Improving Provision of Preanesthetic Information Through Use of the Digital Conversational Agent "MyAnesth": Prospective Observational Trial.
Abric method
anesthesia
chatbot
digital conversational agent
digital health
eHealth
preanesthetic consultation
Journal
Journal of medical Internet research
ISSN: 1438-8871
Titre abrégé: J Med Internet Res
Pays: Canada
ID NLM: 100959882
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
04 12 2020
04 12 2020
Historique:
received:
19
05
2020
accepted:
16
08
2020
revised:
14
08
2020
entrez:
4
12
2020
pubmed:
5
12
2020
medline:
16
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Due to time limitations, the preanesthetic consultation (PAC) is not the best time for patients to integrate information specific to their perioperative care pathway. The main objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital companion on patients' knowledge of anesthesia and their satisfaction after real-life implementation. We conducted a prospective, monocentric, comparative study using a before-and-after design. In phase 1, a 9-item self-reported anesthesia knowledge test (Delphi method) was administered to patients before and after their PAC (control group: PAC group). In phase 2, the study was repeated immediately after the implementation of a digital conversational agent, MyAnesth (@+PAC group). Patients' satisfaction and their representations for anesthesia were also assessed using a Likert scale and the Abric method of hierarchized evocation. A total of 600 tests were distributed; 205 patients and 98 patients were included in the PAC group and @+PAC group, respectively. Demographic characteristics and mean scores on the 9-point preinformation test (PAC group: 4.2 points, 95% CI 3.9-4.4; @+PAC: 4.3 points, 95% CI 4-4.7; P=.37) were similar in the two groups. The mean score after receiving information was better in the @+PAC group than in the PAC group (6.1 points, 95% CI 5.8-6.4 points versus 5.2 points, 95% CI 5.0-5.4 points, respectively; P<.001), with an added value of 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3-1.1; P<.001). Among the respondents in the @+PAC group, 82% found the information to be clear and appropriate, and 74% found it easily accessible. Before receiving information, the central core of patients' representations for anesthesia was focused on the fear of being put to sleep and thereafter on caregiver skills and comfort. The implementation of our digital conversational agent in addition to the PAC improved patients' knowledge about their perioperative care pathway. This innovative audiovisual support seemed clear, adapted, easily accessible, and reassuring. Future studies should focus on adapting both the content and delivery of a digital conversational agent for the PAC in order to maximize its benefit to patients.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Due to time limitations, the preanesthetic consultation (PAC) is not the best time for patients to integrate information specific to their perioperative care pathway.
OBJECTIVE
The main objectives of this study were to evaluate the effectiveness of a digital companion on patients' knowledge of anesthesia and their satisfaction after real-life implementation.
METHODS
We conducted a prospective, monocentric, comparative study using a before-and-after design. In phase 1, a 9-item self-reported anesthesia knowledge test (Delphi method) was administered to patients before and after their PAC (control group: PAC group). In phase 2, the study was repeated immediately after the implementation of a digital conversational agent, MyAnesth (@+PAC group). Patients' satisfaction and their representations for anesthesia were also assessed using a Likert scale and the Abric method of hierarchized evocation.
RESULTS
A total of 600 tests were distributed; 205 patients and 98 patients were included in the PAC group and @+PAC group, respectively. Demographic characteristics and mean scores on the 9-point preinformation test (PAC group: 4.2 points, 95% CI 3.9-4.4; @+PAC: 4.3 points, 95% CI 4-4.7; P=.37) were similar in the two groups. The mean score after receiving information was better in the @+PAC group than in the PAC group (6.1 points, 95% CI 5.8-6.4 points versus 5.2 points, 95% CI 5.0-5.4 points, respectively; P<.001), with an added value of 0.7 points (95% CI 0.3-1.1; P<.001). Among the respondents in the @+PAC group, 82% found the information to be clear and appropriate, and 74% found it easily accessible. Before receiving information, the central core of patients' representations for anesthesia was focused on the fear of being put to sleep and thereafter on caregiver skills and comfort.
CONCLUSIONS
The implementation of our digital conversational agent in addition to the PAC improved patients' knowledge about their perioperative care pathway. This innovative audiovisual support seemed clear, adapted, easily accessible, and reassuring. Future studies should focus on adapting both the content and delivery of a digital conversational agent for the PAC in order to maximize its benefit to patients.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33275108
pii: v22i12e20455
doi: 10.2196/20455
pmc: PMC7748965
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e20455Informations de copyright
©Fabrice Ferré, Nicolas Boeschlin, Bruno Bastiani, Adeline Castel, Anne Ferrier, Laetitia Bosch, Fabrice Muscari, Matt Kurrek, Olivier Fourcade, Antoine Piau, Vincent Minville. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 04.12.2020.
Références
J Med Internet Res. 2019 Nov 27;21(11):e15787
pubmed: 31774408
Br J Anaesth. 2010 Mar;104(3):369-74
pubmed: 20124283
Anesth Analg. 2003 May;96(5):1424-31, table of contents
pubmed: 12707146
Can J Anaesth. 2007 May;54(5):355-60
pubmed: 17470886
Can J Anaesth. 2001 Apr;48(4):333-9
pubmed: 11339773
Anesth Essays Res. 2017 Apr-Jun;11(2):449-452
pubmed: 28663639
Br J Anaesth. 2011 Aug;107(2):180-5
pubmed: 21659404
Anesth Analg. 2005 Jun;100(6):1753-8
pubmed: 15920209
AANA J. 2005 Feb;73(1):29-33
pubmed: 15727280
Patient Educ Couns. 2016 Jul;99(7):1227-1232
pubmed: 26873545
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2017 Apr;34(4):221-228
pubmed: 27798453
J Clin Anesth. 2014 Jun;26(4):325-9
pubmed: 24882604
PLoS One. 2018 Oct 19;13(10):e0205439
pubmed: 30339687
J Surg Educ. 2008 Sep-Oct;65(5):359-63
pubmed: 18809166
Anesth Analg. 1999 Sep;89(3):652-8
pubmed: 10475299
Anesth Essays Res. 2016 Sep-Dec;10(3):502-507
pubmed: 27746541
Anaesthesia. 1994 Feb;49(2):165-6
pubmed: 8093141
Med Decis Making. 2011 Jan-Feb;31(1):151-73
pubmed: 20357225
J Clin Monit Comput. 2017 Feb;31(1):221-225
pubmed: 26715416
Int J Med Inform. 2019 Aug;128:18-23
pubmed: 31160007
Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2004 Mar-Apr;29(2):96-101
pubmed: 15029543