Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Video-based learning versus traditional lecture-based learning for osteoporosis education: a randomized controlled trial

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Aging Clinical and Experimental Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Patient education about osteoporosis is an important component of osteoporosis treatment.

Aim

To compare the effectiveness of osteoporosis education between video-based learning and traditional lecture-based learning.

Methods

Participants who attended the Outpatient Department of Siriraj Hospital during June 2017 to November 2017 were recruited. Ten-question pre- and post-tests were used to evaluate participant osteoporosis knowledge. After finishing the pre-test, patients were randomized to receive osteoporosis education via either traditional lecture-based or video-based learning for 25 min. After the training, patient questions about the subject matter were answered, and then the post-test was administered. Change in score was compared between groups using non-inferiority test at a non-inferiority margin of − 1.

Results

Of 413 participants, 207 and 206 people were allocated to the lecture-based group and the video-based group, respectively. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics, change in score between pre-test and post-test, or change in score between pre-test and retention test between groups. Non-inferiority test revealed the change in score after video-based learning to be non-inferior to traditional lecture-based learning at a difference of > − 1, α = 0.05 (p < 0.001).

Discussion

Video-based osteoporosis education can be used as part of a fracture liaison service to provide essential information about osteoporosis to both patients and caregivers. Video-based education is an efficient and effective tool that will reduce dependency on clinicians to provide lecture-based osteoporosis instruction.

Conclusions

Since video- and lecture-based education were found to be equally effective, a standard package for both education techniques should be developed and implemented for all patients.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Taal E, Rasker JJ, Wiegman O (1996) Patient education and self-management in the rheumatic diseases: a self-efficacy approach. Arthritis Rheum 9:229–238

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Gold DT, McClung B (2006) Approaches to patient education: emphasizing the long-term value of compliance and persistence. Am J Med 119:S32–S37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2005.12.021

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Tuong W, Larsen ER, Armstrong AW (2014) Videos to influence: a systematic review of effectiveness of video-based education in modifying health behaviors. J Behav Med 37:218–233. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10865-012-9480-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Sarıhan A, Oray NC, Güllüpınar B et al (2016) The comparison of the efficiency of traditional lectures to video-supported lectures within the training of the Emergency Medicine residents. Turk J Emerg Med 16:107–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Kinnane N, Stuart E, Thompson L et al (2008) Evaluation of the addition of video-based education for patients receiving standard pre-chemotherapy education. Eur J Cancer Care 17:328–339. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2354.2007.00846.x

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Schreiber BE, Fukuta J, Gordon F (2010) Live lecture versus video podcast in undergraduate medical education: a randomised controlled trial. BMC Med Educ 10:68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Sealed Envelope Ltd. (2012) Power calculator for continuous outcome non-inferiority trial. https://www.sealedenvelope.com/power/continuous-noninferior/. Accessed 18 Apr 2017

  8. Chow S-C, Shao J, Wang H et al (2017) Sample size calculations in clinical research. Chapman and Hall/CRC, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  9. Julious SA (2004) Sample sizes for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med 23:1921–1986. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1783

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Morfeld JC, Vennedey V, Muller D et al (2017) Patient education in osteoporosis prevention: a systematic review focusing on methodological quality of randomised controlled trials. Osteoporos Int 28:1779–1803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00198-017-3946-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Wasfie T, Jackson A, Brock C et al (2019) Does a fracture liaison service program minimize recurrent fragility fractures in the elderly with osteoporotic vertebral compression fractures? Am J Surg 217:557–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Amphansap T, Stitkitti N, Dumrongwanich P (2016) Evaluation of Police General Hospital’s Fracture Liaison Service (PGH’s FLS): the first study of a Fracture Liaison Service in Thailand. Osteoporos Sarcopenia 2:238–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Wu CH, Tu ST, Chang YF et al (2018) Fracture liaison services improve outcomes of patients with osteoporosis-related fractures: a systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Bone 111:92–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bone.2018.03.018

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Walters S, Khan T, Ong T et al (2017) Fracture liaison services: improving outcomes for patients with osteoporosis. Clin Interv Aging 12:117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Gagliano ME (1988) A literature review on the efficacy of video in patient education. J Med Educ 63:785–792

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Lopez-Olivo MA, Ingleshwar A, Volk RJ et al (2018) Development and pilot testing of multimedia patient education tools for patients with knee osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 70:213–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Kulp JL, Rane S, Bachmann G (2004) Impact of preventive osteoporosis education on patient behavior: immediate and 3-month follow-up. Menopause 11:116–119. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.gme.0000079221.19081.11

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Cowan N (2008) What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory? Prog Brain Res 169:323–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Boschitsch EP, Durchschlag E, Dimai HP (2017) Age-related prevalence of osteoporosis and fragility fractures: real-world data from an Austrian Menopause and Osteoporosis Clinic. Climacteric 20:157–163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13697137.2017.1282452

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hake R (1998) Interactive-engagement versus traditional methods: a six-thousand-student survey of mechanics test data for introductory physics courses. Am J Phys. https://doi.org/10.1119/1.18809

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Ms. Wachirapan Narktang of the Division of Research, Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand for her assistance with data collection and statistical analysis. The authors gratefully acknowledge the subjects that generously agreed to participate in this study.

Funding

This was an unfunded study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthopedic Surgery, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, 2 Wanglang Road, Bangkoknoi district, Bangkok, 10700, Thailand

    Pojchong Chotiyarnwong & Aasis Unnanuntana

  2. Department of Nursing Siriraj Hospital, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Wararat Boonnasa

  3. Department of Rehabilitation Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand

    Chayaporn Chotiyarnwong

Authors
  1. Pojchong Chotiyarnwong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Wararat Boonnasa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Chayaporn Chotiyarnwong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Aasis Unnanuntana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Design/conception: PC, AU. Literature search: PC, AU. Data collection: PC, WB, CC. Data analysis: PC, CC, AU. Interpretation of results: PC, AU. Writing of paper and review: all authors.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aasis Unnanuntana.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

All authors report no conflict of interests.

Ethical approval

Each author certifies that his/her institution approved the human protocol for this investigation, and that all investigations were conducted in conformity with ethical principles of research. The study protocol, questionnaire, and consent forms used in this prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) were approved by the Siriraj Institutional Review Board (SIRB) of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand (COA no. Si 290/2017).

Human and animal rights

All procedures performed in this study involving human participants were and will be in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Siriraj Institutaional Review Board of the Faculty of Medicine Siriraj Hospital, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand (COA no Si 290/2017) and the Thai Clinial Trials Registry (reg. no 20170623005) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration. This article does not contain any studies with animal performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For each participant, verbal information was given on the aims of the study and the implications of taking part, and a consent form was read aloud. Participants were also given the opportunity to ask questions. Consent was then obtained by signature.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 20 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chotiyarnwong, P., Boonnasa, W., Chotiyarnwong, C. et al. Video-based learning versus traditional lecture-based learning for osteoporosis education: a randomized controlled trial. Aging Clin Exp Res 33, 125–131 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01514-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40520-020-01514-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation