Enhancing layperson information: the added value of patient and public feedback

Article type
Authors
Goossens M1, Lagrain M2, Moris L2, Lemmens J2, Vermet I3, Van Den Broecke N4, Cornelis E5, Van Goethem J2, Finoulst M2, Vankrunkelsven P6
1Belgian Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam), Leuven, Belgium; Gezondheid en Wetenschap (Health and Science), Leuven, Belgium; Working Group Development of Primary Care Guidelines (WOREL), Wilrijk (Antwerp), Belgium
2Belgian Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam), Leuven, Belgium; Gezondheid en Wetenschap (Health and Science), Leuven, Belgium
3Belgian Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam), Leuven, Belgium; Gezondheid en Wetenschap (Health and Science), Leuven, Belgium; Ebpracticenet, Leuven, Belgium
4Belgian Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam), Leuven, Belgium; Gezondheid en Wetenschap (Health and Science), Leuven, Belgium; Odisee, University of applied sciences, Nutrition and Dietetics, Gent, Belgium
5Belgian Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam), Leuven, Belgium; Gezondheid en Wetenschap (Health and Science), Leuven, Belgium; Flemish Centre of Expertise in Suicide Prevention (VLESP), Gent, Belgium
6Belgian Centre For Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam), Leuven, Belgium; Gezondheid en Wetenschap (Health and Science), Leuven, Belgium; Department of Public Health and Primary Care, KU Leuven, Lier, België
Abstract
Background
“Gezondheid en Wetenschap” is part of the Belgian Center for Evidence Based Medicine (Cebam) and develops patient information based on guidelines for healthcare providers in Belgium. In the realm of healthcare communication, the importance of delivering comprehensible information to laypeople cannot be overstated. However, achieving clarity and relevance in informational materials can be challenging without direct input from the individuals they aim to serve.

Objective
To explore the added value of integrating patient and public feedback into the editorial workflow and update process of healthcare information for laypeople.

Results
The update process of our health topics intended for laypeople involves several steps to ensure that the material remains accurate, relevant, accessible and understandable. One of the key steps is to survey a panel of laypeople and/or patients about the applicability of the published health information. Every 4 months health topics are selected for revision. A panel of laypeople is asked to review the current information to identify irrelevant content, areas where clarity can be improved, and areas where more information should be provided. Language, literacy level, cultural sensitivity, and the use of plain language are considered. The panel is also asked to give advice on the need for visual aids to enhance understanding of and engagement with the information. The feedback provided by the panel is thoroughly reviewed by at least 2 medical editors, who select the most relevant feedback and proceed with a peer-review process. By following these steps, we believe that the updated topics intended for laypeople meet the information needs of laypeople, ultimately empowering them to make informed decisions about their health and well-being.

Conclusion
The integration of patient and public feedback enriches the development of informational materials for laypeople, offering a pathway to greater clarity, inclusivity, and effectiveness in healthcare communication. Embracing this collaborative approach not only strengthens the bond between healthcare providers and the community, but also empowers individuals to make informed decisions about their health and well-being.