How best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews

Abstract

BackgroundIn the past, several authors have attempted to review randomized clinical trials (RCT) evaluating the impact of Patient Information Leaflets (PILs) used during a consultation and draw some general conclusions. However, this proved difficult because the clinical situations, size and quality of RCTs were too heterogeneous to pool relevant data.ObjectiveTo overcome this 30‐year stalemate, we performed a review of reviews and propose general recommendations and suggestions for improving the quality of PILs, how to use them and methods for evaluating them.MethodologyWe searched five databases for reviews, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses describing PILs. We drew general and condition‐linked conclusions concerning the impact of PILs. Checklists summarize criteria for quality PILs, and ways of using and evaluating them.ResultsOf 986 articles found, 24 reviews were pertinent; the five oldest considered the impact of PILs irrespective of the condition the patient consulted for; the 19 more recent ones mostly addressed precise clinical situations.DiscussionWhatever the clinical situation, PILs improve patients' knowledge and satisfaction. For acute conditions, in the short‐term PILs also improve adherence to treatment. For chronic diseases, invasive procedures or screening situations, their impact on adherence varies depending on the context, how the PILs are given and the invasiveness of the intervention.Conclusion PILs are considered to be very useful, especially for acute conditions where the patient is the first to suffer from lack of information. We propose checklists for writing, designing, using and evaluating PILs in RCTs to enable comparisons between different studies.

Knowledge translation strategies for dissemination with a focus on healthcare recipients: an overview of systematic reviews

“…Of the 44 SRs, 24 included both experimental and quasi-experimental designs [3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, 25, 27-30, 32-34, 36, 38, 41, 42, 49, 51, 53, 54], ten only included randomized controlled trials [18,23,24,26,35,43,47,48,50,52], and ten included both quantitative and qualitative research [10,19,22,31,37,39,40,[44][45][46]. Seventeen SRs included only patients or caregivers [7,9,10,20,24,31,32,34,35,37,39,40,43,44,49,50,53], and the remaining 27 also included providers. Twenty SRs were informed by, or based on, a theory or framework [3,7,9,11,12,18,21,25,27,29,…”

“…Seventeen SRs included only patients or caregivers [7,9,10,20,24,31,32,34,35,37,39,40,43,44,49,50,53], and the remaining 27 also included providers. Twenty SRs were informed by, or based on, a theory or framework [3,7,9,11,12,18,21,25,27,29,31,33,36,38,41,42,46,49,51,54].…”

Proposal for a Global Adherence Scale for Acute Conditions (GASAC): a prospective cohort study in two Emergency Departments

“…Analysis of adherence behaviour from a strictly medical point of view is insufficient [32]. For this reason, we based the construction of our scale on an existing model recently developed by a multidisciplinary team [15] using a multifactorial approach, as recommended by studies in psychology and sociology [5,32]. It also helped us to avoid the pitfalls of vague terminology [31], poor construction of the scoring system and redundancy between outcomes [15].…”

“…For this reason, we based the construction of our scale on an existing model recently developed by a multidisciplinary team [15] using a multifactorial approach, as recommended by studies in psychology and sociology [5,32]. It also helped us to avoid the pitfalls of vague terminology [31], poor construction of the scoring system and redundancy between outcomes [15]. This model describes the four aspects of a patient’s behaviour following a consultation: taking medications as instructed, following prescriptions for evaluations and tests (radiography, blood tests, appointments with specialists), making appropriate lifestyle changes (i.e.…”

Beyond Oncology: Question Prompt Lists in Healthcare—A Scoping Review Protocol

“…These approaches address healthcare professionals (mainly physicians), patients, or both. Among them are printed or online information materials for patients [15], specific decision aids [16], communication skills trainings for physicians (and, to a lesser extent, other healthcare professionals) [17][18][19], and patient education programs, often in the context of chronic disease self-management [20][21][22].…”