Improving Understanding of Macrosomia with a Graphics-Based Educational Tool: A Randomized Controlled Trial (MATE).

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY
Kristen Cagino, Myra Kurjee, Emily Hyde, Han-Yang Chen, Hector Mendez-Figueroa, Suneet P Chauhan
{"title":"Improving Understanding of Macrosomia with a Graphics-Based Educational Tool: A Randomized Controlled Trial (MATE).","authors":"Kristen Cagino, Myra Kurjee, Emily Hyde, Han-Yang Chen, Hector Mendez-Figueroa, Suneet P Chauhan","doi":"10.1055/a-2565-1836","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We aimed to determine if a graphics-based education tool (GBET) leads to improved macrosomia knowledge on risk factors/complications (RF/C) and management options (MO) for macrosomia among pregnant individuals compared to routine care.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>We conducted a randomized control trial (NCTO6281301). Inclusion criteria were individuals at 18-55 years, with singleton pregnancy delivering at > 36 weeks. After consent, participants were randomized to either routine care or GBET. To assess knowledge of macrosomia, a questionnaire consisting of 17 questions relating to the RF/C (11 questions) and MO (6 questions) of suspected macrosomic fetuses was administered to participants one time either directly after consent (if routine care) or directly following review of GBET. The primary outcome was the overall score on the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were summary scores on the RF/C and MO. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics and outcomes. Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From January to July 2023, 232 eligible individuals were approached and 196 (84%) agreed to participate; of them, 98 received the GBET, while 98 received routine care. Baseline demographics were similar. The majority (42%) of respondents were non-Hispanic Black, 60% were employed, 56% had some level of college education, and 30% lived below the poverty line. There were 41% nulliparous, 67% with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 and 16% with diabetes. The primary outcome was significantly higher in those who received the GBET (70% versus 64%, p <0.001). The RF/C scores were also higher in the GBET group (72% versus 63%, p = 0.001); however, the MO scores were similar between groups (65% versus 68%, p=0.084).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In our population, a graphics-based education tool improved participant knowledge on the risk factors / complications for macrosomia, but not their management options.</p>","PeriodicalId":7584,"journal":{"name":"American journal of perinatology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of perinatology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/a-2565-1836","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to determine if a graphics-based education tool (GBET) leads to improved macrosomia knowledge on risk factors/complications (RF/C) and management options (MO) for macrosomia among pregnant individuals compared to routine care.

Study design: We conducted a randomized control trial (NCTO6281301). Inclusion criteria were individuals at 18-55 years, with singleton pregnancy delivering at > 36 weeks. After consent, participants were randomized to either routine care or GBET. To assess knowledge of macrosomia, a questionnaire consisting of 17 questions relating to the RF/C (11 questions) and MO (6 questions) of suspected macrosomic fetuses was administered to participants one time either directly after consent (if routine care) or directly following review of GBET. The primary outcome was the overall score on the questionnaire. Secondary outcomes were summary scores on the RF/C and MO. Descriptive statistics were used for baseline characteristics and outcomes. Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test was used to compare categorical variables and Student's t-test for continuous variables.

Results: From January to July 2023, 232 eligible individuals were approached and 196 (84%) agreed to participate; of them, 98 received the GBET, while 98 received routine care. Baseline demographics were similar. The majority (42%) of respondents were non-Hispanic Black, 60% were employed, 56% had some level of college education, and 30% lived below the poverty line. There were 41% nulliparous, 67% with a BMI > 30 kg/m2 and 16% with diabetes. The primary outcome was significantly higher in those who received the GBET (70% versus 64%, p <0.001). The RF/C scores were also higher in the GBET group (72% versus 63%, p = 0.001); however, the MO scores were similar between groups (65% versus 68%, p=0.084).

Conclusion: In our population, a graphics-based education tool improved participant knowledge on the risk factors / complications for macrosomia, but not their management options.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
American journal of perinatology
American journal of perinatology 医学-妇产科学
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
302
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Perinatology is an international, peer-reviewed, and indexed journal publishing 14 issues a year dealing with original research and topical reviews. It is the definitive forum for specialists in obstetrics, neonatology, perinatology, and maternal/fetal medicine, with emphasis on bridging the different fields. The focus is primarily on clinical and translational research, clinical and technical advances in diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment as well as evidence-based reviews. Topics of interest include epidemiology, diagnosis, prevention, and management of maternal, fetal, and neonatal diseases. Manuscripts on new technology, NICU set-ups, and nursing topics are published to provide a broad survey of important issues in this field. All articles undergo rigorous peer review, with web-based submission, expedited turn-around, and availability of electronic publication. The American Journal of Perinatology is accompanied by AJP Reports - an Open Access journal for case reports in neonatology and maternal/fetal medicine.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信