Journal of hand therapy : official journal of the American Society of Hand Therapists · 2018
Evaluation of written and video education tools after mallet finger injury.
СтатьяVideo-Audio MediaНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Novak Christine B, Mak Lonita, Chang Mary
Аннотация
STUDY DESIGN: Prospective cohort.
INTRODUCTION: Successful nonoperative treatment of mallet finger injuries requires compliance to prolonged immobilization and understandable educational materials.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study evaluated the use of written and online video education tools after mallet finger injury.
METHODS: After ethics board approval and informed consent, adults with an acute mallet finger injury referred to hand therapy were included. Standard nonoperative treatment was instituted with orthotic immobilization and verbal instructions, in addition to an education pamphlet and an online video link. A questionnaire regarding the educational materials was administered at the follow-up appointment.
RESULTS: There were 61 patients (mean age, 42 ± 14 years). The middle (n = 21) and ring (n = 22) fingers were most commonly injured. All patients were fluent in English. Written instructions (n = 57) were used by more patients than the videos (n = 30). Comparing patients who viewed the video with those who did not, there were no differences (P > .05) in demographics (sex, age, education, work status, and second language). Both written and video instructions were reported as helpful; mean helpful score for the video was significantly (P = .03) higher than written instructions. Most patients preferred having written and video instructions, and both were easy to understand and convenient.
DISCUSSION: In our study of patients with acute mallet finger injuries, written and video instructions were utilized and both were reported as helpful.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the usefulness of online videos as an educational aid and the opportunity for future investigations to improve patient access to education materials.
INTRODUCTION: Successful nonoperative treatment of mallet finger injuries requires compliance to prolonged immobilization and understandable educational materials.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY: This study evaluated the use of written and online video education tools after mallet finger injury.
METHODS: After ethics board approval and informed consent, adults with an acute mallet finger injury referred to hand therapy were included. Standard nonoperative treatment was instituted with orthotic immobilization and verbal instructions, in addition to an education pamphlet and an online video link. A questionnaire regarding the educational materials was administered at the follow-up appointment.
RESULTS: There were 61 patients (mean age, 42 ± 14 years). The middle (n = 21) and ring (n = 22) fingers were most commonly injured. All patients were fluent in English. Written instructions (n = 57) were used by more patients than the videos (n = 30). Comparing patients who viewed the video with those who did not, there were no differences (P > .05) in demographics (sex, age, education, work status, and second language). Both written and video instructions were reported as helpful; mean helpful score for the video was significantly (P = .03) higher than written instructions. Most patients preferred having written and video instructions, and both were easy to understand and convenient.
DISCUSSION: In our study of patients with acute mallet finger injuries, written and video instructions were utilized and both were reported as helpful.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the usefulness of online videos as an educational aid and the opportunity for future investigations to improve patient access to education materials.