Skip to main content
. 2016 Sep 26;20(4):531–542. doi: 10.1111/hex.12487

Table 3.

Points to consider when evaluating Patient Information Leaflets (PILs)

Type of PILs PILs written and designed according to a defined methodology and/or complying with the guidelines (see Table 2)12, 14, 15
Way of using PILs Hand delivered at the same time as verbal information (or, if sent prior to a consultation, by post or email, at least read together with the physician during the consultation)15, 16, 46
Tailored/customized according to the patient's profile by the physician during the consultation (e.g. by underscoring certain items)10, 11, 12, 17, 18
Given at an opportune moment during the consultation9, 18
Given only if the patient wants PILs18
Study design Randomized allocation of patients (or cluster randomization) to PILs or a control group14, 15, 29
Single blind because the physician has to go through the PILs with the patient
Control group without PILs (oral information alone)
Outcomes Primary outcome using one previously validated score or measure
Acute conditions
Impact on patient Outcomes using one or more of the main outcome measures commonly used in RCT
Psychic and cognitive impact Test of comprehension/knowledge of condition
Satisfaction
Behavioural impact Behaviour/adherence to treatment and to advice according to the objectives of the PILs (writer's intention)
Reconsultation rates
Therapeutic outcomes Pain
Depression
Anxiety
Impact on physician Number of drugs prescribed
Number of examinations or laboratory tests prescribed
Impact on both patient and physician Doctor Patient Communication effectiveness
Chronic conditions Quality of life
Relapse
Clinical criteria (e.g. blood pressure)
Laboratory criteria (e.g. blood glucose)
Appropriate timeline of measurement(s) For an acute pathology/screening/surgery: 0 and 7–10 days after consultation
For a chronic disease or long‐term prescription (except cancer); D0; D7–10; M1; M3; M6; (±M12 or M24)
Questionnaires Use validated questionnaires
By phone or patient self‐assessment if possible, with well‐posed questions aimed at honest replies
Investigator Assessment of outcome by blinded doctor or CRA