Open AccessHow best to use and evaluate Patient Information Leaflets given during a consultation: a systematic review of literature reviews
Author(s) -
Sustersic Mélanie,
Gauchet Aurélie,
Foote Alison,
Bosson JeanLuc
Publication year - 2017
Publication title -
health expectations
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.314
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1369-7625
pISSN - 1369-6513
DOI - 10.1111/hex.12487
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , stalemate , randomized controlled trial , systematic review , medicine , quality (philosophy) , intervention (counseling) , medline , nursing , surgery , epistemology , politics , political science , law , biology , paleontology , philosophy
Background In the past, several authors have attempted to review randomized clinical trials ( RCT ) evaluating the impact of Patient Information Leaflets ( PIL s) used during a consultation and draw some general conclusions. However, this proved difficult because the clinical situations, size and quality of RCT s were too heterogeneous to pool relevant data. Objective To overcome this 30‐year stalemate, we performed a review of reviews and propose general recommendations and suggestions for improving the quality of PIL s, how to use them and methods for evaluating them. Methodology We searched five databases for reviews, systematic reviews and meta‐analyses describing PIL s. We drew general and condition‐linked conclusions concerning the impact of PIL s. Checklists summarize criteria for quality PIL s, and ways of using and evaluating them. Results Of 986 articles found, 24 reviews were pertinent; the five oldest considered the impact of PIL s irrespective of the condition the patient consulted for; the 19 more recent ones mostly addressed precise clinical situations. Discussion Whatever the clinical situation, PIL s improve patients' knowledge and satisfaction. For acute conditions, in the short‐term PIL s also improve adherence to treatment. For chronic diseases, invasive procedures or screening situations, their impact on adherence varies depending on the context, how the PIL s are given and the invasiveness of the intervention. Conclusion PIL s are considered to be very useful, especially for acute conditions where the patient is the first to suffer from lack of information. We propose checklists for writing, designing, using and evaluating PIL s in RCT s to enable comparisons between different studies.