University of Hamburg, Unit of Health Sciences and Education, 20146 Hamburg, Germany.
Patient Educ Couns. 2010 Mar;78(3):316-28. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.029. Epub 2009 Dec 14.
To survey quality criteria for evidence-based patient information (EBPI) and to compile the evidence for the identified criteria.
Databases PubMed, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, PSYNDEX and Education Research Information Center (ERIC) were searched to update the pool of criteria for EBPI. A subsequent search aimed to identify evidence for each criterion. Only studies on health issues with cognitive outcome measures were included. Evidence for each criterion is presented using descriptive methods.
3 systematic reviews, 24 randomized-controlled studies and 1 non-systematic review were included. Presentation of numerical data, verbal presentation of risks and diagrams, graphics and charts are based on good evidence. Content of information and meta-information, loss- and gain-framing and patient-oriented outcome measures are based on ethical guidelines. There is a lack of studies on quality of evidence, pictures and drawings, patient narratives, cultural aspects, layout, language and development process.
The results of this review allow specification of EBPI and may help to advance the discourse among related disciplines. Research gaps are highlighted.
Findings outline the type and extent of content of EBPI, guide the presentation of information and describe the development process.
调查循证患者信息（EBPI）的质量标准，并编译已确定标准的证据。
在 PubMed、Cochrane Library、PsycINFO、PSYNDEX 和教育研究信息中心（ERIC）数据库中进行搜索，以更新 EBPI 标准的资料库。随后的搜索旨在确定每个标准的证据。仅纳入了具有认知结果测量的健康问题研究。使用描述性方法呈现每个标准的证据。
纳入了 3 项系统评价、24 项随机对照研究和 1 项非系统性评价。数值数据的呈现、风险和图表的口头呈现、图形和图表基于良好的证据。信息和元信息的内容、损失和收益框架以及以患者为中心的结果测量基于伦理准则。关于证据质量、图片和图表、患者叙述、文化方面、布局、语言和开发过程的研究则相对缺乏。
本综述的结果允许对 EBPI 进行具体说明，并可能有助于促进相关学科之间的讨论。研究空白被突出强调。
研究结果概述了 EBPI 的内容类型和范围，指导信息的呈现，并描述了开发过程。
