title: Evaluation of the quality of patient information to support informed shared decision-making.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  (a) To find out how much patient information material on display in family physicians' offices refers to management choices, and hence may be useful to support informed and shared decision-making (ISDM) by patients and (b) to evaluate the quality of print information materials exchanged during the consultation, i.e. brought in by patients or given out by family physicians.
  
  
  METHODS
  All print information available for patients and exchanged between physicians and patients was collected in a single complete day of the office practices of 21 family physicians. A published and validated instrument (DISCERN) was used to assess quality.
  
  
  METHODS
  Community office practices in the greater Vancouver area, British Columbia, Canada. The physicians were purposefully recruited by their association with the medical school Department of Family Practice, their interest in providing patients with print information and their representation of a range of practice types and location.
  
  
  METHODS
  The source of the pamphlets and these categories: available in the physicians' offices; exchanged between physician and patient; and produced with the explicit or apparent intent to support evidence-based patient choice.
  
  
  METHODS
  The quality of the print information to support ISDM, as measured by DISCERN and the ease of use and reliability of the DISCERN tool.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Fewer than 50% of pamphlets available in these offices fulfilled our minimum criteria for ISDM (mentioned more than one management option). Offices varied widely in the proportion of pamphlets on display that supported ISDM and how particular the physician was in selecting materials. The DISCERN tool is quick, valid and reliable for the evaluation of patient information. The quality of patient information materials used in the consultation and available in these offices was below midpoint on the DISCERN score. Major deficiencies were with respect to the mention of choices, risks, effect of no treatment or uncertainty and reliability (source, evidence-base). Good quality information can be produced; some is available locally.
authors.affiliation: Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, and Faculty Development, Faculty of Medicine, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. wgold@interchange.ubc.ca
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Godolphin
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Towle
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: McKendry
mesh_terms: D001955:British Columbia; D003258:Consumer Behavior; D003657:Decision Making; D005194:Family Practice; D006293:Health Promotion / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D010174:Pamphlets; D010353:Patient Education as Topic / Q000592:standards*; D015397:Program Evaluation; D011785:Quality Assurance, Health Care; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires