ReviewHealth expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy2004
Ensuring quality information for patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information.
Review in Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy, 2004. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02376673 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Children's Book to Brochures for Safe Sleep Education in an At-Risk Population Enrolled in a Home Visitation Program), which is not on this map. Cited by 148 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing a Children's Book to Brochures for Safe Sleep Education in an At-Risk Population Enrolled in a Home Visitation Program
Who cites it
148 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Online Information on Lymphedema: Systematic Review of the Quality of Online Patient Resources.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Pooled it
- Content accuracy and readability of dietary advice available on webpages: A systematic review of the evidence.Journal of human nutrition and dietetics : the official journal of the British Dietetic Association · 2025Pooled it
- Quality assessment of online patient information on upper gastrointestinal endoscopy using the modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2024Pooled it
- Inguinal hernia repair: a systematic analysis of online patient information using the Modified Ensuring Quality Information for Patients tool.Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England · 2022Pooled it
- Using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients Tool to Assess Patient Information on Appendicitis Websites: Systematic Search and Evaluation.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Pooled it
- COVID-19 prevention and treatment information on the internet: a systematic analysis and quality assessment.BMJ open · 2020Pooled it
- Quality Assessment of Information on Bariatric Surgery Websites.Obesity surgery · 2018Pooled it
- Inappropriate Use of Medication by Elderly, Polymedicated, or Multipathological Patients with Chronic Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2018Pooled it
- How best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Pooled it
- Patient information leaflets to reduce antibiotic use and reconsultation rates in general practice: a systematic review.BMJ open · 2015Pooled it
- Randomised controlled trial of an intervention to improve parental knowledge and management practices of fever.BMC pediatrics · 2019Trial
- Patient education combined in a music and habit-forming intervention for adherence to continuous positive airway (CPAP) prescribed for sleep apnea.Patient education and counseling · 2009Trial
- A Comparative Evaluation of ChatGPT and Google Search Output for Caregiver Education in Tetralogy of Fallot.Cardiology and therapy · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of AI Chatbots for Testicular Cancer Education: Validity, Information Quality, and Readability.Annals of surgical oncology · 2026Article
- Evaluating the efficacy of artificial intelligence as a patient education tool in paediatric care: a cross-sectional comparative study.BMJ paediatrics open · 2026Article
- Quality and Readability of Four AI Chatbots Answering Search-Derived Patient Questions About Primary Aldosteronism: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance of Large Language Models in Oral Cancer Patient Education: An Evaluation of Reliability, Readability, and Patient Communication Quality.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2026Article
- Mapping the Reliability-Readability Gap in the Education of Patients With Age-Related Macular Degeneration Across 6 Large Language Models: Comparative Evaluation Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
- A Comparative Assessment of Large Language Models in Congenital Hypothyroidism: Reliability, Quality and ReadabilityJournal of clinical research in pediatric endocrinology · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Five Large Language Models for Parental Education in Pediatric Anesthesia: Reliability and Readability Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2026Article
88 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite the recent focus on improving the quality of patient information, there is no rigorous method of assessing quality of written patient information that is applicable to all information types and that prescribes the action that is required following evaluation.
objectiveThe aims of this project were to develop a practical measure of the presentation quality for all types of written health care information and to provide preliminary validity and reliability of the measure in a paediatric setting.
methodsThe Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP) tool was developed through a process of item generation, testing for concurrent validity, inter-rater reliability and utility. Patient information managers and health care professionals tested EQIP in three annual audits of health care leaflets produced by a children's hospital.
resultsThe final tool comprised 20 items. Kendall's tau B rank correlation between EQIP and DISCERN was 0.56 (P = 0.001). There was strong agreement between intuitive rating and the EQIP score (Kendall's tau B = 0.78, P = 0.009). Internal consistency using Cronbach's alpha was 0.80. There was good agreement between pairs of raters (mean kappa = 0.60; SD = 0.18) with no differences based on types of leaflets. Audits showed significant improvement in the number of leaflets achieving a higher quality EQIP rating over a 3-year period.
conclusionsEQIP demonstrated good preliminary validity, reliability and utility when used by patient information managers and healthcare professionals for a wide variety of written health care information. EQIP uniquely identifies actions to be taken as a result of the quality assessment. Use of EQIP improved the quality of written health care information in a children's hospital. Wider evaluation of EQIP with written information for other populations and settings is recommended.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.