Chatbot for patient education for prenatal aneuploidy testing: A multicenter randomized controlled trial
Rattachement africain : us, de. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
INTRODUCTION: Digital tools could assist obstetric providers by delivering information given increasing options for fetal aneuploidy screening. PURPOSE: To determine the impact of a chatbot for pre-test education and counseling in low-risk pregnancies. METHODS: Two sites participated in this randomized controlled trial. Patients in the intervention group used a chatbot prior to the provider visit, while patients in the control group only received education by the provider. The primary outcome was change in patient knowledge scores after provider education. Analysis was by intention to treat. RESULTS: Overall, 258 women participated (n = 130; intervention and n = 128; control). Knowledge gain was significantly higher among patients using the chatbot (mean increase in correct answers [out of 20]: +4.1 vs +1.9, p < 0.001). Both groups reported high satisfaction, with no statistically significant difference between intervention and control groups (mean patient satisfaction [1-10]: 8.2 vs 8.5 respectively, p = 0.35). Providers also reported high satisfaction scores with no significant difference between intervention and control groups (mean provider satisfaction [1 - 10]: 8.7 vs 8.4 respectively, p = 0.13). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-test education via a chatbot can increase patient knowledge of prenatal testing choices, with high patient and provider satisfaction.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Chatbot for patient education for prenatal aneuploidy testing: A multicenter randomized controlled trial
- Date Crossref
- 01/02/2025
- Éditeur
- Elsevier BV
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.