This is the authors' abstract. We don't add key points for this paper.
BACKGROUND: Congenital cytomegalovirus (cCMV) is the most common transplacental infection and the leading cause of nongenetic sensorineural hearing loss, and it can cause intellectual disability and psychomotor delay. Despite its prevalence and consequences, it is less well known than other childhood diseases. The purpose of this study was to assess educational materials for cCMV and to examine whether these materials increased pregnant patients' awareness, knowledge, and reported behaviors related to cCMV risk reduction and oral exposures. The secondary objectives were to compare the effectiveness of written and video educational materials and remote and in-person education. METHODS: Pregnant patients (N = 136) were randomized into a print (n = 76) or video (n = 60) educational intervention. Some (n = 73) participants received the education remotely via e-mail after their clinic visit; others (n = 63) received it in person at the clinic. Participants completed a survey assessing appraisals of the education materials and their awareness, knowledge, and reported oral exposure and risk reduction behaviors surrounding cCMV before and approximately 1 month after receiving the education. RESULTS: Knowledge of cCMV in both educational groups significantly improved, but video education was significantly more effective than print. Remote education was more effective than in-person education. Despite gains in knowledge, reported risk reduction behaviors and oral exposure behaviors did not improve. Perceptions of ease of implementation were related to greater reported risk reduction behaviors and fewer oral exposures after education. CONCLUSIONS: Simple educational materials can improve knowledge of cCMV during pregnancy, but more intensive intervention may be needed to change behaviors, especially for individuals who experience barriers to implementing risk reduction behaviors.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Diener et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: