The purpose of this study was to investigate whether computer-based programmed instruction (CPI) with a dynamic avatar (DA) improves retention of medication information better than text (controls) or better than CPI with text (T-CPI), CPI with voice (V-CPI), or CPI with static avatar with text (SA-CPI).
Methods
Participants with type 2 diabetes mellitus were enrolled in a randomized controlled trial comparing TDS with CPI in 4 conditions (T-CPI, V-CPI, SA-CPI, and DA-CPI). CPI sequentially delivers segmented information in text or voice followed by a multiple-choice question. Immediately after the user selects an option, CPI delivers elaborated feedback. Satisfaction was measured immediately after the interventions, and medication knowledge was measured at 2 weeks.
Results
One-hundred fifty individuals (30 per group) with a mean age 62 years (standard deviation [SD] 7.99 years) participated. There were no baseline differences in race, body mass index, education, and health literacy. Medication knowledge retention at 2 weeks was not significantly different between the groups, df(4), F = 0.17, P = .95 (TDS, mean = 25.43, SD = 5.11; T-CPI, mean = 25.07, SD = 4.98; V-CPI, mean = 25.77, SD = 4.89; SA-CPI, mean = 25.83, SD = 5.31; and DA-CPI, mean = 24.93, SD = 6.25). Satisfaction scores were significantly lower for TDS, df(4), F = 3.11, P = .01.
Conclusions
CPI did not improve medication knowledge retention at 2 weeks. CPI led to higher patient satisfaction compared with controls.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DonnanPTMacDonaldTMMorrisAD. Adherence to prescribed oral hypoglycaemic medication in a population of patients with type 2 diabetes: a retrospective cohort study. Diabet Med. 2002;19(4):279-284.
2.
LauDTNauDP. Oral antihyperglycemic medication nonadherence and subsequent hospitalization among individuals with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Care. 2004;27(9):2149-2153.
3.
DonnellyLADoneyASMorrisADPalmerCNDonnanPT. Long-term adherence to statin treatment in diabetes. Diabet Med. 2008;25(7):850-855.
4.
BaileyCJKodackM. Patient adherence to medication requirements for therapy of type 2 diabetes. Int J Clin Pract. 2011;65(3):314-322.
5.
SchillingerDGrumbachKPietteJ. Association of health literacy with diabetes outcomes. JAMA. 2002;288(4):475-482.
6.
WuJSeiberELacombeVANahataMCBalkrishnanR. Medical utilization and costs associated with statin adherence in Medicaid enrollees with type 2 diabetes. Ann Pharmacother. 2011;45(3):342-349.
7.
GazmararianJAKripalaniSMillerMJEchtKVRenJRaskK. Factors associated with medication refill adherence in cardiovascular-related diseases: a focus on health literacy. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;21(12):1215-1221.
8.
BainsSSEgedeLE. Associations between health literacy, diabetes knowledge, self-care behaviors, and glycemic control in a low income population with type 2 diabetes. Diabetes Technol Ther. 2011;13(3):335-341.
9.
OsbornCYCavanaughKWallstonKA. Health literacy explains racial disparities in diabetes medication adherence. J Health Commun. 2011;16(suppl 3):268-278.
10.
SchillingerDPietteJGrumbachK. Closing the loop: physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(1):83-90.
11.
KrassITaylorSJSmithCArmourCL. Impact on medication use and adherence of Australian pharmacists’ diabetes care services. J Am Pharm Assoc (2003). 2005;45(1):33-40.
12.
CutronaSLChoudhryNKStedmanM. Physician effectiveness in interventions to improve cardiovascular medication adherence: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(10):1090-1096.
13.
HarrisMSmithBVealeA. Printed patient education interventions to facilitate shared management of chronic disease: a literature review. Intern Med J. 2005;35(12):711-716.
14.
MelikianCWhiteTJVanderplasADeziiCMChangE. Adherence to oral antidiabetic therapy in a managed care organization: a comparison of monotherapy, combination therapy, and fixed-dose combination therapy. Clin Ther. 2002;24(3):460-467.
15.
RubinRR. Adherence to pharmacologic therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Am J Med. 2005;118(suppl 5A):27S-34S.
SkinnerBF. Teaching machines; from the experimental study of learning come devices which arrange optimal conditions for self instruction. Science. 1958;128(3330):969-977.
YoungMABuckleyPHWechslerHDemoneHWJr. A demonstration of automated instruction for diabetic self care. Am J Public Health Nations Health. 1969;59(1):110-122.
20.
AlkhateebWLukerothCJRiggsM. A comparison of three educational techniques used in a venereal disease clinic. Public Health Rep. 1975;90(2):159-164.
21.
GregorFM. Teaching the patient with ischemic heart disease: a systemic approach to instructional design. Patient Couns Health Educ. 1981;3(2):57-62.
22.
MinerKM. Effectiveness of Programmed Instruction as an Aid in Diet Counseling of Adult Hospital Patients. Hays, KK: Graduate Faculty, Fort Hays, Kansas State University; 1971.
23.
ClarkCMBayleyEW. Evaluation of the use of programmed instruction for patients maintained on warfarin therapy. Am J Public Health. 1972;62(8):1135-1139.
24.
RankinMA. Programmed instruction as a patient teaching tool: a study of myocardial infarction patients receiving warfarin. Heart Lung. 1979;8(3):511-516.
25.
GoodwinJO. Programed instruction for self-care following pulmonary surgery. Int J Nurs Stud. 1979;16(1):29-40.
WillmannCS. Comparison of the Effects of Programmed Instruction Versus Lecture on Knowledge Acquisition Among Post Myocardial Infarction Patients. Muncie, IN: School of Nursing, Ball State University; 1991.
28.
Di CarloLM. Language recovery in aphasia: effect of systematic filmed programmed instruction. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1980;61(1):41-44.
29.
LincolnNBPickersgillMJ. The effectiveness of programmed instruction with operant training in the language rehabilitation of severely aphasic patients. Behav Cogn Psychother. 1984;12(3):237-248.
30.
MayerREChandlerP. When learning is just a click away: does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages?J Educ Psychol. 2001;93(2):390-397.
31.
MayerRE. Principles for Managing Essential Processing in Multimedia Learning: Segmenting, Pretraining, and Modality Principles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
32.
CarpenterSKPashlerHVulE. What types of learning are enhanced by a cued recall test?Psychon Bull Rev. 2006;13(5):826-830.
33.
KarpickeJRoedigerHL. Repeated retrieval during learning is the key to long-term retention. J Mem Lang. 2007;57(2):151-162.
34.
McDanielMARoedigerHLIIIMcDermottKB. Generalizing test-enhanced learning from the laboratory to the classroom. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14(2):200-206.
35.
WittrockMC. Learning as a generative process 1. Educational Psychologist. 1974;11(2):87-95.
36.
MayerRE. What good is educational psychology? The case of cognition and instruction. Educ Psychol. 2001;36(2):83-88.
37.
MayerRE. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
38.
MayerRE. Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005.
39.
CampbellJMayerRE. Questioning as an instructional method: does it affect learning from lectures?Appl Cogn Psychol. 2009;23(6):747-759.
40.
EpsteinMLBrosvicGM. Students prefer the immediate feedback assessment technique. Psychol Rep. 2002;90(3 pt 2):1136-1138.
41.
EpsteinMLBrosvicGM. Immediate feedback assessment technique: multiple-choice test that “behaves” like an essay examination. Psychol Rep. 2002;90(1):226.
42.
KulikJAKulikC-LC. Timing of feedback and verbal learning. Rev Educ Res. 1988;58(1):79-97.
43.
NowakKLRauhC. The influence of the avatar on online perceptions of anthropomorphism, androgyny, credibility, homophily, and attraction. J Comput-Mediat Comm. 2005;11(1):Article 8.
44.
NowakKLKrcmarMFarrarKM. The causes and consequences of presence: considering the influence of violent video games on presence and aggression. Presence-TeleopVirt. 2008;17(3):256-268.
45.
ReevesBNassC. The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television and New Media Like Real People and Places. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1996.
46.
NowakKLHamiltonMAHammondCC. The effect of image features on judgments of homophily, credibility, and intention to use as avatars in future interactions. Media Psychol. 2009;12(1):50-76.
47.
ClarkRCMayerRE. E-learning and the Science of Instruction: Proven Guidelines for Consumers and Designers of Multimedia Learning. 2nd ed.San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer/John Wiley & Sons; 2008.
48.
BaylorALRyuJ. The effects of image and animation in enhancing pedagogical agent persona. J Educ Comput Res. 2003;28(4):373-394.
49.
Hershey DirkinKMishraPAltermattE. All or nothing: levels of sociability of a pedagogical software agent and its impact on student perceptions and learning. JEMH. 2005;14(2):113-127.
50.
LuskMMAtkinsonRK. Animated pedagogical agents: does their degree of embodiment impact learning from static or animated worked examples?Appl Cognitive Psychol. 2007;21(6):747-764.
51.
HeidigSClareboutG. Do pedagogical agents make a difference to student motivation and learning?Educ Res Rev. 2011;6(1):27-54.
52.
Rosenberg-KimaRBaylorAPlantEDoerrC. The importance of interface agent visual presence: voice alone is less effective in impacting young women’s attitudes toward engineering. Lect Notes Comput Sci. 2007;4744:214-222.
53.
BickmoreTWCarusoLClough-GorrKHeerenT. “It’s just like you talk to a friend”: relational agents for older adults. Interact Comput. 2005;17(6):711-735.
54.
BickmoreTWPfeiferLMPaasche-OrlowMK. Using computer agents to explain medical documents to patients with low health literacy. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;75(3):315-320.
WeissBDMaysMZMartzW. Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign. Ann Fam Med. 2005;3(6):514-522.
57.
BickmoreTWMitchellSEJackBWPaasche-OrlowMKPfeiferLMOdonnellJ. Response to a relational agent by hospital patients with depressive symptoms. Interact Comput. 2010;22(4):289-298.
58.
RichlandLEKornellNKaoLS. The pretesting effect: do unsuccessful retrieval attempts enhance learning?J Exp Psychol Appl. 2009;15(3):243-257.
59.
SchmidtRAYoungDESwinnenSShapiroDC. Summary knowledge of results for skill acquisition: support for the guidance hypothesis. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1989;15(2):352-359.
60.
MilheimWD. Interactivity and computer-based instruction. J Educ Tech Syst. 1996;24(3):225-233.
61.
YacciM. Interactivity demystified: a structural definition for distance education and intelligent CBT. Educ Technol. 2000;40(4):5-16.
62.
WhitmanL. The effectiveness of interactivity in computer-based instructional diagrams. In: JackoJ, ed. Human-Computer Interaction. Novel Interaction Methods and Techniques. Vol 5611. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer; 2009:899-908.
63.
CookDALevinsonAJGarsideSDuprasDMErwinPJMontoriVM. Internet-based learning in the health professions: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008;300(10):1181-1196.
64.
AtkinsonRK. Optimizing learning from examples using animated pedagogical agents. J Educ Psychol. 2002;94(2):416-427.
65.
MorenoRMayerRESpiresHALesterJC. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?Cogn Instruct. 2001;19(2):177-213.
66.
MorenoR. Multimedia learning with animated pedagogical agents. In: MayerR, ed. The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; 2005:507-523.
67.
RuizJGAndradeADRoosBA. Medical avatars—an innovative approach to fostering health promotion and lifestyle change. Fed Pract. 2012;29(4):25-31.
68.
BalkrishnanR. Predictors of medication adherence in the elderly. Clin Ther. 1998;20(4):764-771.
69.
BurgeSWhiteDBajorekE. Correlates of medication knowledge and adherence: findings from the residency research network of South Texas. Fam Med. 2005;37(10):712-718.
70.
McPhersonMLSmithSWPowersAZuckermanIH. Association between diabetes patients’ knowledge about medications and their blood glucose control. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2008;4(1):37-45.
71.
MurrayEBurnsJSeeTSLaiRNazarethI. Interactive health communication applications for people with chronic disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;(4):CD004274.
72.
PostmanLUnderwoodB. Critical issues in interference theory. Mem Cognit. 1973;1(1):19-40.
