Objectives:
To develop and study the validity of an instrument for evaluation
of Printed Education Materials (PEM); to evaluate the use of acceptability
indices; to identify possible influences of professional aspects.
Methods: An instrument for PEM evaluation was developed which
included tree steps: domain identification, item generation and
instrument design. A reading to easy PEM was developed for education
of patient with systemic hypertension and its treatment with hydrochlorothiazide.
Construct validity was measured based on previously established
errors purposively introduced into the PEM, which served as extreme
groups. An acceptability index was applied taking into account
the rate of professionals who should approve each item. Participants
were 10 physicians (9 men) and 5 nurses (all women).
Results: Many professionals identified intentional errors of crude
character. Few participants identified errors that needed more
careful evaluation, and no one detected the intentional error
that required literature analysis. Physicians considered as acceptable
95.8% of the items of the PEM, and nurses 29.2%. The differences
between the scoring were statistically significant in 27% of the
items. In the overall evaluation, 66.6% were considered as acceptable.
The analysis of each item revealed a behavioral pattern for each
professional group.
Conclusions: The use of instruments for evaluation of printed
education materials is required and may improve the quality of
the PEM available for the patients. Not always are the acceptability
indices totally correct or represent high quality of information.
The professional experience, the practice pattern, and perhaps
the genre of the reviewers may influence their evaluation. An
analysis of the PEM by professionals in communication, in drug
information, and patients should be carried out to improve the
quality of the proposed material.
