ArticlePharmacy practice2007
Development and validity of a method for the evaluation of printed education material.
Article in Pharmacy practice, 2007. 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.
- Development and Validation of a Novel Neck Care Module in Patients With Chronic Mechanical Neck Pain.Cureus · 2026Article
- Development and validation of a health education module for parents of schoolchildren with overweight and obesity in the UAE.PloS one · 2026Article
- Evaluating Online Interprofessional Education for Interprofessional Collaborative Practice: Educator and Learner Experiences.Nursing & health sciences · 2025Article
- Development and validation of heart-healthy dietary educational material (HHDEM) for the secondary prevention of coronary artery disease.Journal of education and health promotion · 2025Article
- Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of the Nudge Theory in Improving the Oral Self-Care of Schoolchildren with Refugee and Immigrant Backgrounds in Mashhad, Iran.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Development and validation of interprofessional health education module for the management of gestational diabetes mellitus.Journal of education and health promotion · 2024Article
- Educational booklet on labor and delivery: validity study.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024Article
- Article
- Development and Evaluation of an e-Book for Bone Health and Osteoporosis Education in Adolescents.Nutrients · 2023Article
- Development and Validation of Safe Motherhood-Accessible Resilience Training (SM-ART) Intervention to Improve Perinatal Mental Health.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Review
- Adapting and Developing A Diabetes Prevention Intervention Programme for South Africa: Curriculum and Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- 'Eat Right, Future Bright: Nutrition Education Program' (ERFB-NEP) module for aboriginal primary school children in Malaysia.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Article
- Development, validation and evaluation of a novel self-instructional module in patients with chronic non-specific low back pain.Indian journal of anaesthesia · 2020Article
- Development and Validation of a Physical Activity Educational Module for Overweight and Obese Adolescents: CERGAS Programme.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop and study the validity of an instrument for evaluation of Printed Education Materials (PEM); to evaluate the use of acceptability indices; to identify possible influences of professional aspects.
methodsAN INSTRUMENT FOR PEM EVALUATION WAS DEVELOPED WHICH INCLUDED TREE STEPS: domain identification, item generation and instrument design. A reading to easy PEM was developed for education of patient with systemic hypertension and its treatment with hydrochlorothiazide. Construct validity was measured based on previously established errors purposively introduced into the PEM, which served as extreme groups. An acceptability index was applied taking into account the rate of professionals who should approve each item. Participants were 10 physicians (9 men) and 5 nurses (all women).
resultsMany professionals identified intentional errors of crude character. Few participants identified errors that needed more careful evaluation, and no one detected the intentional error that required literature analysis. Physicians considered as acceptable 95.8% of the items of the PEM, and nurses 29.2%. The differences between the scoring were statistically significant in 27% of the items. In the overall evaluation, 66.6% were considered as acceptable. The analysis of each item revealed a behavioral pattern for each professional group.
conclusionsThe use of instruments for evaluation of printed education materials is required and may improve the quality of the PEM available for the patients. Not always are the acceptability indices totally correct or represent high quality of information. The professional experience, the practice pattern, and perhaps the gendre of the reviewers may influence their evaluation. An analysis of the PEM by professionals in communication, in drug information, and patients should be carried out to improve the quality of the proposed material.
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.