International ophthalmology · 2024
A qualitative study on the effect of a decision aid on knowledge of cataract surgery in patients in developing countries.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Fuseini Mohammed-Sherrif Napari, Gbedemah Zulfiya Emefa Edugle, Fordjuor Sam Kwaku Esson Jonah, Beecham Rya-Marie Esi Mensima, Baisie-Nkrumah Eugene Jojo, Ennin Chloe Graham, Buxton Eileen Nartehkie Amanquah, Amissah-Arthur Kwesi Nyan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Despite cataract surgery being a safe procedure with a low incidence of perioperative complications rates, poor knowledge, concerns about the effectiveness of treatment and cost-benefit analysis of the procedure significantly hinder cataract surgery uptake rates in Africa. This study describes the effect of a decision aid on knowledge and decision conflict on cataract patients in Africa.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 120 patients with cataracts reporting to a tertiary hospital in Ghana were randomly assigned to receive a decision aid containing information on the possible outcomes of cataract surgery or a control booklet containing general knowledge about cataracts without information about cataract surgery. The primary outcome measured was the effect of the decision aid on their knowledge of cataract surgery. A score greater than 6/12 (50%) was deemed adequate knowledge. The secondary outcome was the decision conflict experienced by the participants assessed using the Decision Conflict Scale.
RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the participants in the intervention group scored higher marks across all sections of the questionnaire (2.92 vs 2.7, p = 0.042 in section "Background"; 2.62 vs 1.77, p < 0.001 in section "Materials"; 1.87 vs 1.55, p = 0.03 in section "Results"). The average total score was higher in the intervention group than in the control (36.7% difference; p < 0.001). Participants in the intervention group also demonstrated lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group (13.00 vs 37.17; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The decision aid increased knowledge of cataract surgery and reduced decision conflict among patients in a developing country.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: 120 patients with cataracts reporting to a tertiary hospital in Ghana were randomly assigned to receive a decision aid containing information on the possible outcomes of cataract surgery or a control booklet containing general knowledge about cataracts without information about cataract surgery. The primary outcome measured was the effect of the decision aid on their knowledge of cataract surgery. A score greater than 6/12 (50%) was deemed adequate knowledge. The secondary outcome was the decision conflict experienced by the participants assessed using the Decision Conflict Scale.
RESULTS: Compared to the control group, the participants in the intervention group scored higher marks across all sections of the questionnaire (2.92 vs 2.7, p = 0.042 in section "Background"; 2.62 vs 1.77, p < 0.001 in section "Materials"; 1.87 vs 1.55, p = 0.03 in section "Results"). The average total score was higher in the intervention group than in the control (36.7% difference; p < 0.001). Participants in the intervention group also demonstrated lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group (13.00 vs 37.17; p < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: The decision aid increased knowledge of cataract surgery and reduced decision conflict among patients in a developing country.