Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25214924›Full record

ArticlePharmacy practice2007

Development and validity of a method for the evaluation of printed education material.

Mauro Silveira Castro, Diogo Pilger, Flávio Danni Fuchs, Maria Beatriz Cardoso Ferreira

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Educational booklet on labor and delivery: validity study.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2024
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Adapting and Developing A Diabetes Prevention Intervention Programme for South Africa: Curriculum and Tools.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Mauro Silveira CastroDepartament of Drug Production and Control, School of Pharmacy. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ( Brazil ).
Diogo PilgerPost-graduate Program of Epidemiology. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ( Brazil ).
Flávio Danni FuchsDivision of Cardiology, Hospital de Clínicas de Porto Alegre ( Brazil ).
Maria Beatriz Cardoso FerreiraDepartament of Pharmacology - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul ( Brazil ).

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BrazilComprehensionPatient EducationValidation studies

Identifiers

PMID25214924
PMCPMC4155157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.