Skip to main content

Table 5 Average score for each item in the DISCERN instrument

From: Readability and quality assessment of internet-based patient education materials related to nasal septoplasty

Quality Criterion Mean Ratinga (SD)
Section 1: Reliability
 1. Are the aims clear? 2.0 (1.4)
 2. Does it achieve its aims? 4.2 (0.8)
 3. Is it relevant? 3.4 (0.8)
 4. Is it clear what sources of information were used to compile the publication (other than the author or producer)? 1.5 (1.1)
 5. Is it clear when the information used or reported in the publication was produced? 1.8 (1.1)
 6. Is it balanced and unbiased? 3.1 (0.9)
 7. Does it provide details of additional sources of support and information? 2.2 (1.3)
 8. Does it refer to areas of uncertainty? 2.6 (1.2)
Total Reliability Score 18.4 (5.8)
Section 2: Quality
 9. Does it describe how each treatment works? 4.5 (1.2)
 10.Does it describe the benefits of each treatment? 4.1 (1.4)
 11. Does it describe the risks of each treatment? 3.2 (1.9)
 12. Does it describe what would happen if no treatment is used? 2.3 (1.5)
 13. Does it describe how the treatment choices affect overall quality of life? 2.7 (1.1)
 14. Is it clear that there may be more than one possible treatment choice? 2.5 (1.7)
 15. Does it provide support for shared decision-making? 2.5 (1.1)
Total Quality Score 24.4 (6.8)
 16. Overall Rating of Sites 2.7 (1.1)
Total DISCERN Scores 42.9 (10.5)
  1. aEach question in the DISCERN instrument is scored from 1 to 5. The mean rating represents the mean score for each question in the DISCERN instrument for all the included PEMs