X Gocko1, M Fondacci2, C Dibi2, C Plotton2. 1. Département de médecine générale, faculté de médecine Jacques-Lisfranc, Université Jean-Monnet Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne, France; Laboratoire SNA-EPIS EA4607, Saint-Étienne, France; HESPER Health Services and Performance Research EA7425, Lyon, France. Electronic address: xavier.gocko@univ-st-etienne.fr. 2. Département de médecine générale, faculté de médecine Jacques-Lisfranc, Université Jean-Monnet Saint-Étienne, Saint-Étienne, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Controversies around organized breast cancer screening emphasize the need for information for women. In France, the institute of cancer (INCa) is in charge of conveying this information. Cancer Rose's website (CR) provides complementary information considering INCa's incomplete. The objective of this study was to identify if these informations meet criteria for decision aid. METHODS: Information documents were selected and analyzed using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Each item was noted A (absent), P (present) or I (present but incomplete). RESULTS: Information booklet and press kit for INCa and studies section for CR were the document meeting most criteria. The document meeting fewer criteria were the INCa's video and information leaflet for CR. Videos are more accessible tools for people with lower levels of health literacy. INCa's video did not present the risks of screening and CR's emphasized the risks. CONCLUSION: These documents have not been evaluated for intelligibility, clarity and readability. Addressing these criteria limits social inequities and improves health literacy.
BACKGROUND: Controversies around organized breast cancer screening emphasize the need for information for women. In France, the institute of cancer (INCa) is in charge of conveying this information. Cancer Rose's website (CR) provides complementary information considering INCa's incomplete. The objective of this study was to identify if these informations meet criteria for decision aid. METHODS: Information documents were selected and analyzed using International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS). Each item was noted A (absent), P (present) or I (present but incomplete). RESULTS: Information booklet and press kit for INCa and studies section for CR were the document meeting most criteria. The document meeting fewer criteria were the INCa's video and information leaflet for CR. Videos are more accessible tools for people with lower levels of health literacy. INCa's video did not present the risks of screening and CR's emphasized the risks. CONCLUSION: These documents have not been evaluated for intelligibility, clarity and readability. Addressing these criteria limits social inequities and improves health literacy.