Remote versus In-Person Health Education: Feasibility, Satisfaction, and Health Literacy for Diverse Older Adults

• Type of Material: Article
• Authors: Anjali R Shah, Emory University; Liang Ni, Emory University; Allison A Bay, Emory University; Ariel R Hart, University of Georgia; Molly Perkins, Emory University; Madeleine Hackney, Emory University
• Language: English
• Date: 2022-09-20
• Publisher: SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
• Publication Version: Author Accepted Manuscript (After Peer Review)
• Copyright Statement: © 2022 Society for Public Health Education.
• Final Published Version (URL): http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10901981221121258
• Title of Journal or Parent Work: HEALTH EDUCATION & BEHAVIOR
• Volume: 50
• Issue: 3
• Start Page: 369
• End Page: 381
• Grant/Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Partial financial support was received from the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) Award (1099-EU), the National Parkinson Foundation (NPF) Community Grant (A-01), and the Parkinson’s Foundation Grant (PF-PLA-1706).
• Keywords: cognition; Science & Technology; telehealth; COVID-19; health education; ATTRITION; QUALITY; feasibility; LIFE; USAGE; Public, Environmental & Occupational Health; TASK; health literacy; Life Sciences & Biomedicine

Abstract

Objectives: Health education may improve health in geriatric patients. To evaluate differences between remote and in-person education, the DREAMS (Developing a Research Participation Enhancement and Advocacy Training Program for Diverse Seniors) health seminar series compared in-person and remote learning groups to assess feasibility, satisfaction, adherence, health literacy, and cognitive outcomes. Research Design: Nonrandomized two-arm interventions occurred remotely or in-person. About 130 diverse, older adults (M age: 70.8 ± 9.2 years; in-person n = 95; remote, n = 35) enrolled. Data from 115 completers (In-person n = 80; Remote n = 35) were analyzed for performance outcomes. Feasibility, adherence, and satisfaction benchmarks were evaluated at baseline, immediately post intervention, and 8 weeks post intervention. Adjusting for baseline performances, outcomes on health literacy and cognitive measures were compared between groups after intervention (at posttest and at 8-week follow-up) using adjusted mean differences (β coefficients). Results: Eighty in-person and all remote participants completed at least six modules. Both programs had high satisfaction, feasibility, and strong adherence. After adjusting for demographic covariates and baseline values, cognitive and motor cognitive measures between groups were domain specific (e.g., global cognition, executive function, spatial memory, mental tracking capacity, and cognitive integration). Discussion and Implications: This work explores feasible measures of knowledge acquisition and its link to health literacy and cognitive outcomes. Identifying effective delivery methods may increase involvement in clinical research. Future studies may encourage remote learning for increased accessibility.