Moult M, Franck L, Brady H. Ensuring Quality Information for Patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expectations. 2004; 7:165-175
O'Neill P, Humphris GM, Field EA. The use of an information leaflet for patients undergoing wisdom tooth removal. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 1996; 34:331-334
Patel JH, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Factors affecting information retention in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008; 133:S61-S67
Barkhordar A, Pollard D, Hobkirk JA. A comparison of written and multimedia material for informing patients about dental implants. Dent Update. 2000; 27:80-84
Jackson C, Lindsay S. Reducing anxiety in new dental patients by means of leaflets. Br Dent J. 1995; 179:(5)163-167
Petti S, Scully C. Oral cancer knowledge and awareness: primary and secondary effects of an information leaflet. Oral Oncol. 2007; 43:(4)408-415
: Crown copyright; 2003
: GMC; 2001
Lewis MA, Newton JT. An evaluation of the quality of commercially produced patient information leaflets. Br Dent J. 2006; 201:(2)114-117
Nicholls S, Hankins M, Hooley C, Smith H. A survey of the quality and accuracy of information leaflets about skin cancer and sun-protective behaviour available from UK general practices and community pharmacies. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol. 2009; 23:(5)566-569
O'Brien I, Lambie L, Stacy-Baynes S. Is quality cancer information available for consumers in New Zealand? A national stocktake and review of written consumer cancer information. N Z Med J. 2009; 122:(1294)23-32
Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns. 2008; 70:(3)407-411
: University of Oxford and The British Library; 1998
Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999; 53:(2)105-111
Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res. 2004; 19:(4)440-446
Carey S, Low S, Hansbro J.London, UK: Office of National Statistics (ONS) Social Survey Division; 1997
Freimuth VS, Mettger W. Is there a hard-to-reach audience?. Public Health Rep. 1990; 105:(3)232-238
Meade C, Smith C. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns. 1991; 17:153-158
Paz SH, Liu H, Fongwa MN, Morales LS, Hays RD. Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys. Qual Life Res. 2009; 18:(7)889-900
McLaughlin HG. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read. 1969; 12:642-646
Estey A, Musseau A, Keehn L. Comprehension levels of patients reading health information. Patient Educ Couns. 1991; 18:165-169
Calderon JL, Morales LS, Liu H, Hays RD. Variation in the readability of items within surveys. Am J Med Qual. 2006; 21:49-56
Bailin A, Grafstein A. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Lang Commun. 2001; 21:285-301
Hoffman-Goetz L, Friedman DB. A systematic review of culturally sensitive cancer prevention resources for ethnic minorities. Ethn Dis. 2006; 16:(4)971-977
Elledge RO, Khazaee-Farid R, Walker RJ, Sundaram K, Monaghan A. A library-based ecological study to investigate the contribution of ethnicity to the incidence of oral cancer within health authorities in England and Wales. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2010;
Resnicow K, Baranowski T, Ahluwalia JS, Braithwaite RL. Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified. Ethn Dis. 1999; 9:10-21
Guidry JJ, Larke P, Walker VD, Fagan P, McDowell T, Cormeaux S. Cancer prevention materials for African Americans: cultural sensitivity assessment tool manual.College Station (TX): Texas Cancer Council; 1996
Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. Assessment of cultural sensitivity of cancer information in ethnic print media. J Health Commun. 2006; 11:(4)425-447
There is a good evidence base in the literature for the use of written patient information in healthcare settings to enable patients to retain information concerning procedures and treatments following initial consultations. A number of tools exist to help in the design of written patient information. These include checklists such as the Department of Health Toolkit for Producing Patient Information, EQIP and DISCERN tools, readability scores such as the Flesch-Kincaid Formula and Flesch Reading Ease score, as well as cultural sensitivity scores. These tools are presented and their possible role in dental primary care discussed.
Clinical Relevance: The tools provided here will enable clinicians to develop a better standard of patient information literature concerning procedures and treatments on offer.
Article
Research has demonstrated that patients only retain a fifth of the information imparted to them at any consultation, with evidence of improvement by as much as 50% when supplemental written information is provided.1 There is a growing evidence base in the literature for the use of patient information leaflets in dental practice. The use of these has been shown to correlate well with improved information retention by patients, aiding informed consent for procedures such as wisdom tooth removal, orthodontics and implant surgery, as well as reducing anxiety in patients in general.2–5 In particular, there has been shown to be a role for leaflets in cultivating public awareness of oral cancer risk factors and screening.6 Whilst guidance exists from the Department of Health and the General Medical Council on the provision of patient information in the medical setting, no similar guidelines exist for general dental practice.7,8 Lewis and Newton have highlighted a trend of patient information literature in primary dental care that tends to exceed the standards of recommended readability to suit the average patient, whilst falling short of standards expected of the Royal National Institute for the Blind (RNIB) and universally established good practice criteria, such as clearly stating aims and citing sources.9 There are a number of considerations to be made in designing patient information leaflets beyond these, and a number of evaluation methods exist to ensure that these are met.
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
