ArticlePatient preference and adherence2026
Information Quality Requirements for AI-Generated Patient Education Materials in Diabetic Foot Ulcer Care: A Directed Qualitative Content Analysis of Patient and Nurse Perspectives.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To explore the information quality requirements of artificial intelligence generated patient education materials for diabetic foot ulcers from the perspectives of patients and nurses. Patients and Methods: This single-center qualitative study was conducted at the Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Guangxi Medical University, China, from November 2025 to June 2026. Maximum-variation purposive sampling recruited 15 hospitalized patients with diabetic foot ulcers and 10 nurses. Saturation was assessed separately for each group and defined as no new codes, categories, or relevant insights. It was reached after 13 patient and 8 nurse interviews, with two additional interviews per group for confirmation. Face-to-face semi-structured interviews used standardized artificial intelligence generated diabetic foot ulcer education material as a discussion stimulus. Data were analyzed using directed content analysis guided by Wang and Strong's information quality framework. Results: Five themes and 17 subthemes were identified. Four themes mapped to Wang and Strong's framework: intrinsic information quality (accuracy, believability, objectivity, and reputation); contextual information quality (relevancy, completeness, timeliness, appropriate amount of data, and value-added); representational information quality (ease of understanding, interpretability, consistent representation, and concise representation); and accessibility information quality (accessibility and access security). An additional specific theme comprised clinical safety and actionability. Both groups valued reliable, relevant, understandable, and accessible information, but their priorities differed: nurses emphasized clinical accuracy, professional review, and the risks of unsafe recommendations, whereas patients prioritized relevance to current wound-care needs, ease of understanding and access, and clear guidance for self-care. Conclusion: Patients and nurses showed different but complementary priorities. Clinical safety and actionability extend conventional information quality considerations. Artificial intelligence may support educational content generation. However, a professional review is necessary for clinically sensitive information, and patient input is essential to ensure usability. Future studies should refine and validate these requirements across settings and user groups.
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.