Dataset Information

Evaluating information prescriptions in two clinical environments.

ABSTRACT: The research sought to evaluate whether providing personalized information services by libraries can improve satisfaction with information services for specific types of patients.Adult breast cancer (BrCa) clinic patients and mothers of inpatient neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients were randomized to receive routine information services (control) or an IRx intervention.The BrCa trial randomized 211 patients and the NICU trial, 88 mothers. The BrCa trial showed no statistically significant differences in satisfaction ratings between the treatment and control groups. The IRx group in the NICU trial reported higher satisfaction than the control group regarding information received about diagnosis, treatments, respiratory tradeoffs, and medication tradeoffs. BrCa patients posed questions to librarians more frequently than did NICU mothers, and a higher percentage reported using the website. Questions asked of the librarians by BrCa patients were predominantly clinical and focused on the areas of treatment and side effects.Study results provide some evidence to support further efforts to both implement information prescription projects in selected settings and to conduct additional research on the costs and benefits of services.

SUBMITTER: Oliver KB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3133905 | biostudies-other | 2011 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating information prescriptions in two clinical environments.

Oliver Kathleen Burr KB Lehmann Harold P HP Wolff Antonio C AC Davidson Laurie W LW Donohue Pamela K PK Gilmore Maureen M MM Craven Catherine C Roderer Nancy K NK

Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20110701 3

<h4>Objective</h4>The research sought to evaluate whether providing personalized information services by libraries can improve satisfaction with information services for specific types of patients.<h4>Methods</h4>Adult breast cancer (BrCa) clinic patients and mothers of inpatient neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) patients were randomized to receive routine information services (control) or an IRx intervention.<h4>Results</h4>The BrCa trial randomized 211 patients and the NICU trial, 88 mothers ...[more]

PMID: 21753916

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundNocebo effects ('negative placebo' effects) experienced by clinical trial participants can arise from an underlying condition or through communication about side effects in the participant information leaflets (or elsewhere). Misattributing nocebo effects to the medicinal intervention can lead to participants experiencing harmful nocebo effects and may result in distortion of adverse effect reporting. However, little is known about how information on potential side effects is provided to trial participants. There is increasing concern that the way in which potential side effects in clinical trials are described to patients in participant information leaflets (PIL) can in itself cause harm by either increased anxiety, poor adherence or inducing the side effect itself. In this study, we aimed to explore these concerns and identify the way in which potential side effects from investigational medicinal products used in trials are presented in written information to potential participants.MethodsTrials were identified from the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) clinical trial registry (a primary registry of the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)). Eligible studies were placebo-controlled clinical trials of investigational medicinal products (IMP) in adults conducted in the UK. We assessed readability using the Flesch Reading Ease scale, Gunning-Fog Index and Flesch-Kincaid Grade. Data extracted from the PILs were divided into 8 predefined qualitative themes for analysis in NVivo11.ResultsMost of the patient information leaflets were ranked as 'fairly difficult to read' or 'difficult to read' according to the Flesch Reading Ease scale. All studies presented information about adverse events, whereas only a third presented information about intervention benefits. Where intervention or study benefits were presented, they were usually after adverse events (21/33, 64%).DiscussionParticipant information leaflets scored poorly on ease of readability and had more content relating to adverse effects than any potential beneficial effects. The way in which adverse events were presented was heterogeneous in terms of their likelihood and severity and the amount and level of detail provided. By comparison, potential benefits from the intervention and/or study were described less often, by shorter text, and only after information about harms.

Dataset Information

Evaluating information prescriptions in two clinical environments.

Publications

Evaluating information prescriptions in two clinical environments.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets