Usefulness scale for patient information material (USE) - development and psychometric properties
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: One economical way to inform patients about their illness and medical procedures is to provide written health information material. So far, a generic and psychometrically sound scale to evaluate cognitive, emotional, and behavioral aspects of the subjectively experienced usefulness of patient information material from the patient's perspective is lacking. The aim of our study was to develop and psychometrically test such a scale. METHODS: The Usefulness Scale for Patient Information Material (USE) was developed using a multistep approach. Ultimately, three items for each subscale (cognitive, emotional, and behavioral) were selected under consideration of face validity, discrimination, difficulty, and item content. The final version of the USE was subjected to reliability analysis. Structural validity was tested using confirmatory factor analysis, and convergent and divergent validity were tested using correlation analysis. The criterion validity of the USE was tested in an experimental design. To this aim, patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. One group received a full version of an information brochure on depression or chronic low back pain depending on the respective primary diagnosis. Patients in the second group received a reduced version with a lower design quality, smaller font size and less information. Patients were recruited in six hospitals in Germany. After reading the brochure, they were asked to fill in a questionnaire. RESULTS: Analyzable data were obtained from 120 questionnaires. The confirmatory factor analysis supported the structural validity of the scale. Reliability analysis of the total scale and its subscales showed Cronbach's α values between .84 and .94. Convergent and divergent validity were supported. Criterion validity was confirmed in the experimental condition. Significant differences between the groups receiving full and reduced information were found for the total score (p<.001) and its three subscales (cognitive p<.001, emotional p=.001, and behavioral p<.001), supporting criterion validity. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a generic scale to measure the subjective usefulness of written patient information material from a patient perspective. Our construct is defined in line with current theoretical models for the evaluation of written patient information material. The USE was shown to be a short, reliable and valid psychometric scale.
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 Usefulness Scale for Patient Information Material has excellent psychometric properties.
“The original instrument consists of 9 items assessing cognitive, emotional and behavioural aspects of usefulness and has excellent psychometric properties.”
From The efficacy of automated feedback after internet-based depression screening: Study protocol of the German, three-armed, randomised controlled trial DISCOVER (2021) · cites this paper as Holzel et al., 2015
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
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999) · Structural Equation Modeling A Multidisciplinary Journal · doi:10.1080/10705519909540118 · Cited by 108,788 · see citing works
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483 · see citing works
Coefficient Alpha and the Internal Structure of Tests
Cronbach, L. J. (1951) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02310555 · Cited by 43,931 · see citing works
(1998) · Cited by 36,049 · see citing works
Herne, H., Cooley, W. W., & Lohnes, P. R. (1973) · Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A (General) · doi:10.2307/2344428 · Cited by 35,801 · see citing works
Multivariate Data Analysis, 6th ed
Tatham, R. L., Anderson, R. E., Babin, B. J., Black, W. C., & Hair, J. F. (2006) · Cited by 9,807 · see citing works
Hanrahan, G. (2008) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781420067972-10 · Cited by 8,196 · see citing works
Venkatesh, V. (2000) · Information Systems Research · doi:10.1287/isre.11.4.342.11872 · Cited by 6,664 · see citing works
Charnock, D., Shepperd, S., Needham, G., & Gann, R. (1999) · Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health · doi:10.1136/jech.53.2.105 · Cited by 3,329 · see citing works
Teaching Patients with Low Literacy Skills
Doak, C. C., Doak, L. G., & Root, J. (1996) · AJN American Journal of Nursing · doi:10.1097/00000446-199612000-00022 · Cited by 1,448 · see citing works
Teaching patients with low literacy skills
(2001) · PsycEXTRA Dataset · doi:10.1037/e518822004-001 · Cited by 1,227 · see citing works
Some Guidelines Concerning the Modeling of Traits and Abilities in Test Construction
SCHWEIZER, K. W. (2010) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000001 · Cited by 451 · see citing works
Health promotion and the knowledge-attitude-behavior continuum
Bettinghaus, E. P. (1986) · Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/0091-7435(86)90025-3 · Cited by 407 · see citing works
Moult, B., Franck, L. S., & Brady, H. (2004) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2004.00273.x · Cited by 334 · see citing works
Writing wrongs? An analysis of published discourses about the use of patient information leaflets
Dixon‐Woods, M. (2001) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(00)00247-1 · Cited by 251 · see citing works
What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria
Bunge, M., Mühlhauser, I., & Steckelberg, A. (2009) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2009.10.029 · Cited by 233 · see citing works
Becoming a medical information master: feeling good about not knowing everything.
Slawson, D. C., Shaughnessy, A. F., & Bennett, J. H. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 183 · see citing works
Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale
Charvet-Bérard, A., Chopard, P., & Perneger, T. (2008) · Patient Education and Counseling · doi:10.1016/j.pec.2007.11.018 · Cited by 111 · see citing works
A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets
Garner, M. W. J., Ning, Z., & Francis, J. (2011) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00665.x · Cited by 87 · see citing works
Evaluation of Written Medicine Information: Validation of the Consumer Information Rating Form
Koo, M., Krass, I., & Aslani, P. (2007) · Annals of Pharmacotherapy · doi:10.1345/aph.1k083 · Cited by 47 · see citing works
Kriston, L., Günzler, C., Harms, A., & Berner, M. M. (2007) · The Journal of Sexual Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00474.x · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Self-citationDevelopment and Content Validation of the Information Assessment Method for Patients and Consumers
Pluye, P., Granikov, V., Bartlett, G., Grad, R. M., Tang, D. L., Johnson‐Lafleur, J., Shulha, M., Galvão, M. C. B., Ricarte, I. L. M., Stephenson, R., et al. (2014) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/resprot.2908 · Cited by 38 · see citing works
Hölzel, L. P., Ries, Z., Zill, J. M., et al. (2014) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-265 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Self-citation(1998) · DigitalCommons - Kennesaw State University (Kennesaw State University)
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Issom, D.-Z., Hardy-Dessources, M.-D., Romana, M., Hartvigsen, G., & Lovis, C. (2021) · Frontiers in Digital Health · doi:10.3389/fdgth.2021.600333 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Sikorski, F., König, H.-H., Wegscheider, K., Zapf, A., Löwe, B., & Kohlmann, S. (2021) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2021.100435 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
“The Usefulness Scale for Patient Information Material (Holzel et al., 2015) will be used to assess the acceptance of the feedback intervention.”
Method
- Authors
- Hölzel, L. P., Ries, Z., Dirmaier, J., Zill, J. M., Kriston, L., Klesse, C., Härter, M., & Bermejo, I.
- Affiliations
- University of Freiburg (DE)
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Hölzel, Lars P
- Venue
- BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
- Published
- 2015-04-19
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-34
- ISSN
- 1472-6947 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4456699
- OpenAlex
- W2051323483
- Cited by
- 34
- References
- 24
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 1
- FWCI
- 4.83
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
- Open Scholarship Institutional Repository (Washington University in St. Louis) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
- Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Literacy and Information Accessibility
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Education › Health Education and Validation
- Keywords
- patient education materials, written health information, perceived usefulness, scale development, psychometric properties, patient perspectives, information brochure, depression, chronic low back pain, information quality, scale validation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Germany, Humans, Patient Education as Topic, Psychometrics, Surveys and Questionnaires, Random Allocation, Consumer Health Information
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
