ArticleJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2018
The Quality of Patient Information Booklets for Cancer Patients-an Evaluation of Free Accessible Material in German Language.
Article in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Effect of Discharge Planning Videos and Booklets on Quality of Life Among Patients With Heart Failure: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR cardio · 2025Article
- The quality of German - language patient decision aids for oncological patients on the internet.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Review
- Quality, Readability, and Understandability of German Booklets Addressing Melanoma Patients.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2019Article
- Exploring the Most Visible German Websites on Melanoma Immunotherapy: A Web-Based Analysis.JMIR cancer · 2018Article
- Smart health via mHealth? Potentials of mobile health apps for improving prevention and adherence of breast cancer patients.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
According to the information-seeking behaviors of patients, booklets which can be downloaded from the Internet for free are an important source of information notably for patients with cancer. This study investigated whether information booklets for patients with cancer available at German websites are in accordance with the formal and content criteria of evidence-based information. We compared and compiled both content and formal criteria by matching different national and international standards for written patient information using a merged instrument. A catalog with a total of 16 items within 4 categories (quality of the publication, quality of information, quality of information representation, and transparency) was created. Patient information booklets for the most frequent tumor types were collected from the Internet. A total of 52 different patient booklets were downloaded and assessed. Overall, no booklet fulfilled all criteria. The quality of the publications was evaluated with an average value of 1.67 while the quality of the information had a mean value of 1.45, and the quality of information presentation had a similar rating (1.39). The transparency criteria were evaluated as lowest with an average of 1.07. In summary, German booklets for cancer patients have some shortcomings concerning formal and content criteria for evidence-based patient information. The applied requirement catalog is suitable for wide use and may help in quality assurance of health information. It may be used as part of an obligatory external evaluation, which could help improving the quality of health information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28474220What 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.