DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To develop a short instrument, called DISCERN, which will enable patients and information providers to judge the quality of written information about treatment choices. DISCERN will also facilitate the production of new, high quality, evidence-based consumer health information. DESIGN: An expert panel, representing a range of expertise in consumer health information, generated criteria from a random sample of information for three medical conditions with varying degrees of evidence: myocardial infarction, endometriosis, and chronic fatigue syndrome. A graft instrument, based on this analysis, was tested by the panel on a random sample of new material for the same three conditions. The panel re-drafted the instrument to take account of the results of the test. The DISCERN instrument was finally tested by a national sample of 15 information providers and 13 self help group members on a random sample of leaflets from 19 major national self help organisations. Participants also completed an 8 item questionnaire concerning the face and content validity of the instrument. RESULTS: Chance corrected agreement (weighted kappa) for the overall quality rating was kappa = 0.53 (95% CI kappa = 0.48 to kappa = 0.59) among the expert panel, kappa = 0.40 (95% CI kappa = 0.36 to kappa = 0.43) among information providers, and kappa = 0.23 (95% CI kappa = 0.19 to kappa = 0.27) among self help group members. Higher agreement levels were associated with experience of using the instrument and with professional knowledge of consumer health information. Levels of agreement varied across individual items on the instrument, reflecting the need for subjectivity in rating certain criteria. The trends in levels of agreement were similar among all groups. The final instrument consisted of 15 questions plus an overall quality rating. Responses to the questionnaire after the final testing revealed the instrument to have good face and content validity and to be generally applicable. CONCLUSIONS: DISCERN is a reliable and valid instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information. While some subjectivity is required for rating certain criteria, the findings demonstrate that the instrument can be applied by experienced users and providers of health information to discriminate between publications of high and low quality. The instrument will also be of benefit to patients, though its use will be improved by training.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument is adapted from the original DISCERN questionnaire, the gold-standard tool for evaluating reliability of consumer health information on treatment choices.
“The modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) instrument, adapted from the original DISCERN questionnaire—the gold-standard tool for evaluating the reliability of consumer health information on treatment choices25—was optimized for short-form video content in this study”
From Quality, reliability, and treatment misinformation risk of epilepsy content on Chinese short-video platforms TikTok (Douyin) and Bilibili: a cross-sectional analysis (2026) · cites this paper as [25]
The Methods and Discussion identify DISCERN as a standardized instrument for appraising written consumer health information on treatment choices, and the questionnaire includes a section on whether a publication is reliable. Our copy does not establish that DISCERN is the gold standard or that the modified version was adapted from it. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · see citing works
Practical Statistics for Medical Research.
Walter, S., & Altman, D. G. (1992) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2532320 · Cited by 11,665 · see citing works
Practical Statistics for Medical Research
Altman, D. G. (1990) · doi:10.1201/9780429258589 · Cited by 10,668 · see citing works
Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Streiner, D. L., Norman, G. R., & Cairney, J. (1989) · Cited by 9,595 · see citing works
Weighted kappa: nominal scale agreement provision for scaled disagreement or partial credit
Cohen, J. (1968) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/h0026256 · Cited by 8,736 · see citing works
Flesch, R. (1948) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0057532 · Cited by 5,391 · see citing works
Assessing, Controlling, and Assuring the Quality of Medical Information on the Internet
Silberg, W. M. (1997) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.277.15.1244 · Cited by 2,399 · see citing works
Pope, C., & Mays, N. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6996.42 · Cited by 2,336 · see citing works
SMOG Grading - A New Readability Formula.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969) · The Journal of Reading · Cited by 2,067 · see citing works
Assessing the Effects of Physician-Patient Interactions on the Outcomes of Chronic Disease
Kaplan, S. H., Greenfield, S., & Ware, J. E. (1989) · Medical Care · doi:10.1097/00005650-198903001-00010 · Cited by 2,043 · see citing works
Health Measurement Scales--A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use
Waclawski, E. (2010) · Occupational Medicine · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqp179 · Cited by 1,870 · see citing works
Expanding Patient Involvement in Care
Greenfield, S., Kaplan, S. H., & Ware, J. E. (1985) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-102-4-520 · Cited by 1,459 · see citing works
Silberg, W. M., Lundberg, G. D., & Musacchio, R. A. (1997) · PubMed · Cited by 875 · see citing works
Fallowfield, L. J., Hall, A., Maguire, G. P., & Baum, M. (1990) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.301.6752.575 · Cited by 750 · see citing works
The measurement of interrater agreement
Fleiss, J. (1981) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 686 · see citing works
Information and decision-making preferences of hospitalized adult cancer patients
Blanchard, C. G., Labrecque, M. S., Ruckdeschel, J. C., & Blanchard, E. B. (1988) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/0277-9536(88)90343-7 · Cited by 489 · see citing works
Partnerships with Patients: The Pros and Cons of Shared Clinical Decision-Making
Coulter, A. (1997) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1177/135581969700200209 · Cited by 485 · see citing works
The framing effect of relative and absolute risk
Malenka, D. J., Baron, J. A., Johansen, S., Wahrenberger, J. W., & Ross, J. M. (1993) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02599636 · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Patient perception of involvement in medical care
Brody, D. S., Miller, S. M., Lerman, C. E., Smith, D. G., & Caputo, G. C. (1989) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/bf02599549 · Cited by 340 · see citing works
Framing of information: Its influence upon decisions of doctors and patients
Marteau, T. M. (1989) · British Journal of Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1989.tb00849.x · Cited by 235 · see citing works
Written patient information: a review of the literature*
Arthur, V. (1995) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.1995.21061081.x · Cited by 134 · see citing works
An index of scientific quality for health reports in the lay press
Oxman, A. D., Guyatt, G. H., Cook, D. J., Jaeschke, R., Heddle, N. M., & Keller, J. (1993) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/0895-4356(93)90166-x · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Developing and Evaluating Printed Education Materials: A Prescriptive Model for Quality
Bernier, M. J. (1993) · Orthopaedic Nursing · doi:10.1097/00006416-199311000-00008 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Richards, M., Ramirez, A. J., Degner, L. F., et al. (1995) · European Journal of Cancer · doi:10.1016/0959-8049(94)00478-n · Cited by 67 · see citing works
New directions in information for patients
Meredith, P. G., Emberton, M., & Wood, C. (1995) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.311.6996.4 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Meredith, P. G., Emberton, M., Wood, C. A., et al. (1995) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/qshc.4.1.18 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Usability: The criterion for designing written information
Wright, P. (1980) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-1068-6_13 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Improving written patient education materials: a review of the evidence
Vahabi, M., & Ferris, L. E. (1995) · Health Education Journal · doi:10.1177/001789699505400110 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Patients' prerogatives and perceptions of benefit
Kee, F. (1996) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.312.7036.958 · Cited by 46 · see citing works
Consumer health information in the year 2000
Gann, B. (1996) · Aslib Journal of Information Management · doi:10.1108/eb051432 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Davison, A. (1994) · Nursing Management · doi:10.7748/nm.1.2.19.s21 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Writing leaflets for patients Guidelines for producing written information
Secker, J., Pollard, R., & Health Education Board for Scotland, E. (. K. (1995) · OpenGrey (Institut de l'Information Scientifique et Technique) · Cited by 1 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Elwyn, G. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38926.629329.ae · Cited by 1,824 · see citing works
Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., & Sa, E.-R. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.20.2691 · Cited by 1,871 · see citing works
Bernard, A., Langille, M., Hughes, S., Rose, C., Leddin, D., & Veldhuyzen van Zanten, S. (2007) · The American Journal of Gastroenterology · doi:10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01325.x · Cited by 1,197 · see citing works
Tam, T. Y. C., Sivarajkumar, S., Kapoor, S., Stolyar, A. V., Polanska, K., McCarthy, K. R., Osterhoudt, H., Wu, X., Visweswaran, S., Fu, S., et al. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01258-7 · Cited by 424 · see citing works
Baumel, A., Faber, K., Mathur, N., Kane, J. M., & Muench, F. (2017) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/jmir.7270 · Cited by 206 · see citing works
“These scales are then used by trained raters to objectively examine and score the quality of eHealth intervention programs based on core concepts, each comprised of different criteria [8-11].”
Baumel, A., & Kane, J. M. (2018) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/11491 · Cited by 131 · see citing works
Davis, R., Eppler, M., Ayo-Ajibola, O., Loh-Doyle, J. C., Nabhani, J., Samplaski, M., Gill, I., & Cacciamani, G. E. (2023) · Journal of Urology · doi:10.1097/ju.0000000000003615 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Bieber, C., Müller, K. G., Blumenstiel, K., Hochlehnert, A., Wilke, S., Hartmann, M., & Eich, W. (2008) · Journal of Psychosomatic Research · doi:10.1016/j.jpsychores.2007.05.009 · Cited by 116 · see citing works
Schulz, P. J., Pessina, A., Hartung, U., & Petrocchi, S. (2021) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/20457 · Cited by 84 · see citing works
Mental health misinformation on social media: Review and future directions
Starvaggi, I., Dierckman, C., & Lorenzo-Luaces, L. (2024) · Current Opinion in Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2023.101738 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Smartphone Applications for Mental Health
Radovic, A., Vona, P. L., Santostefano, A. M., Ciaravino, S., Miller, E., & Stein, B. D. (2016) · Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking · doi:10.1089/cyber.2015.0619 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Risks and benefits of web-based patient narratives: systematic review
Drewniak, D., Glässel, A., Hodel, M., & Biller-Andorno, N. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/15772 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Zhu, W., He, B., Wang, X., Du, Y., Young, K., & Jiang, S. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-23475-9 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
An objective analysis of quality and readability of online information on COVID-19
Wrigley Kelly, N. E., Murray, K. E., McCarthy, C., & O’Shea, D. B. (2021) · Health and Technology · doi:10.1007/s12553-021-00574-2 · Cited by 69 · see citing works
Googling caesarean section: a survey on the quality of the information available on the Internet
Fioretti, B., Reiter, M., Betrán, A., & Torloni, M. (2015) · BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology · doi:10.1111/1471-0528.13081 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Tu, J., Zhang, C., Zhang, H., Liang, L., & He, J. (2025) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076251366390 · Cited by 44 · see citing works
Baumel, A., Birnbaum, M. L., & Sucala, M. (2017) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-017-0776-6 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Mac, O. A., Thayre, A., Tan, S., & Dodd, R. H. (2020) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/16701 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Usefulness scale for patient information material (USE) - development and psychometric properties
Hölzel, L. P., Ries, Z., Dirmaier, J., Zill, J. M., Kriston, L., Klesse, C., Härter, M., & Bermejo, I. (2015) · BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making · doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0153-7 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Devan, H., Godfrey, H., Perry, M., Hempel, D., Saipe, B., Hale, L., & Grainger, R. (2019) · Journal of Pain Research · doi:10.2147/jpr.s206539 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
Quality of web-based information on cannabis addiction
Khazaal, Y., Chatton, A., Cochand, S., & Zullino, D. (2008) · Journal of Drug Education · doi:10.2190/de.38.2.a · Cited by 22 · see citing works
YouTube and TikTok as a source of medical information on dissociative identity disorder
Munoz, I. B., Liu-Zarzuela, J., Oorjitham, N., & Jacob, D. (2024) · Journal of Affective Disorders Reports · doi:10.1016/j.jadr.2023.100707 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Vågenes, H., & Pranić, S. M. (2023) · Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology · doi:10.1186/s12958-023-01100-x · Cited by 10 · see citing works
The discourse surrounding polycystic ovary syndrome on TikTok: a social media analysis
Horvath, A., Chaffin, K., Ahmad, S., Goel, V. S., Netski, D. M., Ahad, R., Batra, K., & Lee, R. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare12222253 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Polycystic Ovary Syndrome and Exercise: Evaluation of YouTube Videos
Atigan, A., & Atigan, A. (2023) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.35093 · Cited by 7 · see citing works
Özhüner, Y., & Özerdoğan, N. (2025) · BMC Nursing · doi:10.1186/s12912-025-04079-5 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
Zhang, Y.-J., Guo, Y.-Y., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-026-52532-5 · Cited by 3 · see citing works
“…from the original DISCERN questionnaire—the gold-standard tool for evaluating the reliability of consumer health information on treatment choices 25 —was optimized for short-form video content in this study, using a 1–5 Likert scale to assess the reliability of treatment-related information,…”
Youtube as a source of information vagal nerve stimulation: A quality analysis
Özçelik, A., Özbaş, C., & Arhan, E. (2024) · Epilepsy & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.yebeh.2023.109597 · Cited by 1 · see citing works
- Authors
- Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G., & Gann, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Oxford (GB)
- ORCID
- Shepperd, S
- Venue
- Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1999-02
- Volume
- 53
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 105-111
- ISSN
- 0141-7681 (ISSN-L)
- 0143-005X
- 1470-2738
- PMC
- PMC1756830
- OpenAlex
- W2123109647
- Cited by
- 3,329
- References
- 32
- Citations by year
- 2026: 650 · 2025: 504 · 2024: 419 · 2023: 374 · 2022: 294 · 2021: 227 · 2020: 156 · 2019: 102 · 2018: 74 · 2017: 64 · 2016: 63 · 2015: 42 · 2014: 52 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 33
- FWCI
- 42.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Keywords
- consumer health information, quality assessment, written health information, treatment selection, patient information leaflets, self-help organizations, myocardial infarction, endometriosis, chronic fatigue syndrome, expert panel, interobserver agreement, face and content validity, evidence-based health information
- MeSH terms
- Endometritis, Female, Health Promotion, Humans, Myocardial Infarction, Patient Education as Topic, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Program Evaluation, Fatigue Syndrome, Chronic
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
