Development and content validation of the information assessment method for patients and consumers

• Published in: JMIR research protocols Vol. 3; no. 1; p. e7
• Main Authors: Pluye, Pierre, Granikov, Vera, Bartlett, Gillian, Grad, Roland M, Tang, David L, Johnson-Lafleur, Janique, Shulha, Michael, Barbosa Galvão, Maria Cristiane, Ricarte, Ivan Lm, Stephenson, Randolph, Shohet, Linda, Hutsul, Jo-Anne, Repchinsky, Carol A, Rosenberg, Ellen, Burnand, Bernard, Légaré, France, Dunikowski, Lynn, Murray, Susan, Boruff, Jill, Frati, Francesca, Kloda, Lorie, Macaulay, Ann, Lagarde, François, Doray, Geneviève
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Canada Gunther Eysenbach MD MPH, Associate Professor 01-01-2014; JMIR Publications; JMIR Publications Inc
• Subjects: Clinical decision making; Cognition & reasoning; Community organizations; Consumer health information; Consumers; Decision making; Electronic publishing; Feedback; Health care; Health information; Health problems; Health services; Internet; Internet access; Internet resources; Librarians; Literature reviews; Original Paper; Peers; Preventive health care; Questionnaires; Reflective teaching; Support groups; United States > US; content validity; push technology; information use; consumer health information; consumer-centered outcomes; information retrieval
• ISSN: 1929-0748; 1929-0748; 1438-8871
• DOI: 10.2196/resprot.2908

Online consumer health information addresses health problems, self-care, disease prevention, and health care services and is intended for the general public. Using this information, people can improve their knowledge, participation in health decision-making, and health. However, there are no comprehensive instruments to evaluate the value of health information from a consumer perspective.
We collaborated with information providers to develop and validate the Information Assessment Method for all (IAM4all) that can be used to collect feedback from information consumers (including patients), and to enable a two-way knowledge translation between information providers and consumers.
Content validation steps were followed to develop the IAM4all questionnaire. The first version was based on a theoretical framework from information science, a critical literature review and prior work. Then, 16 laypersons were interviewed on their experience with online health information and specifically their impression of the IAM4all questionnaire. Based on the summaries and interpretations of interviews, questionnaire items were revised, added, and excluded, thus creating the second version of the questionnaire. Subsequently, a panel of 12 information specialists and 8 health researchers participated in an online survey to rate each questionnaire item for relevance, clarity, representativeness, and specificity. The result of this expert panel contributed to the third, current, version of the questionnaire.
The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire is structured by four levels of outcomes of information seeking/receiving: situational relevance, cognitive impact, information use, and health benefits. Following the interviews and the expert panel survey, 9 questionnaire items were confirmed as relevant, clear, representative, and specific. To improve readability and accessibility for users with a lower level of literacy, 19 items were reworded and all inconsistencies in using a passive or active voice have been solved. One item was removed due to redundancy. The current version of the IAM4all questionnaire contains 28 items.
We developed and content validated the IAM4all in partnership with information providers, information specialists, researchers and representatives of information consumers. This questionnaire can be integrated within electronic knowledge resources to stimulate users' reflection (eg, their intention to use information). We claim that any organization (eg, publishers, community organizations, or patient associations), can evaluate and improve their online consumer health information from a consumers' perspective using this method.