ArticleBMC health services research2013
Evidence-based health information from the users' perspective--a qualitative analysis.
Article in BMC health services research, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Informational needs related to menstrual literacy among Dutch women: a focus group study.BMC women's health · 2025Article
- An integrative systematic review on interventions to improve layperson's ability to identify trustworthy digital health information.PLOS digital health · 2024Article
- Mobile Apps Aimed at Preventing and Handling Unintentional Injuries in Children Aged <7 Years: Systematic Review.Interactive journal of medical research · 2023Review
- "As If Neck Injuries Did Not Exist": An Interview Study of Patients' and Relatives' Perceptions of Web Information on and Management of Whiplash Injuries in Sweden.Interactive journal of medical research · 2019Article
- The Quality of Patient Information Booklets for Cancer Patients-an Evaluation of Free Accessible Material in German Language.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Participatory improvement of a template for informed consent documents in biobank research - study results and methodological reflections.BMC medical ethics · 2017Article
- An integrated conceptual framework for evaluating and improving 'understanding' in informed consent.Trials · 2017Article
- Patients' views on their decision making during inpatient rehabilitation after newly acquired spinal cord injury-A qualitative interview-based study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017Article
- Readability and Comprehensibility of Patient Information Leaflets for Antidiabetic Medications in Qatar.The Journal of pharmacy technology : jPT : official publication of the Association of Pharmacy Technicians · 2017Article
- Readability of Online Patient Educational Resources Found on NCI-Designated Cancer Center Web Sites.Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network : JNCCN · 2016Article
- Narrative Methods and Sociocultural Linguistic Approaches in Facilitating In-depth Understanding of HIV Disclosure in a Cohort of Women and Men in Cape Town, South Africa.Frontiers in public health · 2016Article
- Article
- Patient choice for older people in english NHS primary care: theory and practice.ISRN family medicine · 2014Review
- Online patient information from radiation oncology departments is too complex for the general population.Practical radiation oncologyArticle
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEvidence-based information is a precondition for informed decision-making and participation in health. There are several recommendations and definitions available on the generation and assessment of so called evidence-based health information for patients and consumers (EBHI). They stress the importance of objectively informing people about benefits and harms and any uncertainties in health-related procedures. There are also studies on the comprehensibility, relevance and user-friendliness of these informational materials. But to date there has been little research on the perceptions and cognitive reactions of users or lay people towards EBHI. The aim of our study is to define the spectrum of consumers' reaction patterns to written EBHI in order to gain a deeper understanding of their comprehension and assumptions, as well as their informational needs and expectations.
methodsThis study is based on an external user evaluation of EBHI produced by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG), commissioned by the IQWiG. The EBHI were examined within guided group discussions, carried out with lay people. The test readers' first impressions and their appraisal of the informational content, presentation, structure, comprehensibility and effect were gathered. Then a qualitative text analysis of 25 discussion transcripts involving 94 test readers was performed.
resultsBased on the qualitative text analysis a framework for reaction patterns was developed, comprising eight main categories: (i) interest, (ii) satisfaction, (iii) reassurance and trust, (iv) activation, (v) disinterest, (vi) dissatisfaction and disappointment, (vii) anxiety and worry, (viii) doubt.
conclusionsMany lay people are unfamiliar with core characteristics of this special information type. Two particularly critical issues are the description of insufficient evidence and the attendant absence of clear-cut recommendations. Further research is needed to examine strategies to explain the specific character of EBHI so as to minimize unintended or adverse reaction patterns. The presented framework describes the spectrum of users' reaction patterns to EBHI. It may support existing best practice models for editing EBHI.
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.