BACKGROUND: Despite prevalent low literacy nationally, empirical research on the development and testing of literacy-adapted patient education remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe procedures for developing and evaluating usability and acceptability of an adapted diabetes and CVD patient education. DESIGN: Materials adaptation for literacy demand and behavioral activation criteria, and pre-/post-test intervention evaluation design. PARTICIPANTS: Pilot sample of 30 urban African-American adults with type 2 diabetes with Below Average literacy (n = 15) and Average literacy (n = 15). MEASUREMENTS: Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3, Reading), assessment of diabetes and CVD knowledge, and patient rating scale. RESULTS: Reading grade levels were: > 12th, 30%; 10th-12th, 20%; 7th-9th, 10%; 4th-6th grade, 10%; and < or = 3rd grade or unable to complete WRAT-3, 30%. Education materials were modified to a reading level of < or = 4th grade. Knowledge improved for Below Average (2.7 to 4.7, p = 0.005) and Average (3.8 to 5.7, p = 0.002) literacy groups, with up to a ten-fold increase, at post-education, in the number of participants responding correctly to some content items. The print materials and class received maximum usability and acceptability ratings from patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development of patient education meeting very low literacy criteria was feasible, effective for knowledge acquisition, and highly acceptable irrespective of literacy level.
BACKGROUND: Despite prevalent low literacy nationally, empirical research on the development and testing of literacy-adapted patient education remains limited. OBJECTIVE: To describe procedures for developing and evaluating usability and acceptability of an adapted diabetes and CVD patient education. DESIGN: Materials adaptation for literacy demand and behavioral activation criteria, and pre-/post-test intervention evaluation design. PARTICIPANTS: Pilot sample of 30 urban African-American adults with type 2 diabetes with Below Average literacy (n = 15) and Average literacy (n = 15). MEASUREMENTS: Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT-3, Reading), assessment of diabetes and CVD knowledge, and patient rating scale. RESULTS: Reading grade levels were: > 12th, 30%; 10th-12th, 20%; 7th-9th, 10%; 4th-6th grade, 10%; and < or = 3rd grade or unable to complete WRAT-3, 30%. Education materials were modified to a reading level of < or = 4th grade. Knowledge improved for Below Average (2.7 to 4.7, p = 0.005) and Average (3.8 to 5.7, p = 0.002) literacy groups, with up to a ten-fold increase, at post-education, in the number of participants responding correctly to some content items. The print materials and class received maximum usability and acceptability ratings from patients. CONCLUSIONS: Development of patient education meeting very low literacy criteria was feasible, effective for knowledge acquisition, and highly acceptable irrespective of literacy level.
Authors: N D Berkman; D A Dewalt; M P Pignone; S L Sheridan; K N Lohr; L Lux; S F Sutton; T Swinson; A J Bonito Journal: Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) Date: 2004-01
Authors: Tiffany L Gary; Marian Batts-Turner; Lee R Bone; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Nae-Yuh Wang; Felicia Hill-Briggs; David M Levine; Neil R Powe; Martha N Hill; Christopher Saudek; Maura McGuire; Frederick L Brancati Journal: Control Clin Trials Date: 2004-02
Authors: Lisa A Cooper; L Ebony Boulware; Edgar R Miller; Sherita Hill Golden; Kathryn A Carson; Gary Noronha; Mary Margaret Huizinga; Debra L Roter; Hsin-Chieh Yeh; Lee R Bone; David M Levine; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Jeanne Charleston; Miyong Kim; Nae-Yuh Wang; Hanan Aboumatar; Jennifer P Halbert; Patti L Ephraim; Frederick L Brancati Journal: Am J Public Health Date: 2013-09-12 Impact factor: 9.308
Authors: Patti L Ephraim; Felicia Hill-Briggs; Debra L Roter; Lee R Bone; Jennifer L Wolff; LaPricia Lewis-Boyer; David M Levine; Hanan J Aboumatar; Lisa A Cooper; Stephanie J Fitzpatrick; Kimberly A Gudzune; Michael C Albert; Dwyan Monroe; Michelle Simmons; Debra Hickman; Leon Purnell; Annette Fisher; Richard Matens; Gary J Noronha; Peter J Fagan; Hema C Ramamurthi; Jessica M Ameling; Jeanne Charlston; Tanyka S Sam; Kathryn A Carson; Nae-Yuh Wang; Deidra C Crews; Raquel C Greer; Valerie Sneed; Sarah J Flynn; Nicole DePasquale; L Ebony Boulware Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-06-21 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Felicia Hill-Briggs; Mariana Lazo; Mark Peyrot; Angela Doswell; Yi-Ting Chang; Martha N Hill; David Levine; Nae-Yuh Wang; Frederick L Brancati Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2011-03-29 Impact factor: 5.128
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: 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