Printmedien- und Internetangebote mit Informationen zur Darmkrebsfrüherkennung und ihre kriteriengestützte Bewertung aus Expertensicht

Abstract

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.

Digital Health Information Provided by Public Health Stakeholders on Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Evaluation

“…The risks associated with cancer screening were either mentioned very little in the evaluated health information or not at all. This finding is consistent with the results of other studies [ 19 , 43 , 44 ]. Günster et al [ 43 ] pointed out that the existing information offerings on colorectal cancer screening are inadequate.…”

“…In particular, they stated that information about the disadvantages of a colonoscopy (36%) was provided considerably less often than information about the benefits of the examination (75%) [ 43 ]. Dreier et al [ 19 ] highlighted an imbalance between the presentation of the benefits and the risk. Tian et al [ 44 ] identified also a lack of key information about risks and benefits by assessing web-based patient education materials in the United States.…”

“…Health information plays an essential role in the uptake of preventive services because it makes a significant contribution towards enabling individuals to make informed and participatory health-related decisions [ 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 ]. According to the “Good Practice Health Information“ of the German Network for Evidence-based Medicine [ 18 ] as well as other sources, health-related information should be neutral, balanced, in line with the current state of evidence-based medicine, comprehensible and transparent, with the goal of providing reliable information about the benefits and risks [ 14 , 18 , 19 , 20 ]. At the health policy level there is an increasing focus on demanding quality-assured and patient-oriented health information.…”

“…Numerous public health stakeholders at a federal and state level provide information on colorectal cancer screening in various media forms (e.g., flyers, posters, websites) [ 19 ]. Of these, Internet-based health information constitutes an increasingly important and accessible source of information on health topics [ 23 ].…”

Systematic evaluation of written health information on PSA based screening in Germany

“…We found that only half of the information materials maintain neutrality without downplaying or exaggerating benefits or risks. Nevertheless, this is more than the rate reported in a previous study of health information on colorectal cancer screening, in which merely 7% of the leaflets and one-third of the booklets and websites maintained neutrality [44]. We found two information materials that explicitly encourage the reader to undergo PSA testing and one that advises against the test.…”