Assessing the Efficacy of an Educational Smartphone or Tablet App With Subdivided and Interactive Content to Increase Patients’ Medical Knowledge: Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

BackgroundModern health care focuses on shared decision making (SDM) because of its positive effects on patient satisfaction, therapy compliance, and outcomes. Patients’ knowledge about their illness and available treatment options, gained through medical education, is one of the key drivers for SDM. Current patient education relies heavily on medical consultation and is known to be ineffective.ObjectiveThis study aimed to determine whether providing patients with information in a subdivided, categorized, and interactive manner via an educational app for smartphone or tablet might increase the knowledge of their illness.MethodsA surgeon-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted with 213 patients who were referred to 1 of the 6 Dutch hospitals by their general practitioner owing to knee complaints that were indicative of knee osteoarthritis. An interactive app that, in addition to standard care, actively sends informative and pertinent content to patients about their illness on a daily basis by means of push notifications in the week before their consultation. The primary outcome was the level of perceived and actual knowledge that patients had about their knee complaints and the relevant treatment options after the intervention.ResultsIn total, 122 patients were enrolled in the control group and 91 in the intervention group. After the intervention, the level of actual knowledge (measured on a 0-36 scale) was 52% higher in the app group (26.4 vs 17.4, P<.001). Moreover, within the app group, the level of perceived knowledge (measured on a 0-25 scale) increased by 22% during the week within the app group (from 13.5 to 16.5, P<.001), compared with no gain in the control group.ConclusionsActively offering patients information in a subdivided (per day), categorized (per theme), and interactive (video and quiz questions) manner significantly increases the level of perceived knowledge and demonstrates a higher level of actual knowledge, compared with standard care educational practices.Trial RegistrationInternational Standard Randomized Controlled Trial Number ISRCTN98629372; http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN98629372 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/73F5trZbb)

Effect of the dr. Bart application on healthcare use and clinical outcomes in people with osteoarthritis of the knee and/or hip in the Netherlands; a randomized controlled trial

“…This could indicate a lack of engagement of participants or user-friendliness for the app itself. However, these rates are in line with studies on standalone eHealth applications assisting patients with OA in their preparation for the first consult with an orthopaedic surgeon, which could be used one or 2 weeks prior to consultation 48,49 . So, compared to other standalone eHealth interventions, our rates are comparable 50 .…”

A real-time electronic symptom monitoring system for patients after discharge following surgery: a pilot study in cancer-related surgery

“…Recall may be impaired by pain, fatigue, sleep deprivation [55] and cognitive dysfunction associated with critical care [56]. ePROM platforms that systematically deliver individually-tailored patient information have been associated with increased information retention [57] and improved patient outcomes [54,58,59]. Patients reported that the capacity for the ePRO surgery system to monitor symptoms in real-time and provide individually tailored advice on demand enabled them to proactively and promptly manage their symptoms.…”

An Electronic Health Tool to Prepare for the First Orthopedic Consultation: Use and Usability Study

“…This study was part of a blended care intervention, involving interaction with a physiotherapist; therefore, it is not directly comparable with our study. One recently published RCT on the effectiveness of an educational smartphone and tablet app reported a 70% adherence rate [31]. Compared with other eHealth stand-alone interventions, these percentages are reasonably high [16,17].…”