Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening

BMC Public Health

Volumn 13, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Dreier, Maren ^a   Borutta, Birgit ^a   Seidel, Gabriele ^a   Kreusel, Inga ^a   Töppich, Jürgen ^b   Bitzer, Eva M ^c   Dierks, Marie Luise ^a   Walter, Ulla ^a  

^a HANNOVER MEDICAL SCHOOL   (Germany)

^b Federal Centre for Health Education BZgA   (Germany)

^c UNIVERSITY OF EDUCATION FREIBURG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Bowel cancer; Colorectal cancer; Decision aids; Early diagnosis; Evidence based health information; Evidence based patient information; Informed choice; Informed decision making; Risk communication; Screening

Indexed keywords

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COLONOSCOPY; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMAN; MALE; MASS SCREENING; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; STANDARD; STATISTICS; TEACHING; UNITED STATES;

ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COLONOSCOPY; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HEALTH PROMOTION; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; PATIENT COMPLIANCE; TEACHING MATERIALS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84883694393     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712458     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-843     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. How screening started. Raffle A, Muir Gray JA, Screening-Evidence and Practice New York: Oxford University Press 1 2007 1 30
2. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011 D001877
3. Commission E, European Guidelines for Quality Assurance in Colorectal Cancer Screening and Diagnosis Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union 2010
4. General Medical Counsil, Consent: Patients and Doctors Making Decisions Together http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical-guidance/consent-guidance/index. asp
5. Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Part 1: Screening-Tests and Program Design, HTA Project. Patera N, HTA Project Report, No. 41a Austria: The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Ludwig Boltzmann Institut, 2010
6. Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H, Theilmeier A, Von SD, Schmiegel W, Gastroenterology 2012 142 1460 1467 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.03.022 22446606
7. Effect of evidence based risk information on "informed choice" in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. Steckelberg A, Hulfenhaus C, Haastert B, Muhlhauser I, BMJ 2011 342 3193 10.1136/bmj.d3193 21636633
8. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ, BMJ 2010 341 5370 10.1136/bmj.c5370 20978060
9. What constitutes evidence-based patient information? overview of discussed criteria. Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A, Patient Educ Couns 2010 78 316 328 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.029 20005067
10. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition-Communication. Austoker J, Giordano L, Hewitson P, Villain P, Endoscopy 2012 44 Suppl 3 E164 SE185 23012120
11. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R, J Epidemiol Community Health 1999 53 105 111 10.1136/jech.53.2.105 10396471 (Pubitemid 29043309)
12. Sänger S, Dierks M-L, Lang B, Englert G, Quadder B, Engelbrecht J, Huth A, Öllenschläge G, Rheinberger P, Check-in Instrument zur Qualitätsbewertung von Gedruckten und Elektronischen Gesundheitsinformationen http://www.patienten-information.de/ patientenbeteiligung/check-in.pdf
13. Evaluation tools for patient information commonly used in Germany-a critical analysis. Kopke S, Berger B, Steckelberg A, Meyer G, Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2005 99 353 357 16121650 (Pubitemid 41159009)
14. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the international patient decision Aid standards instrument (IPDASi). Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, Drake E, Joseph-Williams N, Khangura S, Saarimaki A, Sivell S, Stiel M, Bernstein SJ, Col N, Coulter A, Eden K, Härter M, Rovner MH, Moumjid N, Stacey D, Thomson R, Whelan T, van der Weijden T, Edwards A, PLoS One 2009 4 4705 10.1371/journal.pone.0004705 19259269
15. Analysis of German language consumer information brochures on screening for colorectal cancer. Steckelberg A, Balgenorth A, Muhlhauser I, Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2001 95 535 538 11575136 (Pubitemid 33710734)
16. National Cancer Plan Germany, Aktueller Stand des Nationalen Krebsplans. Handlungsfelder, Ziele und Umsetzungsempfehlungen http://www.epaac.eu/national- cancer-plans
17. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025
18. Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin, Kriterien zur Erstellung von Patienteninformationen zu Krebsfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen http://www.ebm-netzwerk.de/pdf/stellungnahmen/dnebm-080630.pdf
19. Meyerrose B, Sänger S, Muster-Gesundheitsaufklärung für Früherkennungsmaßnahmen http://www.aezq.de/mdb/edocs/pdf/ stellungnahmen/sn-muster-frueherkennung-2007.pdf 23994615
20. Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S, Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010 468 2572 2580 10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y 20496023
21. Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin, Qualität von Informationen-So Erkennt man Informationsqualität http://www.patienten-information.de/wegweiser-fuer-nutzer/infoqualitaet 20924712
22. Die gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation'. Medizin DNE, Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2010 104 66 68
23. NHS, Written Information: General Guidance http://www.nhsidentity.nhs.uk/ tools-and-resources/patient-information/written-information%3A-general-guidance
24. Manual Patienteninformation. Empfehlungen zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Patienteninformationen. Sänger S, Lang B, Klemperer D, Thomeczek C, Dierks M-L, Äzq Schriftenr Band 2006 25 4 69
25. Schneider K, Walter U, Lernfördernde Gestaltung von Bild- und Textmaterialien für den Gesundheitsbereich. Frankfurt/M Peter Lang. Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften: Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Wien 1992
26. Kriterien für evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen. Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I, Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2005 99 343 351 16121649
27. A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Clerehan R, Buchbinder R, Moodie J, Health Educ Res 2005 20 334 344 10.1093/her/cyg123 15494359 (Pubitemid 40732819)
28. Appraising the quality of consumer health information leaflets. Shaddock J, Health Expect 2002 5 84 87 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00171.x 11906543 (Pubitemid 34202591)
29. Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D, BMJ 1999 318 318 322 10.1136/bmj.318.7179.318 9924064 (Pubitemid 29195144)
30. The impact of different criteria for selecting information to be provided to women undergoing diagnostic breast tests. Davey HM, Barratt AL, Butow PN, Houssami N, Patient Educ Couns 2008 71 86 94 10.1016/j.pec.2007.12.001 18249082
31. Info-flyer "Mammographie-Screening" in Deutschland: Welche Informationen enthält er und welche sollte er enthalten? Gummersbach E, Abholz H-H, Z Allgemeinmed 2006 82 491 494 10.1055/s-2006-942297 (Pubitemid 44899483)
32. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC, BMJ 2004 328 148 10.1136/bmj.328.7432.148 14726344
33. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. Slaytor EK, Ward JE, BMJ 1998 317 263 264 10.1136/bmj.317.7153.263 9677220 (Pubitemid 28334155)
34. International Patient Decisions Aid Standards Collaboration, Criteria for Judging the Quality of Patient Decision Aids http://www.ipdasi.org/
35. Focus Patient, Erstes Österreichisches Qualitätssiegel für Gesundheitsinformationen http://www.focuspatient.at/962-DE-HOME-Qualitaet- CHECKED.htm 17025850
36. Tolsdorf M, Mit Broschüren Gezielt Informieren http:// patientenedukation.de/downloads/LE-Patienten-schulen-und-beraten-Text-Tolsdorf. pdf
37. Patientenorientierung im Internet- qualitative Bewertung von Internetseiten für Multiple-Sklerose-Betroffene. Hoffmann T, Twork S, Kugler J, Heilberufe 2009 61 98 103 10.1007/s00058-009-1621-1
38. Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? a content analysis. Muhlhauser I, Oser F, Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2008 102 441 448 10.1016/j.zefq.2008.06.019 19209572
39. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV, Patient Educ Couns 2008 70 407 411 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.018 18242935
40. Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Moult B, Franck LS, Brady H, Health Expect: An Int J Publ Partic in Health Care and Health Policy 2004 7 165 175 (Pubitemid 38661171)
41. A survey of the quality of information leaflets on hayfever available from general practices and community pharmacies. White P, Smith H, Webley F, Frew A, Clin Exp Allergy 2004 34 1438 1443 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.02055.x 15347378 (Pubitemid 39233700)
42. Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. Gigerenzer G, Edwards A, BMJ 2003 327 741 744 10.1136/bmj.327.7417.741 14512488 (Pubitemid 37176763)
43. Perceived risk of medicine side effects in users of a patient information website: a study of the use of verbal descriptors, percentages and natural frequencies. Knapp P, Gardner PH, Carrigan N, Raynor DK, Woolf E, Br J Health Psychol 2009 14 579 594 10.1348/135910708X375344 18992183
44. Overdiagnosis in cancer. Welch HG, Black WC, J Natl Cancer Inst 2010 102 605 613 10.1093/jnci/djq099 20413742
45. Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in denmark. A comparative study. Jorgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC, BMC Womens Health 2009 9 36 10.1186/1472-6874-9-36 20028513
46. Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm. Elmore JG, Fletcher SW, Ann Intern Med 2012 156 536 537 10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00012 22473439
47. Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Elmunzer BJ, Hayward RA, Schoenfeld PS, Saini SD, Deshpande A, Waljee AK, PLoS Med 2012 9 1001352 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352 23226108
48. The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M, JAMA 1999 282 1054 1060 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054 10493204 (Pubitemid 29436453)
49. On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Greenland S, O'Rourke K, Biostatistics 2001 2 463 471 10.1093/biostatistics/2.4.463 12933636 (Pubitemid 33369143)
50. Information about screening-is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Raffle AE, Health Expect 2001 4 92 98 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001. 00138.x 11359539 (Pubitemid 32464020)
51. Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial. Marteau TM, Mann E, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Kellar I, Sanderson S, Parker M, Griffin S, Sutton S, Kinmonth AL, BMJ 2010 340 2138 10.1136/bmj.c2138 20466791
52. HON label and DISCERN as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Zullino D, Khan R, Psychiatr Q 2012 83 15 27 10.1007/s11126-011-9179-x 21547515
53. Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A, Stud Health Technol Inform 2011 169 53 57 21893713
54. Quality of Web-based information on cocaine addiction. Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D, Patient Educ Couns 2008 72 336 341 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.002 18423952
55. Quality of Web-based information on depression. Zermatten A, Khazaal Y, Coquard O, Chatton A, Bondolfi G, Depress Anxiety 2010 27 852 858 10.1002/da.20665 20099271
56. Breast cancer screening is to be reviewed, cancer tsar announces. Hawkes N, BMJ 2011 343 6905 doi:10.1136/bmj.d6905 10.1136/bmj.d6905 22031915
57. Cancer screening campaigns-getting past uninformative persuasion. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Kramer BS, N Engl J Med 2012 367 18 10.1056/NEJMicm1102441