A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension

Fitzmaurice, DA; Adams, JL

A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension

Fitzmaurice, DA Adams, JL

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Journal of Human Hypertension, 2000, 14 (4), pp. 259 - 262
Issue Date:: 2000-04-28

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension..pdf	Accepted Manuscript Version	99.87 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Fitzmaurice, DA	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Adams, JL https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9901-5717	en_US
dc.date.issued	2000-04-28	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Journal of Human Hypertension, 2000, 14 (4), pp. 259 - 262	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	0950-9240	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/66261
dc.description.abstract	Objective: To review patient information leaflets on hypertension to determine the quality of information currently available to patients. Design and setting: A standardised systematic rating of patient information leaflets for hypertension in the UK. Main outcome measure: A quality score per leaflet based on a pre-determined rating scale. Using recognised criteria with marks allocated for content, writing style, readability and design. Results: Sixty-one leaflets were received, 42 from the Internet and 19 from other sources. Leaflets could achieve a maximum of 84 points. Scores ranged from 30 to 70 for non-Internet leaflets and 28 and 67 for Internet leaflets. Leaflets produced by Boeringer Ingelheim for the British Hypertension Society and Greenlines Publishing (with a medical education grant from Knoll Ltd) scored highest overall. A detailed analysis of the non-Internet leaflets showed that few leaflets contained the full range of information considered important though most should be readable by the majority of the adult population and are written using appropriate language and typeface. Conclusion: High quality information is available for patients, though some leaflets fall below an adequate standard. Professionals providing advice to patients should have some knowledge of what constitutes good quality information and be critical of the resources they use. Ideally surgeries and clinics should stock a range of the best information available so that patients can chose the leaflets most appropriate to their needs.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Journal of Human Hypertension	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1038/sj.jhh.1001003	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Cardiovascular System & Hematology	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Hypertension	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Communication	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Pamphlets	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Teaching Materials	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Internet	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Adult	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Societies, Medical	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Patient Education as Topic	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	United Kingdom	en_US
dc.title	A systematic review of patient information leaflets for hypertension	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	4	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	14	en_US
utslib.for	1103 Clinical Sciences	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	4	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	14	en_US

Abstract:

Objective: To review patient information leaflets on hypertension to determine the quality of information currently available to patients. Design and setting: A standardised systematic rating of patient information leaflets for hypertension in the UK. Main outcome measure: A quality score per leaflet based on a pre-determined rating scale. Using recognised criteria with marks allocated for content, writing style, readability and design. Results: Sixty-one leaflets were received, 42 from the Internet and 19 from other sources. Leaflets could achieve a maximum of 84 points. Scores ranged from 30 to 70 for non-Internet leaflets and 28 and 67 for Internet leaflets. Leaflets produced by Boeringer Ingelheim for the British Hypertension Society and Greenlines Publishing (with a medical education grant from Knoll Ltd) scored highest overall. A detailed analysis of the non-Internet leaflets showed that few leaflets contained the full range of information considered important though most should be readable by the majority of the adult population and are written using appropriate language and typeface. Conclusion: High quality information is available for patients, though some leaflets fall below an adequate standard. Professionals providing advice to patients should have some knowledge of what constitutes good quality information and be critical of the resources they use. Ideally surgeries and clinics should stock a range of the best information available so that patients can chose the leaflets most appropriate to their needs.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/66261