Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30703103›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2019

Assessment of patient information needs: A systematic review of measures.

Eva Christalle, Jördis M Zill, Wiebke Frerichs, Martin Härter, Yvonne Nestoriuc, Jörg Dirmaier, Isabelle Scholl

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Impact of health information prescription in thyroid cancer.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2026
    Article
  3. Information Needs of Australian Families Living with Craniosynostosis: A Qualitative Study.The Cleft palate-craniofacial journal : official publication of the American Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Association · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Patient Information Needs During Ambulatory Medication Changes: A Qualitative Study.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. 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

7 authors.

Eva ChristalleDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Jördis M ZillDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-8995-5556
Wiebke FrerichsDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Martin HärterDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Yvonne NestoriucDepartment of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg and Schön Clinic Hamburg Eilbek, Hamburg, Germany.
Jörg DirmaierDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.
Isabelle SchollDepartment of Medical Psychology, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Hamburg, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProviding patient information is a central aspect of patient-centered care. Fulfilling personal information needs has positive effects on several health-related outcomes. Measurement instruments help to identify individual information needs in an effective way. The present study gives an overview of existing information needs measures and further evaluates the quality of their psychometric properties and their psychometric studies.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search on psychometric studies of measures that assess information needs in PubMed and Embase. Furthermore, we carried out a secondary search with reference and citation tracking of the included articles. Title, abstracts and full texts were screened by two independent reviewers for eligibility. We extracted data on content of the measures, validation samples and psychometric properties. In addition we rated the methodological quality with the COSMIN checklist and the quality of psychometric properties with the criteria of Terwee and colleagues.

results24 studies on 21 measures were included. Most instruments assessed information needs of patients with cancer or cardiac diseases. The majority of the instruments were in English language and from western countries. Most studies included information on internal consistency and content validity. The ratings showed mixed results with clear deficiencies in the methodological quality of most studies. DISCUSSION: This is the first systematic review that summarized the existing evidence on measures on patient information needs using two instruments for a systematic quality assessment. The results show a need for more psychometric studies on existing measures. In addition, reporting on psychometric studies needs to be improved to be able to evaluate the reliability of the psychometric properties. Furthermore, we were not able to identify any measures on information needs for some frequent chronic diseases. Other methods to elicit information needs (e.g. open-ended interviews, question prompt sheets) could be considered as alternatives if sound measures are missing.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CareHumansPatient-Centered CarePsychometricsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID30703103
PMCPMC6354974

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.