Testing a Photo Story Intervention in Paper Versus Electronic Tablet Format Compared to a Traditional Brochure Among Older Adults in Germany: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: To increase effective communication in primary care consultations among older adults in Germany, the photo story is considered to be a useful tool based on Bandura's social cognitive theory. With information technology helping to increase effective communication, the use of tablets is gaining attention in health care settings, especially with older adults. However, the effectiveness of tablet technology and photo stories has rarely been tested. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to compare the effectiveness of a photo story intervention to a traditional brochure. Both were delivered either in paper or tablet format. METHODS: A trial was conducted with 126 older adults, aged 50 years and older, who were approached and recruited by researchers and administrative staff from senior day care, doctors in rehabilitation centers, and trainers in sports clubs in Germany. Open and face-to-face assessment methodologies were used. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four intervention conditions: traditional brochure in paper format (condition 1) and tablet format (condition 2), and photo story in paper format (condition 3) and tablet format (condition 4). Each participant received a questionnaire and either the traditional brochure or photo story in a paper or tablet version. To evaluate the effectiveness of each intervention, participants completed evaluation questionnaires before and after each intervention. The second part of the questionnaire measured different indicators of health literacy, communication skills, health measurements, and possible underlying mechanisms. RESULTS: =-2.26, P=.03) compared to the tablet format. Among all conditions, the traditional brochure with a tablet (condition 2) was also perceived as more monotonous (mean 3.07, SD 1.08), boring (mean 2.77, SD 1.19), and too long to read (mean 2.50, SD 1.33) in comparison to the traditional brochure in paper format (condition 1). Moreover, the participants scored significantly higher on self-referencing on the traditional brochure in paper format (condition 1) than tablet format for both types of the brochure (conditions 2 and 4). CONCLUSIONS: Traditional brochures on a tablet seem to be the least effective communication option in primary care consultations among all conditions for older adults. The findings might be specific for the current generation of older adults in Germany and need to be replicated in other countries with larger sample sizes. Although information technology brings advantages, such as effective interventions in different fields and settings, it may also come with several disadvantages, such as technical requirements of the users and devices. These should be considered when integrating information technology into wider situations and populations. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02502292; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02502292 (Archived by Webcite at http://www.webcitation.org/747jdJ8pU).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".