compared to standard education. The difference in knowledge between the intervention and control groups remained high even at 6 months follow up. Furthermore, patients reported high satisfaction with the educational programs. Conclusion: Despite there only being five studies that met the inclusion criteria, this review supports the successful use of computer software to increase knowledge in patients with coronary heart disease. The reviewed articles reveal that computer-based education has an important role in increasing patients' knowledge about their condition. Practical implications: It is commonly reported that patients want more information about their illness. This study shows that computer-based education can be a useful, acceptable to patients and effective way to deliver education about coronary heart disease. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

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

4.5
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