BackgroundAppropriate patient information materials may support the consumer’s decision to attend or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests (fecal occult blood test and screening colonoscopy). The aim of this study was to develop a list of criteria to assess whether written health information materials on CRC screening provide balanced, unbiased, quantified, understandable, and evidence-based health information (EBHI) about CRC and CRC screening.MethodsThe list of criteria was developed based on recommendations and assessment tools for health information in the following steps: (1) Systematic literature search in 13 electronic databases (search period: 2000–2010) and completed by an Internet search (2) Extraction of identified criteria (3) Grouping of criteria into categories and domains (4) Compilation of a manual of adequate answers derived from systematic reviews and S3 guidelines (5) Review by external experts (6) Modification (7) Final discussion with external experts.ResultsThirty-one publications on health information tools and recommendations were identified. The final list of criteria includes a total of 230 single criteria in three generic domains (formal issues, presentation and understandability, and neutrality and balance) and one CRC-specific domain. A multi-dimensional rating approach was used whenever appropriate (e.g., rating for the presence, correctness, presentation and level of evidence of information). Free text input was allowed to ensure the transparency of assessment. The answer manual proved to be essential to the rating process. Quantitative analyses can be made depending on the level and dimensions of criteria.ConclusionsThis comprehensive list of criteria clearly has a wider range of evaluation than previous assessment tools. It is not intended as a final quality assessment tool, but as a first step toward thorough evaluation of specific information materials for their adherence to EBHI requirements. This criteria list may also be used to revise leaflets and to develop evidence-based health information on CRC screening. After adjustment for different procedure-specific criteria, the list of criteria can also be applied to other cancer screening procedures.

ObjectiveEvidence-based health information (EBHI) can support informed choice regarding whether or not to attend colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The present study aimed to assess if German leaflets and booklets appropriately inform consumers on the benefits and harms of CRC screening.MethodsA systematic search for print media on CRC screening was performed via email enquiry and internet search. The identified documents were assessed for the presence and correctness of information on benefits and harms by two reviewers independently using a comprehensive list of criteria.ResultsMany of the 28 leaflets and 13 booklets identified presented unbalanced information on the benefits and harms of CRC screening: one-third did not provide any information on harms. Numeracy information was often lacking. Ten cross-language examples of common misinterpretations or basically false and misleading information were identified.DiscussionMost of the CRC screening leaflets and booklets in Germany do not meet current EBHI standards. After the study, the publishers of the information materials were provided feedback, including a discussion of our findings. The results can be used to revise existing information materials or to develop new materials that provide correct, balanced, quantified, understandable and unbiased information on CRC screening.

In Germany, individuals who have statutory health insurance have free access to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening tests, and can choose between a fecal occult blood test and a screening colonoscopy. Evidence-based health information may support informed choices regarding whether or not to undergo CRC screening. The aim of this study was to assess whether the available German information materials on CRC screening meet evidence-based health information standards. A systematic search was made for print media and websites on CRC screening addressed to German people with average CRC risk (search period for print media August 2010, for websites January-March 2012). The identified information was assessed with a newly developed comprehensive list of criteria. In all, 41 print media, including 28 flyers and 13 brochures, and 36 websites were identified and assessed. These materials reported more often the benefits than the risks of CRC screening, and quantified presentations of benefits and risks were less frequently given. Most of the materials called for participation and did not indicate the option to decide whether or not to attend CRC screening. This bias in favor of screening was increased by fear-provoking or downplayed wording. Most materials included false and misleading information. The requirements for evidence-based patient information were currently not met by most of the leaflets and websites in Germany. Feedback was given to the producers of the leaflets including a discussion of the findings. The results may be used to revise existing leaflets or to develop new health information on CRC screening.

The interviewees' substantial lack of knowledge underscores the need for optimising communication on the aims, benefits and risks of screening tests to enable women to make an informed decision. It is desirable to continuously monitor women's knowledge about and participation in screening and determinants thereof with a view to laying the foundations for target group-specific information strategies.