abstract220 - EVALUATION OF ORAL PATIENT INFORMATION VERSUS WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
EVALUATION OF ORAL PATIENT INFORMATION VERSUS WRITTEN DOCUMENTS
HOUSMANS1, E. WERBROUCK 1, R. VANSPAUWEN 2, E. DE CUYPER 3, S. GHESQUIERE 4, G. STUYVEN 5, A. P. DE DECKER 6, S. WEYERS 7, J. A. DEPREST 1;
1UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium, 2AZ Turnhout, Turnhout, Belgium, 3ZOL Genk, Genk, Belgium, 4AZ Groeninge, Kortrijk, Belgium, 5AZ Herentals, Herentals, Belgium, 6european Hosp.s brussels, Brussels, Belgium, 7UZ Gent, Gent, Belgium.
Introduction: Introduction: Pelvic organ prolapse (POP) is a complex condition and when selecting the appropriate treatment doctors are faced with a large amount of information that needs to be discussed with each patient regarding advantages and disadvantages of different treatment options. We investigated the helpfulness of patient information documents in our Dutch speaking region.
Objective: Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of educational booklets on POP by using the Purpose-based Information Assessment (PIA).
Methods: Methods: The PIA was translated to Dutch. This is a prospective analysis of 103 Dutch speaking patients in seven Belgian hospitals (academic and regional). Patients scheduled for primary prolapse repair were asked to participate in the study. When the decision for surgical repair was made, the patient completed a questionnaire after the oral explanation by her doctor. Approximately one week later the patient received an educational booklet and was asked to complete a second questionnaire. All data was centralized and evaluated anonymously. The information booklet was developed by the Dutch speaking association of obstetricians and gynecologists (VVOG) in 2012 and contains general information about POP and conservative and surgical options. It also contains general information about hospitalization, recovery time and the most frequent side-effects and complications of surgery for POP.
Results: Results: We evaluated 103 patients. Of these patients 41 patients (40%) were scheduled for vaginal hysterectomy with anterior and/or posterior colporrhaphy, 4/103 (4%) for sacrospinous fixation with anterior and/or posterior colporrhaphy, 18/103 (17.5%) for anterior and/or posterior repair without mesh and 16/103 (15.6%) for vaginal mesh-repair (with or without other repairs). In 9/103 (9%) patients there was a different repair than mentioned above, or it was not mentioned at all. In the entire group 10/103 (10%) patients had a procedure to treat urinary incontinence at the time of POP repair. 25% had a stage 2 POP, 56% stage 3 and 19% stage 4. The Likert scale questionnaires completed by the patients contained a total of 54 items. The results for the most important items are mentioned in this abstract. Twenty-two percent of patients considered it ‘important’ to be informed about their POP and the treatment options and 76% considered this ‘very important’. When asking if the patient would recommend the information booklet to others 76% answered they would, and 15% answered they would recommend some parts of the information. When evaluating the usefulness of the oral information 26% replied they found it ‘useful’ and 73% replied they found it ‘very useful’ compared to 39% that found the written information ‘useful’ and 56% that answered ‘very useful’. When asked how much of the information was difficult to understand, 16.5% answered that ‘quite a lot’ or ‘a lot’ was difficult to understand in the oral information versus 10% in the educational booklet.
Conclusions: Conclusion: When asking patients that were scheduled for POP surgery to evaluate oral versus written information, most patients think the provided information is very useful. More often they value the oral information provided by their doctor as ‘very useful’ when comparing to written information. Still almost all patients would recommend the information booklet to others.
References: References: The Canadian Journal of Urology, 2006; 13(6)3321-3326 Patient Education and Counseling 65 (2007) 311-319