Felicia Hill-Briggs1, Andrea S Smith. 1. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA. fbriggs3@jhmi.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Populations with the lowest literacy and health literacy in the U.S. are also among those disproportionately burdened by diabetes and its complications. Yet, suitability of publicly available diabetes and cardiovascular (CVD) patient education materials for these patients is not clear. We evaluated selected American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Heart Association (AHA) print education materials for accessibility and usability characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: English-language, print patient education brochures addressing lifestyle/behavioral management of diabetes and CVD were obtained from the ADA (n = 21) and the AHA (n = 19). Materials were evaluated using 32 criteria, 23 addressing literacy demand and 9 addressing behavioral activation, compiled from authoritative sources on development of low-literacy consumer health information. RESULTS: Of the 32 criteria identified by two or more sources, ADA materials consistently met 11 (34%) and AHA materials consistently met 8 (25%). Criteria most frequently achieved were text case, use of cues (e.g., bullets) to emphasize key points, design of graphics/illustrations, some provision of "how to" information, and positive depiction of cultural images. The least consistently achieved criteria were reading grade, word usage (e.g., scientific jargon), sentence length, font size, line length, white space, visual organization, limited scope, clear and specific (e.g., step-by-step) behavioral recommendations, and demonstration of audience relevance and cultural appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: Materials consistently met few criteria for usability by patients with low literacy, limited prior medical knowledge, and/or limited resource availability. Use of available criteria and methods for increasing reach of print education materials to these underserved patient populations is indicated.
OBJECTIVE: Populations with the lowest literacy and health literacy in the U.S. are also among those disproportionately burdened by diabetes and its complications. Yet, suitability of publicly available diabetes and cardiovascular (CVD) patient education materials for these patients is not clear. We evaluated selected American Diabetes Association (ADA) and American Heart Association (AHA) print education materials for accessibility and usability characteristics. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: English-language, print patient education brochures addressing lifestyle/behavioral management of diabetes and CVD were obtained from the ADA (n = 21) and the AHA (n = 19). Materials were evaluated using 32 criteria, 23 addressing literacy demand and 9 addressing behavioral activation, compiled from authoritative sources on development of low-literacy consumer health information. RESULTS: Of the 32 criteria identified by two or more sources, ADA materials consistently met 11 (34%) and AHA materials consistently met 8 (25%). Criteria most frequently achieved were text case, use of cues (e.g., bullets) to emphasize key points, design of graphics/illustrations, some provision of "how to" information, and positive depiction of cultural images. The least consistently achieved criteria were reading grade, word usage (e.g., scientific jargon), sentence length, font size, line length, white space, visual organization, limited scope, clear and specific (e.g., step-by-step) behavioral recommendations, and demonstration of audience relevance and cultural appropriateness. CONCLUSIONS: Materials consistently met few criteria for usability by patients with low literacy, limited prior medical knowledge, and/or limited resource availability. Use of available criteria and methods for increasing reach of print education materials to these underserved patient populations is indicated.
Authors: Howard K Koh; Donald M Berwick; Carolyn M Clancy; Cynthia Baur; Cindy Brach; Linda M Harris; Eileen G Zerhusen Journal: Health Aff (Millwood) Date: 2012-01-18 Impact factor: 6.301
Authors: Kerri L Cavanaugh; Rebecca L Wingard; Raymond M Hakim; Svetlana Eden; Ayumi Shintani; Kenneth A Wallston; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman; T Alp Ikizler Journal: J Am Soc Nephrol Date: 2010-07-29 Impact factor: 10.121
Authors: Sheila F Castañeda; Rebeca E Giacinto; Elizabeth A Medeiros; Ilana Brongiel; Olga Cardona; Patricia Perez; Gregory A Talavera Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2015-05-28
Authors: Stephanie L Fitzpatrick; Sherita Hill Golden; Kerry Stewart; June Sutherland; Sharie DeGross; Tina Brown; Nae-Yuh Wang; Jerilyn Allen; Lisa A Cooper; Felicia Hill-Briggs Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2016-12 Impact factor: 19.112
Authors: Patricia H Strachan; Sonya de Laat; Sandra L Carroll; Lisa Schwartz; Katie Vaandering; Gurjit K Toor; Heather M Arthur Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Kimberli Taylor-Clarke; Queen Henry-Okafor; Clare Murphy; Madeline Keyes; Russell Rothman; Andre Churchwell; George A Mensah; Douglas Sawyer; Uchechukwu K A Sampson Journal: J Cardiovasc Nurs Date: 2012 Nov-Dec Impact factor: 2.083
Authors: Felicia Hill-Briggs; Ronda Renosky; Mariana Lazo; Lee Bone; Martha Hill; David Levine; Frederick L Brancati; Mark Peyrot Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-06-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kerri Cavanaugh; Kenneth A Wallston; Tebeb Gebretsadik; Ayumi Shintani; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Dianne Davis; Rebecca Pratt Gregory; Robb Malone; Michael Pignone; Darren DeWalt; Tom A Elasy; Russell L Rothman Journal: Diabetes Care Date: 2009-09-09 Impact factor: 19.112