OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two health information texts on patient recognition memory, a key aspect of comprehension. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial (N=60), comparing the effects of experimental and control colorectal cancer (CRC) screening texts on recognition memory, measured using a statement recognition test, accounting for response bias (score range -0.91 to 5.34). The experimental text had a lower Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level (7.4 versus 9.6), was more focused on addressing screening barriers, and employed more comparative tables than the control text. RESULTS:Recognition memory was higher in the experimental group (2.54 versus 1.09, t=-3.63, P=0.001), including after adjustment for age, education, and health literacy (β=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.68, P=0.001), and in analyses limited to persons with college degrees (β=0.52, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.86, P=0.004) or no self-reported health literacy problems (β=0.39, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.71, P=0.02). CONCLUSION: An experimental CRC screening text improved recognition memory, including among patients with high education and self-assessed health literacy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: CRC screening texts comparable to our experimental text may be warranted for all screening-eligible patients, if such texts improve screening uptake.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two health information texts on patient recognition memory, a key aspect of comprehension. METHODS: Randomized controlled trial (N=60), comparing the effects of experimental and control colorectal cancer (CRC) screening texts on recognition memory, measured using a statement recognition test, accounting for response bias (score range -0.91 to 5.34). The experimental text had a lower Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level (7.4 versus 9.6), was more focused on addressing screening barriers, and employed more comparative tables than the control text. RESULTS: Recognition memory was higher in the experimental group (2.54 versus 1.09, t=-3.63, P=0.001), including after adjustment for age, education, and health literacy (β=0.42, 95% CI: 0.17, 0.68, P=0.001), and in analyses limited to persons with college degrees (β=0.52, 95% CI: 0.18, 0.86, P=0.004) or no self-reported health literacy problems (β=0.39, 95% CI: 0.07, 0.71, P=0.02). CONCLUSION: An experimental CRC screening text improved recognition memory, including among patients with high education and self-assessed health literacy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: CRC screening texts comparable to our experimental text may be warranted for all screening-eligible patients, if such texts improve screening uptake.
Authors: T C Davis; J A Bocchini; D Fredrickson; C Arnold; E J Mayeaux; P W Murphy; R H Jackson; N Hanna; M Paterson Journal: Pediatrics Date: 1996-06 Impact factor: 7.124
Authors: Cathy A Coyne; Ronghui Xu; Peter Raich; Kathy Plomer; Mark Dignan; Lari B Wenzel; Diane Fairclough; Thomas Habermann; Linda Schnell; Susan Quella; David Cella Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Nancy C Dolan; M Rosario Ferreira; Terry C Davis; Marian L Fitzgibbon; Alfred Rademaker; Dachao Liu; Brian P Schmitt; Nicolle Gorby; Michael Wolf; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2004-07-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Anthony Jerant; Richard L Kravitz; Nancy Sohler; Kevin Fiscella; Raquel L Romero; Bennett Parnes; Daniel J Tancredi; Sergio Aguilar-Gaxiola; Christina Slee; Simon Dvorak; Charles Turner; Andrew Hudnut; Francisco Prieto; Peter Franks Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2014 May-Jun Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2021-01-17