IMEMR
EMRO
Volume 1, Issue 2 (2020)
3 2020, 1(2): 75-80 |
Back to browse issues page
History
Received: 2018/08/21 | Accepted: 2019/01/28 | Published: 2020/06/26
Received: 2018/08/21 | Accepted: 2019/01/28 | Published: 2020/06/26
How to cite this article
Alamdari A, Taheri R, Afrasiabifar A, Rastian M. Comparison of the Impact of Face-to-face Education and Educational Booklet Methods on Health-related Quality of Life in Patient with Type 2 Diabetes. 3 2020; 1 (2) :75-80
URL: http://jccs.daneshafarand.org/article-8-87014-en.html
URL: http://jccs.daneshafarand.org/article-8-87014-en.html
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Rights and permissions
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
1- Nursing Department, Nursing Faculty, Yasuj University of Medical Sciences, Yasuj, Iran
Abstract (5317 Views)
Aims: Several studies have shown controversy over the effectiveness of various educational methods. This study was performed with the aim of comparing the effect of face-to-face education and educational booklet on health-related quality of life in patients suffering from type 2 diabetes.
Materials and Methods: In this clinical trial study, which was conducted in 2017, 120 patients qualified to enter the study were selected by random sampling; they were randomly allocated to 3 groups, including, face-to-face group, education through booklet, and control group. The data were collected through Diabetes Quality of Life-Brief Clinical Inventory (DQL-BCI). Patients in the two intervention groups were presented with materials with the same educational content, but different teaching methods. The data were analyzed by SPSS 21, using Chi-square, one-way analysis of variance, paired t-test, and Tukey's post hoc test.
Findings: Before intervention, mean score of health-related quality of life in patients in the 3 groups was not statistically significant (p=0.1). After intervention, there was a significant difference between the mean score of health-related quality of life of patients in intervention groups and control group (p=0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the patients in face-to-face and education through booklet groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The effect of face-to-face education and educational booklet on health-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes is the same.
Materials and Methods: In this clinical trial study, which was conducted in 2017, 120 patients qualified to enter the study were selected by random sampling; they were randomly allocated to 3 groups, including, face-to-face group, education through booklet, and control group. The data were collected through Diabetes Quality of Life-Brief Clinical Inventory (DQL-BCI). Patients in the two intervention groups were presented with materials with the same educational content, but different teaching methods. The data were analyzed by SPSS 21, using Chi-square, one-way analysis of variance, paired t-test, and Tukey's post hoc test.
Findings: Before intervention, mean score of health-related quality of life in patients in the 3 groups was not statistically significant (p=0.1). After intervention, there was a significant difference between the mean score of health-related quality of life of patients in intervention groups and control group (p=0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the patients in face-to-face and education through booklet groups (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The effect of face-to-face education and educational booklet on health-related quality of life in patients with type 2 diabetes is the same.
Send email to the article author