1997 OPEN FORUM Abstracts
THE DIFFERENCE IN KNOWLEDGE AND PATIENT SATISFACTION IN PATIENTS WHO RECEIVE PULMONARY INSTRUCTION VIA LECTURE OR VIDEOTAPE---
Kelly S. Becker, B.S., CRTT, Phillip D. Hoberty, EdD, RRT, and Rebecca J. Hoberty, B.S., RRT, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Background: Pulmonary Rehabilitation (PR) is a multifaceted, small group, interdisciplinary program consisting of progressive exercise training, breathing retraining, education and psychosocial support. The education component of a PR program is usually accomplished through use of lecture/discussion sessions conducted by clinicians who are knowledgeable in their given content areas. This method is costly and inefficient due to the repetitive use of the live presenters for each new group of patients. Audio-visual programs (AVP) that accomplish the same educational objectives as the live lecture/discussions and are delivered by the original presenters in a pre-recorded format may be a more advantageous method. This would also facilitate multiple entry points for patients into the program, the make-up of missed educational sessions, and the modularization of the educational components so that patients would only view the modules that are needed. Two research questions were to be answered by this project: 1) is there a difference in knowledge level, and 2) is there a difference in patient satisfaction between the patients who attended live presentations and the patients who attended the AVP of the same content? The null hypothesis states that their would be no difference in knowledge or patient satisfaction levels between the lecture and video group. The research hypothesis states that patients who receive instruction via AVP will have lower levels of both knowledge and patient satisfaction. Method: A control group consisted of 14 patients who received the educational portion of the program by lecture/discussion method. One round of these lecturers was used to create the video to be seen by the experimental group. An experimental group consisted of 10 patients who received the educational component by viewing the video that was created in the control group. Both groups consisted of a sample of convenience. The age of the patients in the two groups were not significantly different. Patient knowledge was evaluated by using pre- and post-test multiple choice test that was written by the presenters and validated by respiratory care students and practitioners with training in rehabilitation. Patient satisfaction was assessed by a questionnaire created by the pulmonary rehab staff with input from the researchers. Results: Using an alpha level of 0.05 as significant, the results of an ANOVA with repeated measures showed that both groups improved significantly on their post-test scores. There was no significant difference of knowledge level gained between the lecture and video group. There was no significant difference in the satisfaction level between the lecture or video group. Also, age and educational level did not have a correlational effect on the results of the post-test. Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the use of video versus lecture/discussion method of conveying the educational components of a PR program. We find that it would benefit the PR program on the basis of cost and efficiency to use the AVP in place of the lecturers to provide the educational component of the PR program.