Patients’ Acceptability of Computer-Based Information on Hypodontia: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Abstract

Objectives: To compare patients' acceptability of a hypodontiaspecific interactive computer-based education material (ICB-EM) versus a British Orthodontic Society (BOS) hypodontia leaflet. Trial Design: Two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial, 1:1 allocation ratio. Methods: The study was conducted at a specialized secondary care facility in the Greater London area. Ninetysix new hypodontia patients aged 14 y and older were randomly assigned to the control group (n = 49) receiving the BOS leaflet or the intervention group (n = 47) receiving the ICB-EM. The main outcome measure was patients' evaluation of the intervention measured by the treatment evaluation inventory. Results: The analyzed sample comprised 76 participants: control group (n = 38) and intervention group (n = 38). The mean age of the sample was 19 y (SD = 7.24) and 20.3 y (SD = 6.9) for the control and intervention group, respectively. The intervention group was significantly more satisfied with the ICB-EM than individuals who received the BOS leaflet (t = −3.53, P = 0.001). Conclusion: Patients preferred the computer-based information. Knowledge Transfer Statement: Patients attending dental care in the 21st century are adept in the use of computerised facilities for obtaining information. The results of the study will provide valuable evidence for clinicians on the level of acceptability of the patients toward interactive computer based health education as opposed to traditional paper leaflets.

The effectiveness of interventions to increase patient involvement in decision-making in orthodontics: A systematic review

“…Of the five studies not to use questionnaires as the outcome measure, three used either telephone or face-to-face interviews to measure information recall (Al-Taha et al, 2018; Kang et al, 2009; Pawlak et al, 2015). The remaining two studies used existing tools as their outcome measures: The Treatment Evaluation Inventory (Ben Gassem et al, 2018) and Decisional Conflict Scale (Parker et al 2017).…”

“…Quality assessment for the included studies is given in Figure 2. Overall, one study was assessed as being at low risk of bias (Ben Gassem et al, 2018). A high risk of bias was noted in four studies (Al-Taha et al, 2018; Anderson and Freer, 2005; Phillips et al, 2001; Thomson et al, 2001).…”

“…Of the three studies evaluating computer packages, one reported significantly higher levels of satisfaction in the method of information delivery in the intervention group (Ben Gassem et al, 2018) and another found significantly higher levels of information retention (Patel et al, 2008). Phillips et al (2001) reported no significant differences in treatment expectations following a computerised treatment simulation, however, psychological distress was found to be a significant moderating factor in short-term expectations.…”

“…Treatment expectations were measured in two studies but for different treatments, using different tools and at different timepoints; Nasr et al (2011) measured orthodontic expectations immediately after the intervention, whereas Phillips et al (2001) measured treatment expectations 2-4 weeks after a pre-surgery consultation. Patient-reported outcomes relating to decision-making included acceptability of the information delivery method (Ben Gassem et al, 2018), decisional conflict immediately after the intervention (Parker et al, 2017) and anxiety, motivation and compliance (Wright et al, 2010).…”