↓ Skip to main content

Usefulness scale for patient information material (USE) - development and psychometric properties

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
42 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Usefulness scale for patient information material (USE) - development and psychometric properties
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12911-015-0153-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lars P Hölzel, Zivile Ries, Jörg Dirmaier, Jördis M Zill, Levente Kriston, Christian Klesse, Martin Härter, Isaac Bermejo

Abstract

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. 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. 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. 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.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 42 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 42 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 2 5%
Lecturer > Senior Lecturer 1 2%
Student > Doctoral Student 1 2%
Lecturer 1 2%
Professor 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 33 79%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 10%
Psychology 1 2%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Social Sciences 1 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 34 81%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 29 April 2015.
All research outputs
#2,309,099
of 5,038,209 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#436
of 816 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#75,398
of 156,039 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
#20
of 34 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 5,038,209 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 51st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 816 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.1. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 156,039 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 34 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.