• Journal Article

Vergleichende Evaluierung von Informationsprodukten zu Krebsscreening der deutschsprachigen Krebs-Organisatione [Comparative evaluation of information products regarding cancer screening of German-speaking cancer organizations]

Citation

Hofmann, J., Kien, C., & Gartlehner, G. (2015). Vergleichende Evaluierung von Informationsprodukten zu Krebsscreening der deutschsprachigen Krebs-Organisatione [Comparative evaluation of information products regarding cancer screening of German-speaking cancer organizations]. Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 109(4-5), 350-362. DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2015.06.014

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based information materials about the pros and cons of cancer screening are important sources for men and women to decide for or against cancer screening. The aim of this paper was to compare recommendations from different cancer institutions in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland) regarding screening for breast, cervix, colon, and prostate cancer and to assess the quality and development process of patient information materials. METHODS: Relevant information material was identified through web searches and personal contact with cancer institutions. To achieve our objective, we employed a qualitative approach. The quality of 22 patient information materials was analysed based on established guidance by Bunge et al. In addition, we conducted guided interviews about the process of developing information materials with decision-makers of cancer institutes. RESULTS: Overall, major discrepancies in cancer screening recommendations exist among the Austrian, German, and Swiss cancer institutes. Process evaluation revealed that crucial steps of quality assurance, such as assembling a multi-disciplinary panel, assessing conflicts of interest, or transparency regarding funding sources, have frequently not been undertaken. All information materials had substantial quality deficits in multiple areas. Three out of four institutes issued information materials that met fewer than half of the quality criteria. CONCLUSION: Most patient information materials of cancer institutes in German-speaking countries are fraught with substantial deficits and do not provide an objective source for patients to be able to make an informed decision for or against cancer screening