Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:03:15.876Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Developing Information Materials to Present the Findings of Technology Assessments to Consumers: The Experience of the NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 March 2009

Vikki A. Entwistle ,
Ian S. Watt ,
Hilary Davis ,
Rumona Dickson ,
Diane Pickard  and
Jilly Rosser
Vikki A. Entwistle
Affiliation:
University of York
Ian S. Watt
Affiliation:
University of York
Hilary Davis
Affiliation:
University of Luton
Rumona Dickson
Affiliation:
Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine
Diane Pickard
Affiliation:
Buckinghamshire Health Authority
Jilly Rosser
Affiliation:
The Midwives Information and Resource Service
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We discuss some of the issues that have arisen during the development and introduction into practice of information materials for health professionals and patients that aim to promote clinical effectiveness and informed patient participation in clinical decision making.

Type
Special Section: The Consumer And Technology
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 14 , Issue 1 , Winter 1998 , pp. 47 - 70
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1998

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Audit Commission. What seems to be the matter: Communication between hospitals an patients. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
2.Black, N.Glue ear: the new dyslexia? British Medical Journal, 1985, 290, 1963–65.Google Scholar
3.Black, N.Surgery for glue ear: The English epidemic wanes. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 1995, 49, 234–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4.Campbell, R., & Macfarlane, A.Where to be born? The debate and the evidence. 2nd ed.Oxford: National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit, 1994.Google Scholar
5.Chalmers, I., Enkin, M., & Keirse, M. J. N. C. (eds). Effective care in pregnancy and childbirth. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar
6.Chamberlain, J., Melia, J., Moss, S., & Brown, J.The diagnosis, management, treatment and costs of prostate cancer in England and Wales. Health Technology Assessment, 1997; 1 (3), 1–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
7.Coulter, A.. Partnerships with patients: The pros and cons of shared clinical decision making. Journal of Health Services Research and Policy, 1997, 2, 112–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Coulter, A.Give patients solid information. Management in General Practice, 1996, 20, 40–42.Google Scholar
9.Davies, J., Hey, E., Reid, W. & Young, G.Propsective regional study of planned home births. British Medical Journal, 1996, 313, 1302–06.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10.Department of Health. Changing childbirth. London: HMSO, 1993.Google Scholar
11.Dodds, R., & Newburn, M.Availability of home birth: experiences of women planning to give birth at home and the responses of some general practitioners. London: National Childbirth Trust, 1995.Google Scholar
12.Dornan, C.Some problems in conceptualizing the issue of ‘science and the media.’ Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1990, 7, 48–71.Google Scholar
13.Dunn, P.Prostate focus: Issue 2. Lincoln: Prostate Help Association, 1997.Google Scholar
14.Enkin, M., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Renfrew, M., & Neilson, .J (eds). A guide to effective care in pregnancy and childbirth, 2nd ed.Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google ScholarPubMed
15.Entwistle, V., Watt, I. S., & Herring, J. E.Information about health care effectiveness. London: King's Fund, 1996.Google Scholar
16.Entwistle, V. A., Sheldon, T. A., Sowden, A. J., & Watt, I. S.Supporting consumer involvement in decision making: What constitutes quality in consumer health information? International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 1996, 8, 425–37.Google Scholar
17.Evidence Based Medicine Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1992, 268, 2420–25.Google Scholar
18.Farmer, J., & Peffer, M. Matching resources to needs. British Library Research & Development Report 6227. London: British Library, 1995.Google Scholar
19.Gilbert, D., Coulter, A., & Entwistle, V.Evidence based patient choice: assessing the quality of materials to support informed decision-making. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Conference of International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care, Barcelona, Spain, 05 25–28 1997, 96.Google Scholar
20.Haines, A., & Jones, R.Implementing findings of research. British Medical Journal. 1994, 308, 1488–92.Google Scholar
21.Hilgartner, S.The dominant view of popularization: Conceptual problems, political uses. Social Studies of Science, 1990, 20, 519–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Hofmeyr, G. J. External cephalic version at term. In Enkin, M. W., Keirse, M. J. N. C., Renfrew, M. J., Neilson, J. P. (eds), Pregnancy and childbirth module of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Issue 2, Oxford: The Cochrane Collaboration, 1997, Update Software, 1997 (updated quarterly).Google Scholar
23.Lomas, J.Diffusion, dissemination and implementation: who should do what? Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1993, 703, 226–35.Google Scholar
24.Malenka, D. J., Baron, J. A., Johansen, S., et al. The framing effect of relative and absolute risk. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 1993, 8, 543–48.Google Scholar
25.Meredith, P., Emberton, M., Wood, C., & Smith, J.Comparison of patients' needs for information on prostate surgery with printed materials provided by surgeons. Quality in Health Care. 1995, 4, 18–23.Google Scholar
26.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Management of cataract. Effective Health Care, 1996, 2 (3), 1–12.Google Scholar
27.NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The treatment of persistent glue ear in children. Effective Health Care, 1992, 1 (4), 1–16.Google Scholar
28.NHS Executive. Patient partnership: Building a collaborative strategy. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1996.Google Scholar
29.NHS Executive. Priorities and planning guidance for the NHS: 1996/97. Leeds: NHS Executive, 1995.Google Scholar
30.NHS Executive. Provision of the national freephone health information service. Health Service Guidelines. 1995, HSG(95)44.Google Scholar
31.O'Connor, A. M.Effects of framing and level of probability on patients' preferences for cancer chemotherapy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 1988, 42, 119–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
32.Office for National Statistics. Birth statistics, series FM1. London: HMSO, 1997.Google Scholar
33.Oliver, S., Entwistle, V., & Hodnett, E. Exploring and evaluating roles for lay people in the implementation of health care research. British Medical Journal, in press.Google Scholar
34.Oliver, S., Rajan, L., Turner, H., et al. Informed choice for users of health services: Views on ultrasonography leaflets of women in early pregnancy, midwives and ultrasonographers. British Medical Journal, 1996; 313: 1251–53.Google Scholar
35.Paterson-Brown, S., Wyatt, J. C., & Fisk, N. M.Are clinicians interested in up-to-date reviews of effective care? British Medical Journal, 1993, 307, 1464.Google Scholar
36.Patient's Forum. The Patient's Forum: A report of the 6th year 1994/5. London: Patients Association, 1995, 18–19.Google Scholar
37.Phillips, K. A., & Bero, L. A.Improving the use of information in medical effectiveness research. International Journal for Quality in Health Care, 1996, 8, 21–30.Google Scholar
38.Reiser, S. J.The era of the patient: Using the experience of illness in shaping the missions of health care. Journal of the American Medical Association, 1993, 269, 1012–17.Google Scholar
39.Rosenberg, W., & Donald, A.Evidence-based medicine: an approach to clinical problem solving. British Medical Journal, 1995, 310, 1122–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
40.Rosser, J., Watt, I. S., & Entwistle, V.Informed choice initiative: An example of reaching users with evidence based information. Journal of Clinical Effectiveness, 1996, 1,143–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41.Royal National Institute for the Blind. Clear print guidelines. London: RNIB, 1997.Google Scholar
42.Selley, S., Donovan, J., Faulkner, A., et al. Diagnosis, management and screening of early localized prostate cancer. Health Technology Assessment, 1997, 1 (2), 1–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
43.Steinberg, E., Tielsch, J., & Schein, O.The VF-14: An index of functional impairment in patients with cataract. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1994, 112, 630–38.Google Scholar
44.Ubel, P. A., & Loewenstein, G.The role of decision analysis in informed consent: choosing between intuition and systematicity. Social Science and Medicine, 1997, 44, 647–56.Google Scholar
45.Woolf, S. H., DiGuiseppi, C., Atkins, D., & Kamerow, D. B.Developing evidence based clinical guidelines: lessons learned by the US Preventive Services Task Force. Annual Review of Public Health, 1996, 17, 511–38.Google Scholar