Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32007094›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2020

Written patient information materials used in general practices fail to meet acceptable quality standards.

Nicole Posch, Karl Horvath, Kerstin Wratschko, Jasper Plath, Richard Brodnig, Andrea Siebenhofer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

6 authors.

Nicole PoschInstitute of General Practice and Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 20/3, Graz, Austria. nicole.posch@medunigraz.at.ORCID 0000-0001-7939-1435
Karl HorvathInstitute of General Practice and Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 20/3, Graz, Austria.
Kerstin WratschkoInstitute of General Practice and Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 20/3, Graz, Austria.
Jasper PlathInstitute of General Practice, Goethe University Frankfurt am Main, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, Frankfurt, Germany.
Richard BrodnigInstitute of General Practice and Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 20/3, Graz, Austria.
Andrea SiebenhoferInstitute of General Practice and Evidence-Based Health Services Research, Medical University of Graz, Auenbruggerplatz 20/3, Graz, Austria.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatient information materials and decision aids are essential tools for helping patients make informed decisions and share in decision-making. The aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the written patient information materials available at general practices in Styria, Austria.

methodsWe asked general practitioners to send in all patient information materials available in their practices and to answer a short questionnaire. We evaluated the materials using the Ensuring Quality Information for Patients (EQIP-36) instrument.

resultsA total of 387 different patient information materials were available for quality assessment. These materials achieved an average score of 39 out of 100. The score was below 50 for 78% of all materials. There was a significant lack of information on the evidence base of recommendations. Only 9 % of the materials provided full disclosure of their evidence sources. We also found that, despite the poor quality of the materials, 89% of general practitioners regularly make active use of them during consultations with patients.

conclusionBased on international standards, the quality of patient information materials available at general practices in Styria is poor. The vast majority of the materials are not suitable as a basis for informed decisions by patients. However, most Styrian general practitioners use written patient information materials on a regular basis in their daily clinical practice. Thus, these materials not only fail to help raise the health literacy of the general population, but may actually undermine efforts to enable patients to make shared informed decisions. To increase health literacy, it is necessary to make high quality, evidence-based and easy-to-understand information material available to patients and the public. For this, it may be necessary to set up a centralized and independent clearinghouse.

Indexed as

Decision Making, SharedGeneral PracticeHealth LiteracyPamphletsAustriaComprehensionFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMalePatient Education as TopicEQIPGeneral practiceHealth literacyPatient information materials

Identifiers

PMID32007094
PMCPMC6995648

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.