Literature DB >> 20237884

Beyond reading level: a systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and Web-based materials.

Ramona K C Finnie1, Tisha M Felder, Suzanne Kneuper Linder, Patricia Dolan Mullen.   

Abstract

Consideration of categories related to reading comprehension--beyond reading level--is imperative to reach low literacy populations effectively. "Suitability" has been proposed as a term to encompass six categories of such factors: content, literacy demand graphics, layout/typography, learning stimulation, and cultural appropriateness. Our purpose was to describe instruments used to evaluate categories of suitability in cancer education materials in published reports and their findings. We searched databases and reference lists for evaluations of print and Web-based cancer education materials to identify and describe measures of these categories. Studies had to evaluate reading level and at least one category of suitability. Eleven studies met our criteria. Seven studies reported inter-rater reliability. Cultural appropriateness was most often assessed; four instruments assessed only surface aspects of cultural appropriateness. Only two of seven instruments used, the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) and the comprehensibility assessment of materials (SAM + CAM), were described as having any evidence of validity. Studies using Simplified Measure of Goobledygook (SMOG) and Fry reported higher average reading level scores than those using Flesh-Kincaid. Most materials failed criteria for reading level and cultural appropriateness. We recommend more emphasis on the categories of suitability for those developing cancer education materials and more study of these categories and reliability and validity testing of instruments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20237884      PMCID: PMC2933274          DOI: 10.1007/s13187-010-0075-0

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cancer Educ        ISSN: 0885-8195            Impact factor:   2.037


  33 in total

Review 1.  One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials.

Authors:  M W Kreuter; V J Strecher; B Glassman
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  1999

Review 2.  Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified.

Authors:  K Resnicow; T Baranowski; J S Ahluwalia; R L Braithwaite
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  1999       Impact factor: 1.847

3.  Appropriateness of Hispanic print materials: a content analysis.

Authors:  H A Massett
Journal:  Health Educ Res       Date:  1996-06

4.  Assessment of cultural sensitivity of cancer information in ethnic print media.

Authors:  Daniela B Friedman; Laurie Hoffman-Goetz
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2006-06

5.  Assessing cultural sensitivity in printed cancer materials.

Authors:  J J Guidry; V D Walker
Journal:  Cancer Pract       Date:  1999 Nov-Dec

6.  Limited literacy revisited implications for patient education.

Authors:  A T Foltz; J M Sullivan
Journal:  Cancer Pract       Date:  1999 May-Jun

Review 7.  Strategies to improve cancer education materials.

Authors:  L G Doak; C C Doak; C D Meade
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 2.172

8.  An analysis of the readability and cultural sensitivity of information on the National Cancer Institute's Web site: CancerNet.

Authors:  F L Wilson; L M Baker; C Brown-Syed; C Gollop
Journal:  Oncol Nurs Forum       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 2.172

Review 9.  Health literacy and cancer communication.

Authors:  Terry C Davis; Mark V Williams; Estela Marin; Ruth M Parker; Jonathan Glass
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 May-Jun       Impact factor: 508.702

10.  A comprehensive assessment of the difficulty level and cultural sensitivity of online cancer prevention resources for older minority men.

Authors:  Daniela B Friedman; Elaine K Kao
Journal:  Prev Chronic Dis       Date:  2007-12-15       Impact factor: 2.830

View more
  26 in total

1.  Towards developing a bilingual treatment summary and survivorship care plan responsive to Spanish language preferred breast cancer survivors.

Authors:  Kimlin Ashing; Mayra Serrano; Jeffery Weitzel; Lily Lai; Benjamin Paz; Roberto Vargas
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2014-05-25       Impact factor: 4.442

2.  Evaluation of the Informational Content, Readability and Comprehensibility of Online Health Information on Monogenic Diabetes.

Authors:  Yue Guan; Kristin A Maloney; Debra L Roter; Toni I Pollin
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-09-26       Impact factor: 2.537

3.  Informing Public Perceptions About Climate Change: A 'Mental Models' Approach.

Authors:  Gabrielle Wong-Parodi; Wändi Bruine de Bruin
Journal:  Sci Eng Ethics       Date:  2016-10-17       Impact factor: 3.525

4.  What makes a good health 'app'? Identifying the strengths and limitations of existing mobile application evaluation tools.

Authors:  Robin M Dawson; Tisha M Felder; Sara B Donevant; Karen Kane McDonnell; Edward B Card; Callie Campbell King; Sue P Heiney
Journal:  Nurs Inq       Date:  2019-12-19       Impact factor: 2.393

5.  "You need something like this to give you guidelines on what to do": patients' and partners' use and perceptions of a self-directed coping skills training resource.

Authors:  Sylvie D Lambert; Afaf Girgis; Jane Turner; Tim Regan; Hayley Candler; Ben Britton; Suzanne Chambers; Catalina Lawsin; Karen Kayser
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2013-08-17       Impact factor: 3.603

6.  Print Material in Cancer Prevention: an Evaluation of Three Booklets Designed with and for Alaska's Community Health Workers.

Authors:  Katie Cueva; Melany Cueva; Mark Dignan; Kate Landis
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.037

7.  What Patients Look for When Browsing Online for Pancreatic Cancer: The Bait Behind the Byte.

Authors:  Alessandra Storino; Camila Guetter; Manuel Castillo-Angeles; Ammara A Watkins; Joseph D Mancias; Andrea Bullock; A James Moser; Tara S Kent
Journal:  World J Surg       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 3.352

8.  Quality and readability of online patient information regarding sclerotherapy for venous malformations.

Authors:  Jonathan H Pass; Amani H Patel; Sam Stuart; Alex M Barnacle; Premal A Patel
Journal:  Pediatr Radiol       Date:  2018-02-02

9.  Adapting comparative effectiveness research summaries for delivery to patients and providers through a patient portal.

Authors:  Amanda M McDougald Scott; Gretchen Purcell Jackson; Yun-Xian Ho; Zhou Yan; Coda Davison; S Trent Rosenbloom
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2013-11-16

10.  Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information.

Authors:  Sarah J Shoemaker; Michael S Wolf; Cindy Brach
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2014-06-12
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.