BACKGROUND: In the setting of declining U.S. literacy, new policies include use of clear communication and low-literacy accessibility practices with all patients. Reliable methods for adapting health information to meet such criteria remain a pressing need. OBJECTIVES: To report method validation (study 1) and method replication (study 2) procedures and outcomes for a 5-step method for evaluating and adapting print health information to meet the current low-literacy criterion of <5th grade readability. MATERIALS: Sets of 18 and 11 publicly disseminated patient education documents developed by a university affiliated medical center. MEASURES: Three low-literacy criteria were strategically targeted for efficient, systematic evaluation, and text modification to meet a <5th grade reading level: sentence length <15 words, writing in active voice, and use of common words with multisyllabic words (>2-3 syllables) minimized or avoided. Interrater reliability for the document evaluations was determined. RESULTS: Training in the methodology resulted in interrater reliability of 0.99-1.00 in study 1 and 0.98-1.00 in study 2. Original documents met none of the targeted low literacy criteria. In study 1, following low-literacy adaptation, mean reading grade level decreased from 10.4±1.8 to 3.8±0.6 (P<0.0001), with consistent achievement of criteria for words per sentence, passive voice, and syllables per word. Study 2 demonstrated similar achievement of all target criteria, with a resulting decrease in mean reading grade level from 11.0±1.8 to 4.6±0.3 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-step methodology proved teachable and efficient. Targeting a limited set of modifiable criteria was effective and reliable in achieving <5th grade readability.
BACKGROUND: In the setting of declining U.S. literacy, new policies include use of clear communication and low-literacy accessibility practices with all patients. Reliable methods for adapting health information to meet such criteria remain a pressing need. OBJECTIVES: To report method validation (study 1) and method replication (study 2) procedures and outcomes for a 5-step method for evaluating and adapting print health information to meet the current low-literacy criterion of <5th grade readability. MATERIALS: Sets of 18 and 11 publicly disseminated patient education documents developed by a university affiliated medical center. MEASURES: Three low-literacy criteria were strategically targeted for efficient, systematic evaluation, and text modification to meet a <5th grade reading level: sentence length <15 words, writing in active voice, and use of common words with multisyllabic words (>2-3 syllables) minimized or avoided. Interrater reliability for the document evaluations was determined. RESULTS: Training in the methodology resulted in interrater reliability of 0.99-1.00 in study 1 and 0.98-1.00 in study 2. Original documents met none of the targeted low literacy criteria. In study 1, following low-literacy adaptation, mean reading grade level decreased from 10.4±1.8 to 3.8±0.6 (P<0.0001), with consistent achievement of criteria for words per sentence, passive voice, and syllables per word. Study 2 demonstrated similar achievement of all target criteria, with a resulting decrease in mean reading grade level from 11.0±1.8 to 4.6±0.3 (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The 5-step methodology proved teachable and efficient. Targeting a limited set of modifiable criteria was effective and reliable in achieving <5th grade readability.
Authors: Dean Schillinger; Kevin Grumbach; John Piette; Frances Wang; Dennis Osmond; Carolyn Daher; Jorge Palacios; Gabriela Diaz Sullivan; Andrew B Bindman Journal: JAMA Date: 2002 Jul 24-31 Impact factor: 56.272
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: Roberta Jeanne Ruiz; Susan Gennaro; Caitlin O'Connor; C Nathan Marti; Amanda Lulloff; Tayra Keshinover; Anne Gibeau; Bernadette Melnyk Journal: West J Nurs Res Date: 2014-03-20 Impact factor: 1.967
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: Lindsay S Mayberry; Cynthia A Berg; Robert A Greevy; Lyndsay A Nelson; Erin M Bergner; Kenneth A Wallston; Kryseana J Harper; Tom A Elasy Journal: Ann Behav Med Date: 2021-03-16
Authors: Jessie Chin; Darcie D Moeller; Jessica Johnson; Elise A G Duwe; James F Graumlich; Michael D Murray; Daniel G Morrow Journal: Gerontologist Date: 2018-07-13
Authors: Adeline Dorough; Julia H Narendra; Caroline Wilkie; Akhil Hegde; Kawan Swain; Emily H Chang; Terence Oliver; Jennifer E Flythe Journal: Kidney360 Date: 2021-05-03
Authors: J W Coughlin; L M Martin; J Henderson; A T Dalcin; J Fountain; N-Y Wang; L J Appel; J M Clark; W Bennett Journal: Obes Sci Pract Date: 2020-07-16