Literature DB >> 11703497

Evaluation of the quality of patient information to support informed shared decision-making.

W Godolphin1, A Towle, R McKendry.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: (a) To find out how much patient information material on display in family physicians' offices refers to management choices, and hence may be useful to support informed and shared decision-making (ISDM) by patients and (b) to evaluate the quality of print information materials exchanged during the consultation, i.e. brought in by patients or given out by family physicians.
DESIGN: All print information available for patients and exchanged between physicians and patients was collected in a single complete day of the office practices of 21 family physicians. A published and validated instrument (DISCERN) was used to assess quality. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Community office practices in the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia, Canada. The physicians were purposefully recruited by their association with the medical school Department of Family Practice, their interest in providing patients with print information and their representation of a range of practice types and location. MAIN VARIABLES STUDIED: The source of the pamphlets and these categories: available in the physicians' offices; exchanged between physician and patient; and produced with the explicit or apparent intent to support evidence-based patient choice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The quality of the print information to support ISDM, as measured by DISCERN and the ease of use and reliability of the DISCERN tool. RESULTS AND
CONCLUSIONS: Fewer than 50% of pamphlets available in these offices fulfilled our minimum criteria for ISDM (mentioned more than one management option). Offices varied widely in the proportion of pamphlets on display that supported ISDM and how particular the physician was in selecting materials. The DISCERN tool is quick, valid and reliable for the evaluation of patient information. The quality of patient information materials used in the consultation and available in these offices was below midpoint on the DISCERN score. Major deficiencies were with respect to the mention of choices, risks, effect of no treatment or uncertainty and reliability (source, evidence-base). Good quality information can be produced; some is available locally.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11703497      PMCID: PMC5060084          DOI: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00144.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  6 in total

Review 1.  Framework for teaching and learning informed shared decision making.

Authors:  A Towle; W Godolphin
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-09-18

Review 2.  Unmet needs for health information: a literature review.

Authors:  S Buckland
Journal:  Health Libr Rev       Date:  1994-06

3.  Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?

Authors:  A Coulter; V Entwistle; D Gilbert
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1999-01-30

4.  The organization and distribution of patient education materials in family medicine practices.

Authors:  K L McVea; M Venugopal; B F Crabtree; V Aita
Journal:  J Fam Pract       Date:  2000-04       Impact factor: 0.493

5.  Informed decision making in outpatient practice: time to get back to basics.

Authors:  C H Braddock; K A Edwards; N M Hasenberg; T L Laidley; W Levinson
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999 Dec 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

6.  DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.

Authors:  D Charnock; S Shepperd; G Needham; R Gann
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1999-02       Impact factor: 3.710

  6 in total
  9 in total

1.  A Template for Authoring and Adapting Genomic Medicine Content in the eMERGE Infobutton Project.

Authors:  Casey L Overby; Luke V Rasmussen; Andrea Hartzler; John J Connolly; Josh F Peterson; RoseMary E Hedberg; Robert R Freimuth; Brian H Shirts; Joshua C Denny; Eric B Larson; Christopher G Chute; Gail P Jarvik; James D Ralston; Alan R Shuldiner; Justin Starren; Iftikhar J Kullo; Peter Tarczy-Hornoch; Marc S Williams
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2014-11-14

2.  Integrating Decision Making and Mental Health Interventions Research: Research Directions.

Authors:  Celia E Wills; Margaret Holmes-Rovner
Journal:  Clin Psychol (New York)       Date:  2006

3.  [Quality of patient information leaflets on atopic eczema : An analysis using the DISCERN instrument].

Authors:  J Wahl; C Apfelbacher
Journal:  Hautarzt       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 0.751

Review 4.  Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information.

Authors:  Beki Moult; Linda S Franck; Helen Brady
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.377

5.  How is medical decision-making shared? The case of haemophilia patients and doctors: the aftermath of the infected blood affair in France.

Authors:  Emmanuelle Fillion
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.377

6.  Modeling the information preferences of parents of children with mental health problems: a discrete choice conjoint experiment.

Authors:  Charles E Cunningham; Ken Deal; Heather Rimas; Don H Buchanan; Michelle Gold; Katherine Sdao-Jarvie; Michael Boyle
Journal:  J Abnorm Child Psychol       Date:  2008-05-15

7.  Preferences among immigrant Hispanic women for written educational materials regarding upper respiratory infections.

Authors:  Elaine L Larson; Jennifer Wong-McLoughlin; Yu-Hui Ferng
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2009-06

8.  Development and testing of innovative patient resources for the management of coronary heart disease (CHD): a descriptive study.

Authors:  Julie Redfern; Elizabeth Ellis; Tom Briffa; Saul B Freedman
Journal:  BMC Health Serv Res       Date:  2006-08-06       Impact factor: 2.655

9.  Clinical decision-making: physicians' preferences and experiences.

Authors:  Elizabeth Murray; Lance Pollack; Martha White; Bernard Lo
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2007-03-15       Impact factor: 2.497

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.