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

BMC Public Health

Ulla Walter¹  Marie-Luise Dierks¹  Eva M Bitzer²  Jürgen Töppich³  Inga Kreusel¹  Gabriele Seidel¹  Birgit Borutta¹  Maren Dreier¹ 

[1] Institute for Epidemiology, Social Medicine and Health Systems Research, Hannover Medical School, Carl-Neuberg Str. 1, 30625 Hannover, Germany;Department of Public Health and Health Education, University of Education, Freiburg, Germany;Department 2, Federal Centre for Health Education (BZgA), Cologne, Germany

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

Others  :  1161790
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-13-843

 received in 2013-04-09, accepted in 2013-09-10,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

Appropriate patient information materials may support the consumer’s decision to attend or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests (fecal occult blood test and screening colonoscopy). The aim of this study was to develop a list of criteria to assess whether written health information materials on CRC screening provide balanced, unbiased, quantified, understandable, and evidence-based health information (EBHI) about CRC and CRC screening.

Methods

The list of criteria was developed based on recommendations and assessment tools for health information in the following steps: (1) Systematic literature search in 13 electronic databases (search period: 2000–2010) and completed by an Internet search (2) Extraction of identified criteria (3) Grouping of criteria into categories and domains (4) Compilation of a manual of adequate answers derived from systematic reviews and S3 guidelines (5) Review by external experts (6) Modification (7) Final discussion with external experts.

Results

Thirty-one publications on health information tools and recommendations were identified. The final list of criteria includes a total of 230 single criteria in three generic domains (formal issues, presentation and understandability, and neutrality and balance) and one CRC-specific domain. A multi-dimensional rating approach was used whenever appropriate (e.g., rating for the presence, correctness, presentation and level of evidence of information). Free text input was allowed to ensure the transparency of assessment. The answer manual proved to be essential to the rating process. Quantitative analyses can be made depending on the level and dimensions of criteria.

Conclusions

This comprehensive list of criteria clearly has a wider range of evaluation than previous assessment tools. It is not intended as a final quality assessment tool, but as a first step toward thorough evaluation of specific information materials for their adherence to EBHI requirements. This criteria list may also be used to revise leaflets and to develop evidence-based health information on CRC screening. After adjustment for different procedure-specific criteria, the list of criteria can also be applied to other cancer screening procedures.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Dreier et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Raffle A, Muir Gray JA: How screening started. In Screening - Evidence and Practice. 1st edition. New York: Oxford University Press; 2007:1-30.
• [2]Gotzsche PC, Nielsen M: Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, CD001877.
• [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 webcite
• [5]Patera N: Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Part 1: Screening-Tests and Program Design, HTA Project. In HTA Project Report, No. 41a. Edited by Ludwig Boltzmann Institut. Austria: The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; 2010.
• [6]Pox CP, Altenhofen L, Brenner H, Theilmeier A, Von SD, Schmiegel W: Efficacy of a nationwide screening colonoscopy program for colorectal cancer. Gastroenterology 2012, 142:1460-1467.
• [7]Steckelberg A, Hulfenhaus C, Haastert B, Muhlhauser I: Effect of evidence based risk information on “informed choice” in colorectal cancer screening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2011, 342:d3193.
• [8]Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ: A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 2010, 341:c5370.
• [9]Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A: What constitutes evidence-based patient information? overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 78:316-328.
• [10]Austoker J, Giordano L, Hewitson P, Villain P: European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis. First Edition - Communication. Endoscopy 2012, 44(Suppl 3):SE164-SE185.
• [11]Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R: DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999, 53:105-111.
• [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 webcite
• [13]Kopke S, Berger B, Steckelberg A, Meyer G: Evaluation tools for patient information commonly used in Germany–a critical analysis. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2005, 99:353-357.
• [14]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: Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the international patient decision Aid standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS One 2009, 4:e4705.
• [15]Steckelberg A, Balgenorth A, Muhlhauser I: Analysis of German language consumer information brochures on screening for colorectal cancer. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2001, 95:535-538.
• [16]National Cancer Plan Germany: Aktueller Stand des Nationalen Krebsplans. Handlungsfelder, Ziele und Umsetzungsempfehlungen. http://www.epaac.eu/national-cancer-plans webcite
• [17]Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine: Levels of Evidence. http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025 webcite
• [18]Deutsches Netzwerk Evidenzbasierte Medizin: Kriterien zur Erstellung von Patienteninformationen zu Krebsfrüherkennungsuntersuchungen. http://www.ebm-netzwerk.de/pdf/stellungnahmen/dnebm-080630.pdf webcite
• [19]Meyerrose B, Sänger S: Muster-Gesundheitsaufklärung für Früherkennungsmaßnahmen. http://www.aezq.de/mdb/edocs/pdf/stellungnahmen/sn-muster-frueherkennung-2007.pdf webcite
• [20]Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S: Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2010, 468:2572-2580.
• [21]Ärztliches Zentrum für Qualität in der Medizin: Qualität von Informationen - So Erkennt man Informationsqualität. http://www.patienten-information.de/wegweiser-fuer-nutzer/infoqualitaet webcite
• [22]Medizin DNE: Die gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation’. 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 webcite
• [24]Sänger S, Lang B, Klemperer D, Thomeczek C, Dierks M-L: Manual Patienteninformation. Empfehlungen zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Patienteninformationen. 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]Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I: Kriterien für evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich 2005, 99:343-351.
• [27]Clerehan R, Buchbinder R, Moodie J: A linguistic framework for assessing the quality of written patient information: its use in assessing methotrexate information for rheumatoid arthritis. Health Educ Res 2005, 20:334-344.
• [28]Shaddock J: Appraising the quality of consumer health information leaflets. Health Expect 2002, 5:84-87.
• [29]Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D: Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough? BMJ 1999, 318:318-322.
• [30]Davey HM, Barratt AL, Butow PN, Houssami N: The impact of different criteria for selecting information to be provided to women undergoing diagnostic breast tests. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 71:86-94.
• [31]Gummersbach E, Abholz H-H: Info-flyer “Mammographie-Screening” in Deutschland: Welche Informationen enthält er und welche sollte er enthalten? Z Allgemeinmed 2006, 82:491-494.
• [32]Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC: Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 2004, 328:148.
• [33]Slaytor EK, Ward JE: How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ 1998, 317:263-264.
• [34]International Patient Decisions Aid Standards Collaboration: Criteria for Judging the Quality of Patient Decision Aids. http://www.ipdasi.org/ webcite
• [35]Focus Patient: Erstes Österreichisches Qualitätssiegel für Gesundheitsinformationen. http://www.focuspatient.at/962_DE-HOME-Qualitaet_CHECKED.htm webcite
• [36]Tolsdorf M: Mit Broschüren Gezielt Informieren. http://patientenedukation.de/downloads/LE_Patienten_schulen_und_beraten_Text-Tolsdorf.pdf webcite
• [37]Hoffmann T, Twork S, Kugler J: Patientenorientierung im Internet- qualitative Bewertung von Internetseiten für Multiple-Sklerose-Betroffene. Heilberufe 2009, 61:98-103.
• [38]Muhlhauser I, Oser F: Does WIKIPEDIA provide evidence-based health care information? a content analysis. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes 2008, 102:441-448.
• [39]Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV: Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 70:407-411.
• [40]Moult B, Franck LS, 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: An Int J Publ Partic in Health Care and Health Policy 2004, 7:165-175.
• [41]White P, Smith H, Webley F, Frew A: A survey of the quality of information leaflets on hayfever available from general practices and community pharmacies. Clin Exp Allergy 2004, 34:1438-1443.
• [42]Gigerenzer G, Edwards A: Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 2003, 327:741-744.
• [43]Knapp P, Gardner PH, Carrigan N, Raynor DK, Woolf E: 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. Br J Health Psychol 2009, 14:579-594.
• [44]Welch HG, Black WC: Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010, 102:605-613.
• [45]Jorgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC: Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in denmark. A comparative study. BMC Womens Health 2009, 9:36. BioMed Central Full Text
• [46]Elmore JG, Fletcher SW: Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm. Ann Intern Med 2012, 156:536-537.
• [47]Elmunzer BJ, Hayward RA, Schoenfeld PS, Saini SD, Deshpande A, Waljee AK: Effect of flexible sigmoidoscopy-based screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS Med 2012, 9:e1001352.
• [48]Jüni P, Witschi A, Bloch R, Egger M: The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA 1999, 282:1054-1060.
• [49]Greenland S, O’Rourke K: On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics 2001, 2:463-471.
• [50]Raffle AE: Information about screening—is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001, 4:92-98.
• [51]Marteau TM, Mann E, Prevost AT, Vasconcelos JC, Kellar I, Sanderson S, Parker M, Griffin S, Sutton S, Kinmonth AL: Impact of an informed choice invitation on uptake of screening for diabetes in primary care (DICISION): randomised trial. BMJ 2010, 340:c2138.
• [52]Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Zullino D, Khan R: HON label and DISCERN as content quality indicators of health-related websites. Psychiatr Q 2012, 83:15-27.
• [53]Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A: Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform 2011, 169:53-57.
• [54]Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D: Quality of Web-based information on cocaine addiction. Patient Educ Couns 2008, 72:336-341.
• [55]Zermatten A, Khazaal Y, Coquard O, Chatton A, Bondolfi G: Quality of Web-based information on depression. Depress Anxiety 2010, 27:852-858.
• [56]Hawkes N: Breast cancer screening is to be reviewed, cancer tsar announces. BMJ 2011, 343:d6905. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6905
• [57]Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Kramer BS: Cancer screening campaigns — getting past uninformative persuasion. N Engl J Med 2012, 367:18.