1991
DOI: 10.1016/0749-2081(91)90091-3
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating written patient education materials

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0
1

Year Published

1996
1996
2010
2010

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 13 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
0
5
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Verbal consultations may fulfil these information needs but this information is subject to poor recall and understanding by patients (Michie et al, 1997). Consequently, patients are increasingly given printed information to reinforce, or in many cases to replace, verbal information provided by clinicians (Frank-Stromborg and Cohen, 1991). Currently, a combination of information provision (verbal and printed) with support from healthcare professionals is considered 'good clinical practice'.…”
Section: Patient Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Verbal consultations may fulfil these information needs but this information is subject to poor recall and understanding by patients (Michie et al, 1997). Consequently, patients are increasingly given printed information to reinforce, or in many cases to replace, verbal information provided by clinicians (Frank-Stromborg and Cohen, 1991). Currently, a combination of information provision (verbal and printed) with support from healthcare professionals is considered 'good clinical practice'.…”
Section: Patient Educationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This question, deliberately of a general nature, was designed to obtain initial feedback on the overall perceived usefulness of the 'information package' received. 46,47 The fact that 93% of patients and other respondents judged the information received as positive seems to support the idea that the quality and the content of the documents had been carefully evaluated both by the CIP-LP staff and by the users who received it. The small proportion of respondents who did not give a positive evaluation stimulated us to implement a systematic evaluation of all documents.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 84%
“…Regarding the evaluation of information received, most respondents regarded it as ‘good’ and ‘excellent’ (Table 4) and only a very small proportion (0.8%) judged it of poor quality. This question, deliberately of a general nature, was designed to obtain initial feedback on the overall perceived usefulness of the ‘information package’ received 46,47 . The fact that 93% of patients and other respondents judged the information received as positive seems to support the idea that the quality and the content of the documents had been carefully evaluated both by the CIP‐LP staff and by the users who received it.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Feasibility is the final criterion for evaluating patient education materials. Feasibility refers to the cost of the patient education materials, equipment needed to display the information, accessibility of the information, and the availability of the education material in Braille or the primary spoken language of the client 46 …”
Section: General Evaluation Criteria For Patient Education Materialsmentioning
confidence: 99%