The development of user-friendly nutrition resources for pregnant women seldom involves end-users. This qualitative study used a citizens’ jury approach to determine if our modification of a longstanding, frequently used dietitian-informed diet and diabetes booklet was deemed to be a good healthy eating resource for pregnant women.

Midwives recruited thirteen first-time pregnant women not requiring specialist obstetric care or specialist dietetic advice for any reason. Participants were sent a copy of the modified healthy eating in pregnancy booklet prior to ‘jury day’. Five women were unable to attend the citizens’ jury citing reasons such as early labour. At the jury, five experts presented evidence. Participants adjourned, with an independent facilitator, to ‘deliberate’ as to whether the resource was suitable or not. The verdict was presented, and subsequent discussion was audio-recorded, transcribed and inductively content analysed.

Southland, New Zealand.

Pregnant women aged 19–35 years (n 8), of whom half had a household income <$NZ30 000.

The verdict was ‘Yes’; the resource was good. Three themes were derived: communication of health information, resource content and harm reduction in pregnancy. Based on these data, ways to enhance the quality and usability of the booklet were evident.

Citizens’ juries can be used to obtain an independent assessment by end-users of health resources. Our modified diet and diabetes booklet was considered suitable for providing healthy eating advice to pregnant women. Inclusion of end-users’ perspectives is critical for end-user relevant content, comprehension and resource credibility.

Because patients who are to undergo surgery must give their consent to planned postoperative care, clear and complete information on postoperative pain management should be given. The aim of this quality-of-care study was to evaluate by inquiry the impact of written information describing postoperative pain management on the quality and type of information retained, and patient participation in discussing and agreeing to the postoperative pain management programme during the presurgical anaesthesiology consultation.

Prospective before and after interventional surveys, each lasting 3 weeks and conducted at a 6-month interval (time required to prepare the written information), used a standardized anonymous questionnaire given to patients after the anaesthesiology consultation. Questions requiring a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ response assessed the quality of information and what information was retained by the patient, the extent of the patient’s interaction during the discussion with the anaesthesiologist and his/her agreement with the postoperative pain management programme.

Among the 180 before-group patients included, 16.7% reported receiving verbal information during the anaesthesiology consultation, none retained all seven principal side-effects of morphine, 14.4% considered the information to be thorough, 20.6% understood it, 16.7% claimed that it had helped them participate in the discussion and 14.4% concurred with the postoperative pain management programme. Compared to the before inquiry, significantly higher percentages of the 107 after-group patients (given written information before the anaesthesiology consultation) responded as having received verbal information during the anaesthesiology consultation (57.0%), retained morphine’s main side-effects (12.1%), deemed the information thorough (58.9%) and understandable (53.3%), had participated in the discussion (47.7%) and agreed with the postoperative pain management programme (51.4%).

Written information on postoperative pain management distributed before the presurgical anaesthesiology consultation improved the quality of information retained, facilitated discussion with the anaesthesiologist and patient agreement with the postoperative pain management programme.