Cochrane · systematic review · CD008416
Multimedia educational interventions for consumers about prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications
Ciciriello, S, Johnston, RV, Osborne, RH, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library
Consumers and CommunicationAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
42
current version
GRADE rated
23
No studies
19
Included studies
NR
No studies 19 · 45.2%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 7 · 16.7%Low 9 · 21.4%Moderate 7 · 16.7%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Questions and results
Summary of findings: multimedia education compared with no education or usual care
Population: patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge (< 4 weeks) Mean number of correct responses (higher score indicates higher knowledge) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | no estimate extracted | 6 studies · 817 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Skill acquisition Mean inhaler technique score (%), higher score indicates better technique. Scale from: 0 to 100. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 94 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Compliance with medication (different measures used by the studies: patient self‐report of compliance and prescription refill data). Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | RR 1.02 [0.96, 1.08] | 2 studies · 4552 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Health outcomes: Drug misuse and dependence CAGE screening tool. Scale from 0 to 4. Higher score indicates greater probability of drug misuse or dependence Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 329 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Medication side effects ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Self‐efficacy Self‐efficacy for medication adherence (higher score indicates greater self‐efficacy, scale not reported) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs no education or usual care | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 343 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Summary of findings: multimedia education compared with written education
Population: patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge (number whose knowledge score improved) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | RR 0.8 [0.59, 1.09] | 1 study · 162 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Number who improved on skill (global inhaler technique rating) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | RR 2.14 [1.33, 3.44] | 2 studies · 164 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Compliance with medication Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health outcomes ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Medication side effects ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Self‐efficacy ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Summary of findings: multimedia education compared with education by a health professional
Population: patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge Mean number of correct responses (%). Scale from: 0 to 100. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 22 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Skill acquisition (< 4 weeks) Mean inhaler technique score (%), higher score indicates better technique. Scale from: 0 to 100. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | 3 studies · 130 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Compliance with medication ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Health outcomes Bronchial obstruction (FEV), higher score indicates less bronchial obstruction. Theoretical maximum scores were 2.72 for the multimedia and 3.14 for the control group. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency |
Medication side effects ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Self‐efficacy ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Summary of findings: multimedia education compared with written education and education by a health professional
Population: patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Compliance with medication ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Number who improved on skill (rating of inhaler technique) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | RR 1.17 [0.7, 1.94] | 1 study · 69 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health outcomes ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Medication side effects ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Self‐efficacy ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs written education and education by a health professional | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Summary of findings: multimedia education compared with control multimedia
Population: patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge Mean number of correct responses (%). Scale from: 0 to 100. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 568 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Skill acquisition Inhaler technique (scored 0 to 100 and reported as change in score from baseline) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 116 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Compliance with medication. Mean score of the Chronic Disease Compliance Instrument (CDCI), higher score indicates better compliance. Scale from: 18 to 90. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 303 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health outcomes Peak expiratory flow readings (higher readings indicate better peak flow) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 116 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Medication side effects ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Quality of life (QOL). Outcome was measured on different scales in different studies (higher score indicates better QOL) Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 269 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Self‐efficacy. Self efficacy score (higher score indicates greater self‐efficacy). Scale from: 27 to 189. Summary of findings: multimedia education vs control multimedia | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 303 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention compared with co‐intervention alone
Population: patients taking prescribed and over‐the‐counter medications or their carers
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Knowledge (< 4 weeks) Mean number of correct responses (%). Scale from: 0 to 100. Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 2 studies · 381 participants | Moderate Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Skill acquisition Mean inhaler technique score (%), higher score indicates better technique. Scale from: 0 to 100. Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 87 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Non‐compliance with medications score Mean non‐compliance score (lower scores indicate better compliance). Scale from: 0 to 160. Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 320 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Health outcome (Number who had a medical complication of pelvic inflammatory disease) Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | RR 1.14 [0.61, 2.13] | 1 study · 77 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Medication side effects Mean adverse self‐medication behaviour score (lower scores indicate safer self‐medication behaviour). Scale from: 0 to 40. Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Very low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |
Quality of life ‐ not measured Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | no estimate extracted | NR | No studies |
Self‐efficacy Self‐efficacy rating scale (higher score indicates greater self‐efficacy). Scale from: 1 to 5. Summary of findings: multimedia education and a co‐intervention vs co‐intervention alone | no estimate extracted | 1 study · 60 participants | Low Downgraded: risk of bias, imprecision |