Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, Vol 53, 105-111

DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices

D Charnock, S Shepperd, G Needham and R Gann
University of Oxford, Division of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Institute of Health Sciences.

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.

Copyright © 1999 by the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health
CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Church, E., Cornish, P., Callanan, T., Bethune, C. (2008). Integrating self-help materials into mental health practice. cfp 54: 1413-1417 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Akram, G, Thomson, A H, Boyter, A C, Morton, M J S (2008). Characterisation and evaluation of UK websites on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Arch. Dis. Child. 93: 695-700 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ferreira-Lay, P., Miller, S. (2008). The quality of internet information on depression for lay people. Psychiatr. Bull. 32: 170-173 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Winterbottom, A., Conner, M., Mooney, A., Bekker, H. L. (2007). Evaluating the quality of patient leaflets about renal replacement therapy across UK renal units. Nephrol Dial Transplant 22: 2291-2296 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Marshall, L. A., Williams, D. (2006). Health information: does quality count for the consumer?: How consumers evaluate the quality of health information materials across a variety of media. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 38: 141-156 [Abstract]  
• Elwyn, G., O'Connor, A., Stacey, D., Volk, R., Edwards, A., Coulter, A., Thomson, R., Barratt, A., Barry, M., Bernstein, S., Butow, P., Clarke, A., Entwistle, V., Feldman-Stewart, D., Holmes-Rovner, M., Llewellyn-Thomas, H., Moumjid, N., Mulley, A., Ruland, C., Sepucha, K., Sykes, A., Whelan, T., The International Patient Decision Aids Standards, (2006). Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ 333: 417- [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Hargrave, D. R., Hargrave, U. A., Bouffet, E. (2006). Quality of health information on the Internet in pediatric neuro-oncology. Neuro Oncol 8: 175-182 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Sullivan, F., Wyatt, J. C (2005). Is a consultation needed?. BMJ 331: 625-627 [Full Text]  
• Maloney, S., Ilic, D., Green, S. (2005). Accessibility, nature and quality of health information on the Internet: a survey on osteoarthritis. Rheumatology (Oxford) 44: 382-385 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Timms, P., Hart, D., Cohen, A., Briscoe, M., McClure, M. (2005). 'Help is at Hand'on the web - what do our readers think?. Psychiatr. Bull. 29: 24-27 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Maywald, U., Schindler, C., Krappweis, J., Kirch, W. (2004). First Patient-Centered Drug Information Service in Germany--A Descriptive Study. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38: 2154-2159 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• de Lemos, M. L, John, L., Nakashima, L., O'Brien, R. K., Taylor, S. C. (2004). Advising Cancer Patients on Natural Health Products--A Structured Approach. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 38: 1406-1411 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Charnock, D., Shepperd, S. (2004). Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 19: 440-446 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Ilic, D., Bessell, T.L., Silagy, C.A., Green, S. (2003). Specialized medical search-engines are no better than general search-engines in sourcing consumer information about androgen deficiency. Hum Reprod 18: 557-561 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Al-Shahi, R, Sadler, M, Rees, G, Bateman, D (2002). The internet. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 73: 619-628 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Thoms, G. M. M., McHugh, G. A., Lack, J. A. (2002). What information do anaesthetists provide for patients?. Br J Anaesth 89: 917-919 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Eysenbach, G., Powell, J., Kuss, O., Sa, E.-R. (2002). Empirical Studies Assessing the Quality of Health Information for Consumers on the World Wide Web: A Systematic Review. JAMA 287: 2691-2700 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Shepperd, S., Charnock, D. (2002). Against internet exceptionalism. BMJ 324: 556-557 [Full Text]  
• Sowden, A J, Forbes, C, Entwistle, V, Watt, I (2001). Informing, communicating and sharing decisions with people who have cancer. Qual Saf Health Care 10: 193-196 [Full Text]  
• Eysenbach, G., Yihune, G., Lampe, K., Cross, P., Brickley, D., Jordan, M. (2001). Kitemarking the west wind. BMJ 322: 794-794 [Full Text]  
• Eysenbach, G. (2000). Recent advances: Consumer health informatics. BMJ 320: 1713-1716 [Full Text]  
• Pandolfini, C., Impicciatore, P., Bonati, M. (2000). Parents on the Web: Risks for Quality Management of Cough in Children. Pediatrics 105: e1-e1 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Shepperd, S., Charnock, D., Gann, B. (1999). Helping patients access high quality health information. BMJ 319: 764-766 [Full Text]