Cargando…

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

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 i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Dreier, Maren, Borutta, Birgit, Seidel, Gabriele, Kreusel, Inga, Töppich, Jürgen, Bitzer, Eva M, Dierks, Marie-Luise, Walter, Ulla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3848725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-843
_version_ 1782293807612559360
author Dreier, Maren
Borutta, Birgit
Seidel, Gabriele
Kreusel, Inga
Töppich, Jürgen
Bitzer, Eva M
Dierks, Marie-Luise
Walter, Ulla
author_facet Dreier, Maren
Borutta, Birgit
Seidel, Gabriele
Kreusel, Inga
Töppich, Jürgen
Bitzer, Eva M
Dierks, Marie-Luise
Walter, Ulla
author_sort Dreier, Maren
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3848725
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-38487252013-12-04 Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening Dreier, Maren Borutta, Birgit Seidel, Gabriele Kreusel, Inga Töppich, Jürgen Bitzer, Eva M Dierks, Marie-Luise Walter, Ulla BMC Public Health Research Article 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. BioMed Central 2013-09-13 /pmc/articles/PMC3848725/ /pubmed/24028691 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-843 Text en Copyright © 2013 Dreier et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Dreier, Maren
Borutta, Birgit
Seidel, Gabriele
Kreusel, Inga
Töppich, Jürgen
Bitzer, Eva M
Dierks, Marie-Luise
Walter, Ulla
Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
title Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
title_full Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
title_fullStr Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
title_full_unstemmed Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
title_short Development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
title_sort development of a comprehensive list of criteria for evaluating consumer education materials on colorectal cancer screening
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3848725/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24028691
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-843
work_keys_str_mv AT dreiermaren developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT boruttabirgit developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT seidelgabriele developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT kreuselinga developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT toppichjurgen developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT bitzerevam developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT dierksmarieluise developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening
AT walterulla developmentofacomprehensivelistofcriteriaforevaluatingconsumereducationmaterialsoncolorectalcancerscreening