Search

Objective: The study's purpose was to test the generalizability of an individualized information prescription model, which has been previously validated for educating patients about hypertension in emergency department and community health center settings. Study investigators assessed the effects of educational materials targeted to health literacy levels and learning styles on patients' diabetes knowledge in a community clinic setting. Methods: From May to August 2012, 160 patients were recruited and randomized into intervention (n581) and control (n=79) groups. Inclusion criteria included 18 years or older, English or Spanish speaker, and a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Measures included modified versions of the Diabetes Knowledge Test and Subjective Numeracy Scale, along with brief health literacy and learning style assessments. Study team members contacted both groups after 2 and 6 weeks to reassess diabetes knowledge. Results: The control group showed no significant change in diabetes knowledge at both follow-ups. In contrast, the mean number of diabetes knowledge questions answered correctly by the intervention group increased significantly after 2 weeks (Δ=2.66, P=0.000), which persisted at 6 weeks (Δ=2.46,P=0.00). Conclusions: This study showed that patients' knowledge about diabetes increased significantly after exposure to educational materials targeted to their health literacy levels and learning style preferences and that the model is transferrable among health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has accelerated a shift toward virtual telemedicine appointments with surgeons. While this form of healthcare delivery has potential benefits for both patients and surgeons, the quality of these interactions remains largely unstudied. We hypothesize that telemedicine visits are associated with lower quality of shared decision-making. STUDY DESIGN: We performed a mixed-methods, prospective, observational cohort trial. All patients presenting for a first-time visit at general surgery clinics between May 2021 and June 2022 were included. Patients were categorized by type of visit: in-person vs telemedicine. The primary outcome was the level of shared decision-making as captured by top box scores of the Collabo-RATE measure. Secondary outcomes included quality of shared decision-making as captured by the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire and satisfaction with consultation survey. An adjusted analysis was performed accounting for potential confounders. A qualitative analysis of open-ended questions for both patients and practitioners was performed. RESULTS: During a 13-month study period, 387 patients were enrolled, of which 301 (77.8%) underwent in-person visits and 86 (22.2%) underwent telemedicine visits. The groups were similar in age, sex, employment, education, and generic quality-of-life scores. In an adjusted analysis, a visit type of telemedicine was not associated with either the Collabo-RATE top box score (odds ratio 1.27; 95% CI 0.74 to 2.20) or 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (β -0.60; p = 0.76). Similarly, there was no difference in other outcomes. Themes from qualitative patient and surgeon responses included physical presence, time investment, appropriateness for visit purpose, technical difficulties, and communication quality CONCLUSIONS: In this large, prospective study, there does not appear to be a difference in quality of shared decision making in patients undergoing in-person vs telemedicine appointments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]