Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 70, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 407-411

  Charvet Berard, A I ^a   Chopard, P ^a   Perneger, T V ^a  

^a GENEVA UNIVERSITY HOSPITALS   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Information quality scale; Patient education handouts; Patient information

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONTENT ANALYSIS; MEDICAL CARE; MEDICAL DOCUMENTATION; PATIENT INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RISK ASSESSMENT; SCORING SYSTEM; UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL;

ALGORITHMS; DATA COLLECTION; DOCUMENTATION; GUIDELINE ADHERENCE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HOSPITALS, UNIVERSITY; HUMANS; OBSERVER VARIATION; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; QUALITY ASSURANCE, HEALTH CARE; SEMANTICS; SWITZERLAND; TEACHING MATERIALS;

EID: 39149133125     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.018     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Faden R.R., and Beauchamp T.L. A history and theory of informed consent (1986), Oxford University Press, New York, NY
2. del Carmen M.G., and Joffe S. Informed consent for medical treatment and research: a review. Oncologist 10 (2005) 636-641
3. Coulter A., Entwhistle V., and Gilbert D. Informing patients. An assessment of the quality of patient information materials (1998), London, King's Fund
4. General Medical Council. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. London: General Medical Council, http://www.gmc-uk.org; 1999.
5. National Health and Medical Research Council. How to prepare and present evidence-based information for consumers of health services: a literature review, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/cp72syn.htm; 1999 (accessed January 25, 2007).
6. National Health and Medical Research Council. Communicating with patients: advice for medical practitioners, http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/synopses/e58syn.htm; 2004 (accessed March 15, 2007).
7. Haute Autorité de Santé. Guide méthodologique: élaboration d'un document écrit d'information à l'intention des patients et des usagers du système de santé, http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/elaboration_doc_info_patients_rap.pdf; 2005 (accessed March 15, 2007).
8. International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration. Background document, http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_Background.pdf; 2005 (accessed March 15, 2007).
9. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D, Holmes-Rovner M, Tait V, Tetroe J, Fiset V, Barry M, Jones J. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; CD001431.
10. Kenny T., Wilson R.G., Purves I.N., Clark Sr. J., Newton L.D., Newton D.P., and Moseley D.V. A PIL for every ill? Patient information leaflets (PILs): a review of past, present and future use. Fam Pract 15 (1998) 471-479
11. Slaytor E.K., and Ward J.E. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. Br Med J 317 (1998) 263-264
12. Fagerlin A., Rovner D., Stableford S., Jentoft C., Wei J.T., and Holmes-Rovner M. Patient education materials about the treatment of early-stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med 140 (2004) 721-728
13. White P., Smith H., Webley F., and Frew A. A survey of the quality of information leaflets on hayfever available from general practices and community pharmacies. Clin Exp Allergy 34 (2004) 1438-1443
14. Fitzmaurice D.A., and Adams J.L. A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 14 (2000) 259-262
15. Ademiluyi G., Rees C.E., and Sheard C.E. Evaluating the reliability and validity of three tools to assess the quality of health information on the Internet. Patient Educ Couns 50 (2003) 151-155
16. Godolphin W., Towle A., and McKendry R. Evaluation of the quality of patient information to support informed shared decision-making. Health Expect 4 (2001) 235-242
17. Kim P., Eng T.R., Deering M.J., and Maxfield A. Published criteria for evaluating health related web sites: review. Br Med J 318 (1999) 647-649
18. Charnock D., Shepperd S., Needham G., and Gann R. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53 (1999) 105-111
19. British Medical Association patient information award. http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/LIBBMAPatientInformationAward (accessed March 15, 2007).
20. Interactive Health Communication Application. http://www.health.gov/scipich/IHC/checklist.htm (accessed March 15, 2007).
21. Moult B., Franck L.S., and Brady H. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expect 7 (2004) 165-175
22. Butow P, Fowler J, Ziebland S. Using personal stories. International Patient Decision Aid Standards collaboration background document 2005; 24-27. http://ipdas.ohri.ca/IPDAS_Background.pdf (accessed March 15 2007).
23. Fagerlin A., Wang C., and Ubel P.A. Reducing the influence of anecdotal reasoning on people's health care decisions: is a picture worth a thousand statistics?. Med Decis Making 25 (2005) 398-405
24. Smith H., Gooding S., Brown R., and Frew A. Evaluation of readability and accuracy of information leaflets in general practice for patients with asthma. Br Med J 317 (1998) 264-265
25. Estrada C.A., Hryniewicz M.M., Higgs V.B., Collins C., and Byrd J.C. Anticoagulant patient information material is written at high readability levels. Stroke 31 (2000) 2966-2970
26. Rozmovits L., and Ziebland S. What do patients with prostate or breast cancer want from an Internet site? A qualitative study of information needs. Patient Educ Couns 53 (2004) 57-64
27. Moumjid N., Morelle M., Carrere M.O., Bachelot T., Mignotte H., and Brémond A. Elaborating patient information with patients themselves: lessons from a cancer treatment focus group. Health Expect 6 (2003) 128-139