Advertisement

Supportive Care in Cancer

, Volume 15, Issue 1, pp 7–20 | Cite as

Interactive technologies and videotapes for patient education in cancer care: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials

  • Marjolein GyselsEmail author
  • Irene J. Higginson
Review Article

Abstract

Goals of work

Patients diagnosed with cancer need education as they face complex decisions. There is limited evidence about the impact of new educational technologies for cancer patients. This paper investigates whether interactive technologies and videotapes for patient education in cancer care improve knowledge, satisfaction or other outcomes.

Methods

Literature search of five computerised databases (Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews) and bibliography searches identified relevant randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently assessed trial quality. Summary effects for knowledge and satisfaction were calculated using random-effects models (RevMan 4.2 software). Continuous data were summarised as weighted mean differences and dichotomous data as odds ratios, each with their respective 95% confidence interval. Standardised effect sizes for these outcomes were calculated and contrasted.

Results

Nine randomised control trials with 1,678 patients were identified. Three evaluated the use of videotapes, and six evaluated computer technologies. Studies were of good-quality design but were variable in instruments, content, populations, outcomes and results. Educational technologies showed improved patient knowledge (effect sizes ranging from 0.12 to 1.03). Satisfaction was improved in some studies, but the overall effect was more equivocal—effect sizes ranged (0.05 to 0.40) of benefit for knowledge and from 0 to 0.40 for satisfaction.

Conclusions

The trials present preliminary evaluations of the technology in North America, the UK and Australia. There is a trend to improved knowledge and satisfaction. The ways in which the interventions are delivered and the extent of communication with a health professional affect patient responses.

Keywords

Videotapes Interactive technologies Patient education Decision making Cancer 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) funded the initial reviews for this work. This review was undertaken with the support of The Cicely Saunders Foundation (TCSF).

References

  1. 1.
    Ader DH, Seibring AR, Bhaskar P, Melamed BG (1992) Information seeking and interactive videodisc preparation for third molar extraction. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 50:27–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Agre P, Kurtz R, Krauss B (1994) A randomised trial using videotape to present consent information for colonoscopy. Gastrointest Endosc 40(3):271–276PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bartlett EE, Grayson M, Barker R (1984) The effects of physician communication skills on patient satisfaction, recall and adherence. J Chronic Dis 37:765–772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brown RF, Butow PN, Sharrock MA, Henman M, Boyle F, Goldstein D et al (2004) Education and role modelling for clinical decisions with female cancer patients. Health Expect 7(4):303–316PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cassileth BR, Zupkis RV, Sutton-Smith K, March V (1980) Informed consent—why are its goals imperfectly realised? Ann Intern Med 92:832–836PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1999) Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? Br Med J 318:318–322Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fallowfield LJ, Hall A, Maguire GP, Baum M (1990) Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial. Br Med J 301:575–580CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gustafson DH, Hawkins R, Pingree S, McTavish F, Arora NK, Mendenhall J et al (2001) Effect of computer support on younger women with breast cancer. J Gen Intern Med 16(435):445Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hughes KK (1993) Decision making by patients with breast cancer: the role of information in treatment selection. Oncol Nurs Forum 20:623–628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jones R, Pearson J, McGregor J (1999) Cross-sectional survey of patients satisfaction with information about cancer. Br Med J 319:1247–1248Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones R, Pearson J, McGregor S, Cawsey J, Barrett A, Craig N et al (1999) Randomised trial of personalised computer based information for cancer patients. Br Med J 319:1241–1247Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maslin AM, Baum M, Walker JS, A’Hearn R, Prouse A (1998) Using an interactive video disk in breast cancer patient support. Nurs Times 94(44):52–55PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Meredith C, Symonds P, Webster L (1996) Information needs of cancer patients in the west of Scotland: cross-sectional survey of patients’ views. Br Med J 313:724–726Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mills ME, Sullivan K (1999) The importance of information giving for patients newly diagnosed with cancer: a review of the literature. J Clin Nurs 8:631–642PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Molenaar S, Sprangers MA, Postma-Schuit FC (2000) Feasibility and effects of decision aids. Med Decis Making 20:112–127PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris J, Ingham R (1988) Choice of surgery for early breast cancer: psychosocial considerations. Soc Sci Med 27:1257–1262PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    National Cancer Alliance (1996) Patient-centred cancer services? What patients say. National Cancer Alliance, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Connor A, Fiset V, DeGrasse C, Graham I, Evans W, Stacey D et al (1999) Decision aids for patients considering options affecting cancer outcomes: evidence of efficacy and policy implications. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 25:67–80PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    O’Connor AM, Rostom A, Fiset V, Tetroe J, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H et al (1999) Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. Br Med J 319:731–734Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Rinck G, Van den Bos G, Kleijnen J, de Haes H, Schade E, Veenhof C (1997) Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review. J Clin Oncol 15(4):1697–1707PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Russell I, Di Blasi Z, Lambert M, Russell D (1998) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: opportunities and threats. In: Templeton AA, O’Brien PMS (eds) Evidence-based fertility treatment. RCOG, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shaw M, Beebe T, Tomshine P, Adlis S, Oliver W (2001) A randomized controlled trial of interactive, multimedia software for patient colonoscopy education. J Clin Gastroenterol 32(2):142–147PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Slavin RE (1995) Best evidence synthesis: an intelligent alternative to meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 48:9–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Steward MA (1995) Effective physician–patient communication and health outcomes: a review. Can Med Assoc J 152:1423–1433Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Street RL, Voight B, Geyer C, Manning T, Swanson GP (1995) Increasing patient involvement in choosing treatment for early breast cancer. Cancer 76(11):2275–2285PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Thomas R, Daly M, Perryman B, Stockton D (2000) Forewarned is forearmed—benefits of preparatory information on videocassette for patients receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy—a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Cancer 36:1536–1543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Whelan T, Sawka C, Levine M, Gafni A, Reyno L, Willan A et al (2003) Helping patients make informed choices: a randomised trial of a decision aid for adjuvant chemotherapy in lymph node-negative breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 95(8):581–587PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    World Health Organisation/UICC (2003) Global action against cancer. World Health Organisation/UICC, GenevaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, King’s College London School of Medicine at Guy’sKing’s College and St Thomas’ HospitalsLondonUK
  2. 2.Weston Education CentreLondonUK

Personalised recommendations