Analysis of consumer information brochures on osteoporosis prevention and treatmentAnalyse von Verbraucher-Informationsbroschüren zu Osteoporoseprävention und -behandlung

GMS German Medical Science — an Interdisciplinary Journal

Ingrid Mühlhauser¹  Anke Steckelberg¹  Gabriele Meyer¹ 

[1] University of Hamburg, Unit of Health Sciences and Education, Hamburg, Germany

关键词: evidence-based medicine;    decision making;    osteoporosis/prevention and control;    pamphlets;   

Others  :  869065

实施日期：2006-11-01，发布日期：2007-01-11

【 摘 要 】

Purpose: Evidence-based consumer information is a prerequisite for informed decision making. So far, there are no reports on the quality of consumer information brochures on osteoporosis. In the present study we analysed brochures on osteoporosis available in Germany.

Method: All printed brochures from patient and consumer advocacy groups, physician and governmental organisations, health insurances, and pharmaceutical companies were initially collected in 2001, and updated in December 2004. Brochures were analysed by two independent researchers using 37 internationally proposed criteria addressing evidence-based content, risk communication, transparency of the development process, and layout and design.

Results: A total of 165 brochures were identified; 59 were included as they specifically targeted osteoporosis prevention and treatment. Most brochures were provided by pharmaceutical companies (n=25), followed by health insurances (n=11) and patient and consumer advocacy groups (n=11). Quality of brochures did not differ between providers. Only 1 brochure presented lifetime risk estimate; 4 mentioned natural course of osteoporosis. A balanced report on benefit versus lack of benefit was presented in 2 brochures and on benefit versus adverse effects in 8 brochures. Four brochures mentioned relative risk reduction, 1 reported absolute risk reduction through hormone replacement therapy (HRT). Out of 28 brochures accessed in 2004 10 still recommended HRT without discussing adverse effects. Transparency of the development process was limited: 25 brochures reported publication date, 26 cited author and only 1 references. In contrast, readability and design was generally good.

Conclusion: The quality of consumer brochures on osteoporosis in Germany is utterly inadequate. They fail to give evidence-based data on diagnosis and treatment options. Therefore, the material is not useful to enhance informed consumer choice.

【 授权许可】

   
© 2007 Meyer et al.This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en). You are free: to Share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work, provided the original author and source are credited.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Deutsches Grünes Kreuz. Aufklärung mit Aktaufnahmen. April 2005; cited 2006, October 31. Available from: http://www.dgk.de/web/dgk_content/de/toscani_austellung.htm.
• [2]Moynihan R, Heath I, Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. BMJ. 2002;324(7342):886-91.
• [3]General Medical Council. Protecting patients, guiding doctors. Seeking patients' consent: the ethical considerations. November 1998; cited 2006 Oct 31. Available from: http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/archive/library/consent.asp
• [4]Coulter A. Evidence based patient information. is important, so there needs to be a national strategy to ensure it. BMJ. 1998;317(7153):225-6.
• [5]Rudd RE. How to create and assess print materials. Harvard School of Public Health: Health Literacy Studies. 2005; cited 2006 Oct 31. Available from: http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/healthliteracy/materials.html
• [6]Steckelberg A, Berger B, Kopke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I. Kriterien für evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen. [Criteria for evidence-based patient information]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitätssich. 2005;99(6):343-51.
• [7]Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC. Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2004;328(7432):148.
• [8]Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ. 1998;317(7153):263-4.
• [9]Steckelberg A, Balgenorth A, Mühlhauser I. Analyse von deutschsprachigen Verbraucher-Informationsbroschüren zum Screening auf kolorektales Karzinom. [Analysis of German language consumer information brochures on screening for colorectal cancer]. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitätssich. 2001;95(8):535-8.
• [10]Rossouw JE, Anderson GL, Prentice RL, LaCroix AZ, Kooperberg C, Stefanick ML, Jackson RD, Beresford SA, Howard BV, Johnson KC, Kotchen JM, Ockene J. Writing Group for the Women's Health Initiative Investigators. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288(3):321-33.
• [11]Burgermeister J. Head of German medicines body likens HRT to thalidomide. BMJ. 2003;327(7418):767.
• [12]Green CJ, Kazanjian A, Helmer D. Informing, advising, or persuading? An assessment of bone mineral density testing information from consumer health websites. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20(2):156-66.
• [13]Steckelberg A, Mühlhauser I. Darmkrebs-Früherkennung. [Colorectal cancer screening] [March 2003; cited 2006 Oct 31]. Available from: http://gesundheit.chemie.uni-hamburg.de/upload/CRC_Broschuere_as_final.pdf.
• [14]Sambrook P, Cooper C. Osteoporosis. Lancet. 2006;367(9527):2010-8. Erratum in: Lancet. 2006;368(9529):28.
• [15]Odvina CV, Zerwekh JE, Rao DS, Maalouf N, Gottschalk FA, Pak CY. Severely suppressed bone turnover: a potential complication of alendronate therapy. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005;90(3):1294-301.
• [16]Sänger S, Lang B, Klemperer D, Thomeczek C, Dierks ML. Manual Patienteninformation. Empfehlungen zur Erstellung evidenzbasierter Patienteninformationen. Berlin: äzq Schriftenreihe; 2006. Bd. 25. Available from: http://www.patienten-information.de/content/download/manual_patienteninformation_04_06.pdf