ArticleBMC family practice2020
Written patient information materials used in general practices fail to meet acceptable quality standards.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the usefulness and understandability of information leaflets on fall prevention from the perspective of hospital patients and their relatives.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Article
- Demands on Health Information and Clinical Practice Guidelines for Patients from the Perspective of Adults with Mental Illness and Family Members: A Qualitative Study with In-Depth Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Familiarity, Attitude, and Confidence of Health Literacy Practice among Community Healthcare Providers in Taiwan.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- How German health insurance providers use social online networks to promote healthy lifestyles: a content analysis of Facebook® accounts.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2021Article
- Assessing the Readability of Medicine Information Materials: The Case of Tikur Anbessa Specialized Hospital - Mixed Approach.Patient preference and adherence · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.