Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
BMC Public Health
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2013

Open Access 01-12-2013 | Research article

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

Authors: Maren Dreier, Birgit Borutta, Gabriele Seidel, Inga Kreusel, Jürgen Töppich, Eva M Bitzer, Marie-Luise Dierks, Ulla Walter

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

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.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Raffle A, Muir Gray JA: How screening started. Screening - Evidence and Practice. 2007, New York: Oxford University Press, 1-30. 1CrossRef
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. 2010, Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union
4.
5.
Patera N: Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Part 1: Screening-Tests and Program Design, HTA Project. HTA Project Report, No. 41a. Edited by: Ludwig Boltzmann Institut. 2010, Austria: The University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
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. 10.1053/j.gastro.2012.03.022.CrossRefPubMed
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: d3193-10.1136/bmj.d3193.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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: c5370-10.1136/bmj.c5370.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
Bunge M, Mühlhauser I, Steckelberg A: What constitutes evidence-based patient information? overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 2010, 78: 316-328. 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.029.CrossRefPubMed
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.PubMed
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. 10.1136/jech.53.2.105.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
12.
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.PubMed
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: e4705-10.1371/journal.pone.0004705.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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.PubMed
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Badarudeen S, Sabharwal S: Assessing readability of patient education materials: current role in orthopaedics. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2010, 468: 2572-2580. 10.1007/s11999-010-1380-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
21.
22.
Medizin DNE: Die gute Praxis Gesundheitsinformation’. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2010, 104: 66-68.CrossRef
23.
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. 1992, Peter Lang. Internationaler Verlag der Wissenschaften: Berlin, Bern, New York, Paris, Wien
26.
Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I: Kriterien für evidenzbasierte Patienteninformationen. Z Arztl Fortbild Qualitatssich. 2005, 99: 343-351.PubMed
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. 10.1093/her/cyg123.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Shaddock J: Appraising the quality of consumer health information leaflets. Health Expect. 2002, 5: 84-87. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2002.00171.x.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D: Sharing decisions with patients: is the information good enough?. BMJ. 1999, 318: 318-322. 10.1136/bmj.318.7179.318.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.12.001.CrossRefPubMed
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. 10.1055/s-2006-942297.CrossRef
32.
Jorgensen KJ, Gotzsche PC: Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ. 2004, 328: 148-10.1136/bmj.328.7432.148.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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. 10.1136/bmj.317.7153.263.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
35.
36.
37.
Hoffmann T, Twork S, Kugler J: Patientenorientierung im Internet- qualitative Bewertung von Internetseiten für Multiple-Sklerose-Betroffene. Heilberufe. 2009, 61: 98-103. 10.1007/s00058-009-1621-1.CrossRef
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. 10.1016/j.zefq.2008.06.019.CrossRefPubMed
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. 10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.018.CrossRefPubMed
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.CrossRef
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. 10.1111/j.1365-2222.2004.02055.x.CrossRefPubMed
42.
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. 10.1348/135910708X375344.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Welch HG, Black WC: Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010, 102: 605-613. 10.1093/jnci/djq099.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Jorgensen KJ, Zahl PH, Gotzsche PC: Overdiagnosis in organised mammography screening in denmark. A comparative study. BMC Womens Health. 2009, 9: 36-10.1186/1472-6874-9-36.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
46.
Elmore JG, Fletcher SW: Overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: time to tackle an underappreciated harm. Ann Intern Med. 2012, 156: 536-537. 10.7326/0003-4819-156-7-201204030-00012.CrossRefPubMed
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: e1001352-10.1371/journal.pmed.1001352.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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. 10.1001/jama.282.11.1054.CrossRefPubMed
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. 10.1093/biostatistics/2.4.463.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Raffle AE: Information about screening—is it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice?. Health Expect. 2001, 4: 92-98. 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00138.x.CrossRefPubMed
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: c2138-10.1136/bmj.c2138.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
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. 10.1007/s11126-011-9179-x.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Boyer C, Baujard V, Geissbuhler A: Evolution of health web certification through the HONcode experience. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2011, 169: 53-57.PubMed
54.
Khazaal Y, Chatton A, Cochand S, Zullino D: Quality of Web-based information on cocaine addiction. Patient Educ Couns. 2008, 72: 336-341. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.03.002.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Zermatten A, Khazaal Y, Coquard O, Chatton A, Bondolfi G: Quality of Web-based information on depression. Depress Anxiety. 2010, 27: 852-858. 10.1002/da.20665.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Hawkes N: Breast cancer screening is to be reviewed, cancer tsar announces. BMJ. 2011, 343: d6905-10.1136/bmj.d6905. doi:10.1136/bmj.d6905CrossRefPubMed
57.
Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Black WC, Kramer BS: Cancer screening campaigns — getting past uninformative persuasion. N Engl J Med. 2012, 367: 18-10.1056/NEJMicm1102441.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
Authors
Maren Dreier
Birgit Borutta
Gabriele Seidel
Inga Kreusel
Jürgen Töppich
Eva M Bitzer
Marie-Luise Dierks
Ulla Walter
Publication date
01-12-2013
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2013
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-843

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

BMC Public Health 1/2013 Go to the issue

Research article

Prevalence and complications of diabetes mellitus in Northern Africa, a systematic review

Research article

The impact of a cardiovascular health awareness program (CHAP) on reducing blood pressure: a prospective cohort study

Research article

Knowledge of, attitudes toward, and preventive practices relating to cholera and oral cholera vaccine among urban high-risk groups: findings of a cross-sectional study in Dhaka, Bangladesh

Study protocol

The Colorado LEAP study: rationale and design of a study to assess the short term longitudinal effectiveness of a preschool nutrition and physical activity program

Research article

Socioeconomic disparity in cervical cancer screening among Korean women: 1998–2010

Research article

Admission to hospital for pneumonia and influenza attributable to 2009 pandemic A/H1N1 Influenza in First Nations communities in three provinces of Canada