Satisfaction of healthy pregnant women receiving short message service via mobile phone for prenatal support: A randomized controlled trial. Anxiety levels in women undergoing prenatal maternal serum screening for Down syndrome: the effect of a fast reporting system by mobile phone short-message service. Results of a randomized study of telephone versus in-person breast cancer risk counseling. Effects of a mail and telephone intervention on breast health behaviors. Telephone therapy for patients with breast cancer. Patient-based outcome results from a cluster randomized trial of shared decision making skill development and use of risk communication aids in general practice. Crossing the digital divide: evaluating online communication between patients and their providers. A randomised controlled study of an audiovisual patient information intervention on informed consent and recruitment to cancer clinical trials. Amniocentesis results: investigation of anxiety. The ARIA trial.
The main objective was to compare the satisfaction levels of antenatal care between healthy pregnant women who received short message service (SMS) via mobile phone for prenatal support, and those who did not. The second objective was to compare the confidence, anxiety levels and also pregnancy outcomes.
                A randomized controlled trial.
                68 healthy pregnant women who attended the antenatal clinic and delivered at Siriraj Hospital, who met the inclusion criterias between May 2007 and October 2007, were enrolled and randomly allocated into two random groups. The study group received two SMS messages per week from 28 weeks of gestation until giving birth. The other group was pregnant women who did not receive SMS. Both groups had the same antenatal and perinatal care. The satisfaction, confidence and anxiety scores were evaluated using a questionnaire at the postpartum ward. The pregnancy outcomes were also compared in these two groups.
                The satisfaction levels of the women who received prenatal support in SMS messages, were significantly higher than those of who did not receive the messages both in the antenatal period (9.25 vs. 8.00, p < 0.001) and during labor (9.09 vs. 7.90, p = 0.007). In the SMS using group, the confidence level was'higher (8.91 vs. 7.79, p = 0.001) and the anxiety level was lower (2.78 vs. 4.93, p = 0.002) than the control group n the antenatal period, however no diference in pregnancy outcomes were found.
                The present study shows the higher satisfaction level of pregnant women who received SMS via mobile phone during their antenatal service when compared with the general antenatal care group. The study also show the higher confidence level and lower anxiety level in the antenatal period but no difference in pregnancy outcomes. To study the effect of fast reporting by mobile phone short-message service (SMS) on anxiety levels in women undergoing prenatal biochemical screening for Down syndrome.
                From January 2005 to December 2006, 2782 women undergoing prenatal biochemical serum screening were randomized into fast reporting by SMS (group A) or without mobile phone reporting (group B). Anxiety levels were measured with the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) before prenatal screen testing, before the appointed clinic (when the SMS report had already been given to group A), and 3 days after the appointed clinic (when the full screening report had been given to groups A and B).
                For screen-negative women, anxiety scores did not differ between groups before prenatal screen testing and 3 days after the appointed clinic. The state-anxiety scores measured on the second occasion had declined significantly in group A. The state-anxiety scores in both groups increased over the 3-week period after being informed of positive screen results. The trait- and state-anxiety scores at all points did not differ between the two groups of screen-positive women.
                The provision of a routine reporting system plus additional SMS report revealed some overall benefits in reducing anxiety among women with screen-negative result.
                2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd Women of all risk levels have reported high interest in obtaining genetic testing for breast cancer risk. Breast cancer risk counseling may help women to learn about their risk and appropriate options of testing. This study measured the effects of an intervention in-person and by telephone, compared to a control group.
                Participants were 340 women, recruited through a network of primary care physicians. They received a baseline questionnaire in the mail, were randomized to one of the three study arms, and completed a follow-up survey 3 months later.
                Both types of counseling were very well received. The counseling decreased women's cancer worry, risk perceptions, and intentions to pursue genetic testing. There were similar effects for both in-person and telephone counseling.
                Genetic counseling can be used to inform women at all risk levels about their breast cancer risk.
                Breast cancer risk counseling can be done in-person and by telephone--thereby reaching women in remote areas. This study evaluated a mail and telephone intervention to improve breast health behaviors while maintaining quality of life. Women recruited from the general public were randomized to a stepped-intensity intervention consisting of mailings, telephone calls, and counseling (if requested or appropriate given a woman's genetic risk for breast cancer) or to a delayed treatment control group. Outcomes (mammography screening and quality of life) were measured at baseline in a telephone survey and again at a 12-month follow-up period. Women in the intervention group significantly increased screening mammography uptake by 12% and quality of life by 5.3 scale points compared to control participants. Changes in knowledge of breast cancer, genetic testing, and cancer worry all significantly predicted intervention changes. This successful intervention can help women make better breast health choices without causing increased worry. To test the value of telephone-administered cognitive-behavioral therapy in a study of patients with breast cancer.
                Women were assigned randomly to a therapy group or an assessment-only control group.
                A tertiary cancer treatment center serving rural areas of North Dakota and Minnesota.
                Women were recruited within three to four months of stage I (n = 27) or stage II (n = 26) breast cancer diagnosis. Age ranged from 30-82 (mean = 51.5 years). Most participants (n = 35) underwent a modified radical mastectomy; 17 underwent a lumpectomy.
                Therapy involved 10 30-minute (or less) telephone sessions. Data that were collected from mailed questionnaires included psychological distress (Profile of Mood States), perceived stress, coping (Coping Response Indices-Revised), quality of life (Medical Outcome Scale), and satisfaction with therapy. Measures were completed at baseline and at 4- and 10-month follow-up intervals.
                Telephone therapy, stress, coping, and quality of life.
                With time, women in the therapy and control groups reported reduced stress and improved quality of life. However, significant reductions in some kinds of distress (anxiety, anger, depression, and confusion) were not observed. Most therapy participants liked the telephone treatment sessions but showed only modest improvement (less anxiety and confusion) compared with women in the control group.
                Most patients reported being comfortable with the telephone therapy and said that they felt better as a result of it. However, the outcome data showed that telephone therapy--as carried out in this study--produced only modest benefits. Researchers need to consider who is best for delivering such therapy.
                Providing telephone therapy to patients with breast cancer has potential benefits, and nurses may be the appropriate professionals to administer the therapy. Shared decision-making (SDM) between professionals and patients is increasingly advocated from ethical principles. Some data are accruing about the effects of such approaches on health or other patient-based outcomes. These effects often vary substantially between studies.
                Our aim was to evaluate the effects of training GPs in SDM, and the use of simple risk communication aids in general practice, on patient-based outcomes.
                A cluster randomized trial with crossover was carried out with the participation of 20 recently qualified GPs in urban and rural general practices in Gwent, South Wales. A total of 747 patients with known atrial fibrillation, prostatism, menorrhagia or menopausal symptoms were invited to a consultation to review their condition or treatments. After baseline, participating doctors were randomized to receive training in (i) SDM skills; or (ii) the use of simple risk communication aids, using simulated patients. The alternative training was then provided for the final study phase. Patients were randomly allocated to a consultation during baseline or intervention 1 (SDM or risk communication aids) or intervention 2 phases. A randomly selected half of the consultations took place in 'research clinics' to evaluate the effects of more time for consultations, compared with usual surgery time. Patient-based outcomes were assessed at exit from consultation and 1 month follow-up. These were: COMRADE instrument (principal measures; subscales of risk communication and confidence in decision), and a range of secondary measures (anxiety, patient enablement, intention to adhere to chosen treatment, satisfaction with decision, support in decision making and SF-12 health status measure). Multilevel modelling was carried out with outcome score as the dependent variable, and follow-up point (i.e. exit or 1 month later for each patient), patient and doctor levels of explanatory variables.
                No statistically significant changes in patient-based outcomes due to the training interventions were found: COMRADE risk communication score increased 0.7 [95% confidence interval (CI) -0.92 to 2.32] after risk communication training and 0.9 (95% CI -0.89 to 2.35) after SDM training; and COMRADE satisfaction with communication score increased by 1.0 (95% CI -1.1 to 3.1) after risk communication, and decreased by 0.6 (95% CI 2.7 to -1.5) after SDM training. Patients' confidence in the decision (2.1 increase, 95% CI 0.7-3.5, P < 0.01) and expectation to adhere to chosen treatments (0.7 increase, 95% CI 0.04-1.36, P < 0.05) were significantly greater among patients seen in the research clinics (when more time was available) compared with usual surgery time. Most outcomes deteriorated between exit and 1 month later. There was no interaction between intervention effects.
                Patients can be more involved in treatment decisions, and risks and benefits of treatment options can be explained in more detail, without adversely affecting patient-based outcomes. SDM and risk communication may be advocated from values and ethical principles even without evidence of health gain or improvement in patient-based outcomes, but the resources required to enhance these professional skills must also be taken into consideration. These data also indicate the benefits of extra consultation time. To address provider, payer, and patient concerns about the use of online communication in healthcare settings by performing a randomized controlled trial of a Web-based patient-provider communication tool in primary care.
                Forty-one staff physicians and 91 residents in 4 primary care centers were randomized to a Web-based online communication system. Patients of intervention physicians were encouraged to communicate via the system about health issues, scheduling, prescription renewals, referrals, and billing. Data collected included patient Web use, e-mail use, telephone calls, visit distribution, and physician and patient attitudes toward and satisfaction with communication.
                One thousand thirty-eight patients sent 2238 messages during the 40-week study. Half of the messages were directly related to a patient's health; half were administrative. Patient Web use peaked at 8.5 weekly messages per 100 scheduled visits. Patient e-mail and telephone volume remained similar across groups. Intervention physicians reported more positive attitudes toward Web-based communication than control physicians (mean Web benefits scale score, 4.0 vs 1.1; P = .008), but there were no between-group differences in attitudes toward communication in general. Patients and physicians reported differential preferences for the use of online communication based on problem complexity and sensitivity.
                Web-based messaging was lower than expected because of patient-related factors and limitations of the technology. Patients, physicians, and staff had positive attitudes toward online communication. There was no detectable difference in communication volume between study groups, but more sensitive measures of work burden need to be developed and evaluated. Recruitment to cancer clinical trials needs to be improved, as does patient knowledge and understanding about clinical trials, in order for patients to make an informed choice about whether or not to take part. Audiovisual patient information (AVPI) has been shown to improve knowledge and understanding in various areas of practice, but there is limited information about its effect in the cancer clinical trial setting, particularly in relation to consent rates. In this study, 173 patients were randomised to receive either the AVPI, in addition to the standard trial-specific written information, or the written information alone. There was no difference in clinical trial recruitment rates between the two groups with similar study entry rates: 72.1% in the AVPI group and 75.9% in the standard information group. The estimated odds ratio for refusal (intervention/no intervention) was 1.19 (95% CI 0.55-2.58, P=0.661). Knowledge scores increased more in the AVPI group compared to the standard group (P=0.0072). The change in anxiety score between the arms was also statistically significant (P=0.011) with anxiety improving in the intervention arm more than in the no intervention arm. Audiovisual patient information was shown to be a useful tool in improving patient knowledge and anxiety, but further work is necessary in relation to its effect on clinical trial recruitment rates. The Amniocentesis Results: Investigation of Anxiety (ARIA) trial tested two hypotheses: first, that giving amniocentesis results out on a fixed date alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with a policy of telling parents that the result will be issued 'when available' (i.e. a variable date), and secondly, that issuing early results from a rapid molecular test alters maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with not receiving any results prior to the karyotype. The effects of the two interventions on anxiety 1 month after receiving karyotype results were also examined.
                A multi-centre, randomised, controlled, open fixed sample, 2 x 2 factorial design trial, with equal randomisation.
                Twelve hospitals in England offering amniocentesis as a diagnostic test for Down's syndrome.
                A total of 226 women who had had an amniocentesis were randomised between June 2002 and July 2004. Eight women with abnormal results or test failure were excluded post-randomisation.
                Issuing karyotype results on a prespecified fixed date, rather than issuing them as soon as they became available and issuing karyotype results alone, or subsequent to issuing results from a rapid molecular test for the most common chromosomal abnormalities.
                Average anxiety during the waiting period, calculated using daily scores from the short version of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Recalled anxiety, measured 1 month after receiving karyotype results, using a rating scale. Anxiety at the 1-month follow-up, measured using the short-form STAI.
                There was no evidence that giving out karyotype results on a fixed or on a variable date altered maternal anxiety during the waiting period. However, the analysis only had sufficient power to detect a moderate to large effect. Issuing early results from a partial, but rapid, test reduced maternal anxiety during the waiting period, compared with receiving only the full karyotype results. This was a moderate to large effect. In addition, group differences in recalled anxiety reflected fairly closely the differences in anxiety women had experienced while waiting for results. One month after receiving normal karyotype results, anxiety was low in all groups, but women who had been given rapid test results were more anxious than those who had not. This was a small to moderate effect.
                Since there are no clear advantages in anxiety terms of issuing karyotype results as soon as they become available, or on a fixed date, women could be given a choice between them. Rapid testing was a beneficial addition to karyotyping, at least in the short term. This does not necessarily imply that early results would be preferred to comprehensive ones if women had to choose between them. There should be further research, including more qualitative studies, into the causes, characteristics and consequences of anxiety associated with prenatal testing. The effects of different testing regimes on short- and long-term anxiety, on the preferences of women and on the relationship between anxiety and preference should be investigated. More research is needed on the ways in which information might be used to minimise anxiety in different testing regimes. Further research is also required into the policy implications of incorporating individual preferences for different testing regimes into prenatal testing programmes.
We found very limited evidence of low quality that communicating results of medical investigations by mobile phone messaging may make little or no difference to women's anxiety overall or in women with positive test results, but may reduce anxiety in women with negative test results. However, with only one study included in this review, this evidence is insufficient to inform recommendations at this time. More research is needed on the effectiveness and user evaluation of these interventions. In particular, more research should be conducted into the potential risks and limitations of these interventions.