• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of jepicomhInstructions for authorsCurrent TOCJournal of Epidemiology and Community Health
J Epidemiol Community Health. Feb 1999; 53(2): 105–111.
PMCID: PMC1756830

DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To develop a short instrument, called DISCERN, which will enable patients and information providers to judge the quality of written information about treatment choices. DISCERN will also facilitate the production of new, high quality, evidence-based consumer health information. DESIGN: An expert panel, representing a range of expertise in consumer health information, generated criteria from a random sample of information for three medical conditions with varying degrees of evidence: myocardial infarction, endometriosis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. A graft instrument, based on this analysis, was tested by the panel on a random sample of new material for the same three conditions. The panel re-drafted the instrument to take account of the results of the test. The DISCERN instrument was finally tested by a national sample of 15 information providers and 13 self help group members on a random sample of leaflets from 19 major national self help organisations. Participants also completed an 8 item questionnaire concerning the face and content validity of the instrument. RESULTS: Chance corrected agreement (weighted kappa) for the overall quality rating was kappa = 0.53 (95% CI kappa = 0.48 to kappa = 0.59) among the expert panel, kappa = 0.40 (95% CI kappa = 0.36 to kappa = 0.43) among information providers, and kappa = 0.23 (95% CI kappa = 0.19 to kappa = 0.27) among self help group members. Higher agreement levels were associated with experience of using the instrument and with professional knowledge of consumer health information. Levels of agreement varied across individual items on the instrument, reflecting the need for subjectivity in rating certain criteria. The trends in levels of agreement were similar among all groups. The final instrument consisted of 15 questions plus an overall quality rating. Responses to the questionnaire after the final testing revealed the instrument to have good face and content validity and to be generally applicable. CONCLUSIONS: DISCERN is a reliable and valid instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information. While some subjectivity is required for rating certain criteria, the findings demonstrate that the instrument can be applied by experienced users and providers of health information to discriminate between publications of high and low quality. The instrument will also be of benefit to patients, though its use will be improved by training.

 

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (156K).

Selected References

These references are in PubMed. This may not be the complete list of references from this article.
  • Meredith P, Emberton M, Wood C. New directions in information for patients. BMJ. 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):4–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kee F. Patients' prerogatives and perceptions of benefit. BMJ. 1996 Apr 13;312(7036):958–960. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Richards MA, Ramirez AJ, Degner LF, Fallowfield LJ, Maher EJ, Neuberger J. Offering choice of treatment to patients with cancers. A review based on a symposium held at the 10th annual conference of The British Psychosocial Oncology Group, December 1993. Eur J Cancer. 1995;31A(1):112–116. [PubMed]
  • Meredith P, Emberton M, Wood C, Smith J. Comparison of patients' needs for information on prostate surgery with printed materials provided by surgeons. Qual Health Care. 1995 Mar;4(1):18–23. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Fallowfield LJ, Hall A, Maguire GP, Baum M. Psychological outcomes of different treatment policies in women with early breast cancer outside a clinical trial. BMJ. 1990 Sep 22;301(6752):575–580. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Brody DS, Miller SM, Lerman CE, Smith DG, Caputo GC. Patient perception of involvement in medical care: relationship to illness attitudes and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med. 1989 Nov-Dec;4(6):506–511. [PubMed]
  • Greenfield S, Kaplan S, Ware JE., Jr Expanding patient involvement in care. Effects on patient outcomes. Ann Intern Med. 1985 Apr;102(4):520–528. [PubMed]
  • Kaplan SH, Greenfield S, Ware JE., Jr Assessing the effects of physician-patient interactions on the outcomes of chronic disease. Med Care. 1989 Mar;27(3 Suppl):S110–S127. [PubMed]
  • Coulter A. Partnerships with patients: the pros and cons of shared clinical decision-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1997 Apr;2(2):112–121. [PubMed]
  • Blanchard CG, Labrecque MS, Ruckdeschel JC, Blanchard EB. Information and decision-making preferences of hospitalized adult cancer patients. Soc Sci Med. 1988;27(11):1139–1145. [PubMed]
  • Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Cook DJ, Jaeschke R, Heddle N, Keller J. An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993 Sep;46(9):987–1001. [PubMed]
  • Pope C, Mays N. Reaching the parts other methods cannot reach: an introduction to qualitative methods in health and health services research. BMJ. 1995 Jul 1;311(6996):42–45. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977 Mar;33(1):159–174. [PubMed]
  • Marteau TM. Framing of information: its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients. Br J Soc Psychol. 1989 Mar;28(Pt 1):89–94. [PubMed]
  • Malenka DJ, Baron JA, Johansen S, Wahrenberger JW, Ross JM. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. J Gen Intern Med. 1993 Oct;8(10):543–548. [PubMed]
  • Bernier MJ. Developing and evaluating printed education materials: a prescriptive model for quality. Orthop Nurs. 1993 Nov-Dec;12(6):39–46. [PubMed]
  • Arthur VA. Written patient information: a review of the literature. J Adv Nurs. 1995 Jun;21(6):1081–1086. [PubMed]
  • Silberg WM, Lundberg GD, Musacchio RA. Assessing, controlling, and assuring the quality of medical information on the Internet: Caveant lector et viewor--Let the reader and viewer beware. JAMA. 1997 Apr 16;277(15):1244–1245. [PubMed]

Articles from Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health are provided here courtesy of BMJ Group

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • Cited in Books
    Cited in Books
    PubMed Central articles cited in books
  • MedGen
    MedGen
    Related information in MedGen
  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...