Patient education is an important aspect of the medical field. Working in the medical field involves advising patients about their life style and how to better their health for longevity. As an aspiring healthcare provider, it is significant to recognize the impact one has on their patients’ health. Healthcare providers do their best to teach their patients the significance of self-care during their annual visits to the hospital. There are many ways that healthcare providers educate their patients, but finding new ways to educate their patients to improve their well-being allow healthcare providers to help and change lives for the better.
In the article, “Pharmacist intervention in improving hypertension-related knowledge, treatment medication adherence and health-related quality of life: a non-clinical randomized controlled trial”, a group of pharmacists conducted an experiment to evaluate how effective an educational intervention would be towards patients of age 18 and over as well as having a medical history of hypertension (Saleem et al., 2015). The pharmacists designed the intervention in such a way that the patients’ understanding of hypertension, prescription adherence and health-related quality of life was being assessed. The objective of the experiment was to determine if the educational intervention made a difference in the patients’ understanding of health-related knowledge. In the experiment, 385 patients were chosen to participate; 193 belonged to the intervention group and 192 patients belonged to the control group (Saleem et al., 2015). In the intervention group, the patients met with a pharmacist twice per month for 9 months and were given a detailed interview during each visit regarding patient education (Saleem et al., 2015). The patients also received a pocket-sized book containing information about patient education. In the control group, the patients did not meet with a pharmacist. Instead, they only received normal hospital services. After treatment of the patients, the pharmacists collected data on their knowledge through a series of surveys. A High-blood Pressure Fact Survey, Drug Attitude Inventory Survey and European Quality of Life Scale Survey was given to all participants (Saleem et al., 2015). After collecting the data, the results were represented as mean score values. To compare the differences in results between the two groups, the Mann-Whitney U-test was used. A significant P-value of < 0.05 was taken, signifying that there was a significant difference in the patients’ understanding of health-related knowledge after the educational intervention from the intervention group. The results of the experiment conducted by the team of pharmacists inspired a new experiment to be made. There is an interest to see if the educational intervention would have the same effect towards patients of age 18 and over as well as having a medical history of diabetes. In this experiment, there will be an intervention group and a control group. The patients in the intervention group will meet with a pharmacist while the patients in the control group will receive normal hospital services. After treating the patients, the pharmacists will collect data on their knowledge through a Diabetes Fact Questionnaire consisting of 15 questions with answers “yes, no, and do not know”.
In this experiment, it is important to use a simple random sample sampling technique. In the book, “Introduction to the Practice of Statistics”, the authors state, “A simple random sample (SRS) of size n consists of n individuals from the population chosen in such a way that every set of n individuals has an equal chance to be the sample selected” (Moore, McCabe, & Crag, 2014). Using a simple random sample as the sampling technique helps to ensure randomization and to avoid any possible outcome of bias from occurring. Statistical software, such as Microsoft Excel, will be used to use a simple random sample. This software will allow the intervention group and the control group to be chosen at random. For example, for every 400 test subjects, on every 20th pick, a sample will be selected belonging to the intervention group. The rest of the test subjects will belong to the control group. This technique is most appropriate because reducing bias in the experiment will yield accurate and reliable results. The population for generalization of this experiment are patients of age 18 and over with a medical history of diabetes. The purpose of the experiment was to determine if the educational intervention would make a difference in the patients’ understanding of diabetes-related knowledge; therefore, the demographics of the sample help to accomplish this goal.
In this experiment, the inferential test being used is the Mann-Whitney U-test. In the article, “Mann Whitney U Test (Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test), the author states, “A popular nonparametric test to compare outcomes between two independent groups is the Mann Whitney U Test” (LaMorte, W. MD, PhD, para. 2, 2017). This inferential test is appropriate to use because in this experiment, the results from the intervention group and the control group are being compared and the results may not be normally distributed (LaMorte, W. MD, PhD, 2017). From the Diabetes Fact Questionnaire, a poor knowledge score (<7), an average knowledge score (between 7-11) and an excellent knowledge score (between 12-15) is how the data will be measured on a scale from 1 to 15 (Saleem et al., 2015). In Microsoft Excel, the results from the intervention group and the control group will be averaged. The results will be represented as mean score values in a chart to compare results between the intervention group and the control group.
The null hypothesis (Ho) is that the intervention made no difference in the patients’ knowledge of diabetes. The alternative hypothesis (Ha) is that the intervention made a difference in the patients’ knowledge of diabetes. The Mann-Whitney U-test is a two-tailed test because the collection of data involves gathering observations from both the intervention group and the control group. The interest of the test lies in determining observations from both groups. The significance level used with the Mann-Whitney U-test is 0.05 (Greenland et al., 2016). A P-value less than the significance level indicates that the results are statistically significant (Greenland et al., 2016). A P-value greater than the significance level signifies that the results are nonsignificant.
A P-value less than 0.05 indicates that the results are statistically significant. An expected P-value less than 0.05 is true and we reject the null hypothesis. There is significant evidence that the educational intervention made a difference in the patients’ knowledge of diabetes. The results from the inferential test show that the educational intervention that the team of pharmacists performed on the patients of age 18 and over and with a medical history of diabetes improved the patients’ knowledge of diabetes compared to their knowledge prior to the educational intervention.
This experiment could influence others to create efficient ways to educate their patients on other diseases such as respiratory and kidney diseases. This experiment could influence others to inform their patients of these diseases earlier in their lives. Patient education determines how responsible a patient may be with their own health. Future experiments that might be performed based from this experiment could be providing patient education regarding meal plans to observe if either group improved their blood glucose level. For this future experiment that might be performed, I would suggest a sample size of 400 test subjects. I would also suggest the same experimental design. This future research would expand the work already completed in the sense that the health of the patients is being improved as opposed to only patient knowledge of diabetes. Being able to inform patients about health-related knowledge and making a difference in their health condition makes the research much more successful and effective.