BMA Appraisal Criteria |
% of leaflets meeting criteria |
Criteria met universally |
Are individual authors and agencies involved in its production clearly stated? |
100% |
Does the leaflet use clear appropriate language and tone? |
100% |
Does it include clear information on the source organization? |
100% |
Have professionals been involved in the development and evaluation of this resource? |
100% |
Criteria met partially |
Does the leaflet clearly explain the condition or issues concerned? |
99% |
Is the leaflet well designed? (i.e. size, layout, use of colour, typeface) |
98% |
Is it clear when this leaflet was produced and if it updates a previous version? |
98% |
Is the target readership clearly stated? |
88% |
Does it provide unbiased information on outcomes based on recent research evidence? |
64% |
Is information provided on all available treatment options? |
48% |
Does it include suggestions for further reading and other useful addresses? |
41% |
Does it address uncertainties and gaps in scientific knowledge? |
31% |
Does it include a key points section? |
19% |
Are the scope and aims of the leaflet clearly stated? |
19% |
Are quality of life issues addressed? |
19% |
Are other leaflets in the series by the same organization listed? |
19% |
Does the leaflet include case studies and patient anecdotes |
13% |
Does it include referenced statements? |
3% |
Criteria met by none |
Have users been involved in the development and evaluation of this resource? |
0% |
Does it cater for users such as non-English speakers and people with disabilities? |
0% |
Does it cater for users of different cultures and religious beliefs? |
0% |
Does the leaflet have a contents page? |
0% |
Does it provide a glossary of terms? |
0% |
Does it provide space for the user to record personal details or questions? |
0% |
Does it have a feedback form for user comments? |
0% |
Does it outline the NHS “journey” for the condition? |
0% |
Is the leaflet endorsed by a public figure? |
0% |