首页> 外文期刊>Health expectations: an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy >Do audio-guided decision aids improve outcomes? A randomized controlled trial of an audio-guided decision aid compared with a booklet decision aid for Australian women considering labour analgesia.
【24h】

Do audio-guided decision aids improve outcomes? A randomized controlled trial of an audio-guided decision aid compared with a booklet decision aid for Australian women considering labour analgesia.

机译:语音指导决策辅助工具能否改善结果?针对考虑分娩镇痛的澳大利亚妇女,进行了语音指导决策帮助与小册子决策帮助的随机对照试验。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of an audio-guided component: an audio-guided decision aid vs. a stand-alone booklet decision aid. BACKGROUND: Despite extensive evaluation of decision aids in clinical settings the presentation style has not been properly assessed, and audio-guided decision aids are widely used although not supported by evidence-based research. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Two obstetric hospitals in Sydney, Australia. A total of 395 pregnant women having their first baby and approximately > or =36 weeks of gestation, planning a vaginal birth of a single infant and with self-assessed English sufficiency to read and listen to English-presented material. INTERVENTION: A decision aid for labour and childbirth analgesia that was presented in two ways: an audio-guided decision aid compared with a booklet only style decision aid. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Decisional conflict, knowledge and anxiety. RESULTS: Although both groups improved their knowledge scores and decreased their decisional conflict there were no significant differences between groups: mean knowledge score - audio-guided group, 65.9 vs. booklet group, 64.3; mean difference, 1.7; 95% CI (-7.5, 4.2); mean decisional conflict score - audio-guided group, 23.6 vs. booklet group, 24.3; mean difference, 0.7; 95% CI (-1.4, 2.9). Acceptability and compliance were high. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: This evaluation highlights the lack of additional benefit in using audio-guided formats for presenting health information to consumers who are from a general English-speaking population. These results considered together with the increase in costs and work involved in producing audio components suggests that written and pictorial methods may be sufficient for decision aids aimed at a general audience.
机译:目的:评估语音指导组件的有效性:语音指导决策辅助工具与独立小册子决策辅助工具。背景:尽管在临床环境中对辅助决策工具进行了广泛的评估,但演讲风格尚未得到适当评估,尽管基于证据的研究未提供支持,但语音辅助决策辅助工具仍被广泛使用。设计:随机对照试验。地点和参与者:澳大利亚悉尼的两家产科医院。共有395名孕妇有了第一个孩子,并且妊娠大约>或= 36周,计划一个婴儿的阴道分娩,并具有自我评估的英语能力,可以阅读和听取英语授课的材料。干预:分娩镇痛决策辅助工具以两种方式介绍:语音指导决策辅助工具与仅小册子式决策辅助工具相比。主要观察指标:决策冲突,知识和焦虑。结果:尽管两组都提高了知识得分并减少了决策冲突,但两组之间没有显着差异:平均知识得分-语音指导组为65.9,小册子组为64.3;平均差异为1.7; 95%CI(-7.5,4.2);平均决策冲突评分-语音指导小组23.6 vs小册子小组24.3;平均差异为0.7; 95%CI(-1.4,2.9)。可接受性和合规性很高。讨论和结论:此评估突出显示了在使用音频引导格式向来自普通英语人群的消费者展示健康信息时,缺乏其他好处。这些结果与成本的增加以及制作音频组件所涉及的工作一起表明,书面和绘画方法可能足以满足针对普通观众的决策辅助需求。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号