ETHIC. Evaluation Tool of Health Information for Consumers. Development, features and validation.

Cocchi, Simone and Mazzocut, Mauro and Cipolat Mis, Chiara and Truccolo, Ivana and Cervi, Elena and Iori, Rita and Orlandini, Danilo ETHIC. Evaluation Tool of Health Information for Consumers. Development, features and validation., 2014 . In Divided we fall, united we inform. Building alliances for a new European cooperation. 14th EAHIL Annual Conference, Roma (Italy), 11-13 June 2014. (Unpublished) [Conference poster]

[img]
Preview
Text
Cocchi_poster_ETHIC_Eahil2014_OK.pdf - Other

Download (428kB) | Preview

English abstract

Good information is a fundamental component of the therapeutic process and Health Information issues are of strategic importance, mostly in social and cultural contexts characterized by low literacy levels, as the Italian one. ETHIC (Evaluation Tool of Health Information for Consumers) is an instrument developed for the quality assessment of health information materials from a linguistic, textual and documentary point of view. Our aim is to provide bio-medical librarians and health information professionals with a tool that could be helpful in directing consumers toward the best information available and in supporting healthcare professionals in the development of health information materials. ETHIC allows to assess printed health information resources (booklets, depliants etc.) and consists of a checklist and an instruction manual. ETHIC has been drawn up according to the present literature and it’s inspired to presently available tools and to publications and guidelines on plain language writing. Furthermore, ETHIC embeds instruments for the evaluation of text readability, lexical understandability and for the assessment of non-textual elements such as tables. The checklist consists of 24 items and the scoring system allows to compare each other different information materials. The instruction manual shows how to perform the evaluation, explains how to assign the correct score to each single item and contains practical examples which can guide through the evaluation process. ETHIC will undergo to a validation procedure to prove its efficacy and effectiveness. ETHIC could represent an effective tool for bio-medical librarians and health information professionals to assess the quality of health information materials for consumers, to support healthcare professionals in drawing up good quality health information materials, to contribute in facilitating knowledge creation and also to enhance their professionals skills. The validation procedure will have to confirm the accuracy of development process and tool itself.

Item type: Conference poster
Keywords: Consumer Health Information, Patient Education, Library Services, Questionnaires, Validation studies
Subjects: B. Information use and sociology of information > BZ. None of these, but in this section.
Depositing user: Simone Cocchi
Date deposited: 11 Jun 2014 07:41
Last modified: 02 Oct 2014 12:31
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10760/23240

References

"SEEK" links will first look for possible matches inside E-LIS and query Google Scholar if no results are found.

CENSIS, Forum per la Ricerca Biomedica. Quale futuro per il rapporto medico paziente nella nuova sanità? 2012; Available at: http://www.forumbm.it/getDoc.php?id=199. Accessed apr, 2014.

Bufalino R, Florita A. I bisogni. In: Vella S, De Lorenzo F, ed. Manuale per la comunicazione in oncologia Roma: Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2011. p. 29-31.

Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the world wide web: a systematic review. JAMA 2002 May 22-29;287(20):2691-2700.

OECD, Statistics Canada. Literacy for Life: Further Results from the Adult Literacy and Life Skills Survey : OECD Publishing; 2011.

Archivio research paper — ISFOL Available at: http://www.isfol.it/pubblicazioni/research-paper/archivio-research-paper/. Accessed apr, 2014.

Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann Intern Med 2011 Jul 19;155(2):97-107.

The Joint Commission ed. 'What Did the Doctor Say?:' Improving Health Literacy to Protect Patient Safety. : The Joint Commission; 2007.

Ministero della Salute. Piano oncologico nazionale 2010/2012. Sintesi per la stampa. Available at http://www.salute.gov.it/imgs/C_17_primopianoNuovo_264_documenti_itemDocumenti_0_fileDocumento.pdf. Accessed apr, 2014.

Vella S, De Lorenzo F ed. Manuale per la comunicazione in oncologia. Roma: Istituto Superiore di Sanità; 2011.

Truccolo I, Zanini F, Bufalino R. Un codice deontologico per informare il paziente. Biblioteche oggi 2009(2):81-84.

Patient Information Forum ed. Making the Case for Information. The evidence for investing in high quality health information for patients and the public. : Patient Information Forum; 2013.

Commissione Nazionale Biblioteche Pubbliche ed. Biblioteche per tutti. Servizi per lettori in difficoltà. Roma: AIB; 2007.

Doak CC, Doak Leonard G., Root JH. Teaching patients with low literacy skills. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company; 1996.

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 Feb;53(2):105-111.

La guida DISCERNere. Valutare la qualità dell'informazione in ambito sanitario (Dossier n. 128/2006). Bologna: Regione Emilia-Romagna - Agenzia sanitaria e sociale regionale; 2006.

Moult B, Franck LS, 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 Expect 2004 Jun;7(2):165-175.

Lucisano P, Piemontese ME. GULPEASE: una formula per la predizione della difficoltà dei testi in lingua italiana. Scuola e città 1988;39(3):110-124.

De Mauro T. Guida all'uso delle parole. II ed. Roma: Editori Riuniti; 2007.

Mosenthal PB, Kirsch IS. A new measure for assessing document complexity: The PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 1998;41(8):638-657.

Lankes DR. L'atlante della biblioteconomia moderna. Milano: Editrice Bibliografica; 2014.


Downloads

Downloads per month over past year

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item