Are Technology-Informed Methods Better Than Traditional Approaches in Educating Patients? A Meta-Analysis

Document Type

Peer-Reviewed Article

Publication Date

1-2018

Abstract

Objective:

Healthcare educators are usually well-intended in their educational efforts for and with patients. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing traditional versus technology-delivered healthcare education.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods: Educational technology was operationally defined to include videos, DVDs, websites and other computer-based education programmes. Proquest Health Management, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Proquest Nursing & Allied Health, PubMed, Medline and Academic Search Premier databases were searched. Search limits included articles published between January 2006 and September 2016, authored in English and peer reviewed. There were four search terms: patient education, videos, DVDs and computer-assisted technology (CAT). A total of 5,003 articles were identified. Articles were screened for inclusion by study title, reducing the list to 407. Abstracts were read, reducing the list to 201. The remaining articles were read. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, and 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Effect sizes were calculated, and a meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Of the 24 studies included, 12 measured improvements in knowledge, with 10 asserting statistically significant improvements with the use of technology compared to traditional delivery. According to the results of the meta-analysis, however, evidence from pooling the data more strongly favours traditional education compared to technology driven interventions.

Conclusion: Objective: Healthcare educators are usually well-intended in their educational efforts for and with patients. The purpose of this study was to conduct a meta-analysis comparing traditional versus technology-delivered healthcare education.

Design: Systematic review with meta-analysis.

Methods: Educational technology was operationally defined to include videos, DVDs, websites and other computer-based education programmes. Proquest Health Management, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Proquest Nursing & Allied Health, PubMed, Medline and Academic Search Premier databases were searched. Search limits included articles published between January 2006 and September 2016, authored in English and peer reviewed. There were four search terms: patient education, videos, DVDs and computer-assisted technology (CAT). A total of 5,003 articles were identified. Articles were screened for inclusion by study title, reducing the list to 407. Abstracts were read, reducing the list to 201. The remaining articles were read. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were established, and 24 studies were included in the final analysis. Effect sizes were calculated, and a meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Of the 24 studies included, 12 measured improvements in knowledge, with 10 asserting statistically significant improvements with the use of technology compared to traditional delivery. According to the results of the meta-analysis, however, evidence from pooling the data more strongly favours traditional education compared to technology driven interventions.

Conclusion: This meta-analysis compared traditional versus technology-delivered healthcare education; the results suggest preference for traditional.

This meta-analysis compared traditional versus technology-delivered healthcare education; the results suggest preference for traditional.

Comments

First published ahead of print January 9, 2018

DOI

10.1177/0017896917741511

Publication

Health Education Journal

Link to Full Text


Share

COinS