Article Text

Download PDFPDF
125 Would health literate users be able to make informed choices about contraception?
  1. Jürgen Kasper1,
  2. Helene Kolnes2,
  3. Marit Müller De Bortoli3,
  4. Sandro Zacher4,
  5. Simone Kienlin5,
  6. Victoria Telle Hjellset1,
  7. Anke Stecekelberg6,
  8. Hilde Laholt7
  1. 1Faculty of Health Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, OsloMet Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway
  2. 2
  3. 3Faculty of Health and Social Sciences, Department of Nursing and Health Sciences, University of South-Eastern Norway, Norway
  4. 4Institute for Health and Nursing Science, Medical Faculty, Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
  5. 5The South-Eastern Norway Regional Health Authority, Department of Medicine and Healthcare, Hamar, Norway
  6. 6Institute of Health and Nursing Science, Faculty of Medicine, Martin-Luther-University of Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany
  7. 7Department of Health and Care Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway


Introduction In Norway, the public debate is very much focussing on health literacy, while the quality of existing information for the public has not been challenged. The study aimed at mapping the quality of health information on contraception methods addressing Norwegian users. We wanted to determine whether, how and to which degree Norwegian health information is facilitating informed choices on contraceptive methods.

Methods A cross sectional design was carried out using a convenient sample of websites identified through structured google searches. As far as possible, easily accessible and non- professional websites on the topic were included. Websites were quality appraised using the 19 quality criteria of MAPPinfo, a recently validated checklist operationalizing the recommendations of the guideline evidence-based health information. Inter-rater-reliability (ITR), ratings were documented by two independently working students before ascertaining consensus. The students‘ consensus was compared with an independently generated expert rating and consensus ascertained, respectively.

Results 52 websites were identified (14 authorities, 5 foundations, 25 commercials, 8 health portals). ITR was good between students (T=.78, range .38–1) and excellent between students and expert (T=.86; range .42–1). Average percentage of met criteria is 17 (range 0.5–33, SD=6). Quality of information in all five categories was insufficient (definitions 47%; transparency 8%, content 3%, presentation 33%). Information quality does not differ between developer groups.

Discussion The set of criteria is considered the minimal standard and noncompliance with single criteria can already jeopardize the making of informed choices.

Conclusions Based on the available web based health information in Norway, users cannot make informed choices about contraceptive methods.

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.