Literature DB >> 8657518

Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets.

T C Davis1, J A Bocchini, D Fredrickson, C Arnold, E J Mayeaux, P W Murphy, R H Jackson, N Hanna, M Paterson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Medical information pamphlets often are written using language that requires a reading level higher than parents of many pediatric patients have achieved. Anecdotal reports suggest that many parents may not readily understand the federally mandated Public Health Service vaccine information pamphlets prepared by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 1991. The level at which the pamphlets need to be written for low-reading-level parents is undetermined, as is whether parents reading at higher levels will accept low-reading-level materials.
METHODS: To determine whether a simple pamphlet prepared at a low reading level using qualitative and adult education techniques would be preferable to the available CDC polio vaccine information pamphlet, we conducted an integrated qualitative-quantitative study. We compared the parent reading time and comprehension of a simplified pamphlet (Louisiana State University, LSU) comprising 4 pages, 322 words, 7 instructional graphics, and a text requiring a 6th grade reading ability with the equivalent 1991 CDC vaccine information pamphlet comprising 16 pages, 18,177 words, no graphics, and a text requiring a 10th grade reading level. We measured the reading ability of 522 parents of pediatric patients from northwest Louisiana seen at public clinics (81%) and in a private office (19%). Of the entire group, 39% were white, 60% African-American, and 1% Hispanic; the mean age was 29 years; the mean highest grade completed was 12th grade 3 months; and the reading level was less than 9th grade in 47% of parents and less than 7th grade in 20%. After parents were given one of the pamphlets to read, their reading time, comprehension, and attitude toward the pamphlet were measured.
RESULTS: Mean comprehension was 15% lower for CDC than for LSU (56% vs 72% correct; P < .001) and reading time was three times longer for CDC than for LSU (13 minutes 47 seconds vs 4 minutes 20 seconds; P < .0001). These trends were significant for parents reading at all but the lowest levels. Mean comprehension and reading time did not differ among parents reading at the third grade level or less. However, mean comprehension was greater and reading time lower for LSU among parents at all reading abilities greater than the third grade. Parents in the private practice setting took the longest time to read the CDC (20 minutes 59 seconds vs 5 minutes 46 seconds, LSU), yet their comprehension on the LSU was significantly higher than on the CDC (94% vs 71%; P < .0001). Two focus groups of high-income parents were unanimous in preferring the LSU.
CONCLUSIONS: A short, simply written pamphlet with instructional graphics was preferred by high- and low-income parents seen in private and public clinics. The sixth grade reading level appears to be too high for many parents in public clinics; new materials aimed at third to fourth grade levels may be required. The new 1994 CDC immunization materials, written at the eighth grade level, may still be inappropriately high. The American medical community should adopt available techniques for the development of more effective patient-parent education materials.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8657518

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pediatrics        ISSN: 0031-4005            Impact factor:   7.124


  25 in total

Review 1.  Assembly and insertion of a self-fitting hearing aid: design of effective instruction materials.

Authors:  Andrea Caposecco; Louise Hickson; Carly Meyer
Journal:  Trends Amplif       Date:  2012-03-02

2.  "Teach to goal": theory and design principles of an intervention to improve heart failure self-management skills of patients with low health literacy.

Authors:  David W Baker; Darren A DeWalt; Dean Schillinger; Victoria Hawk; Bernice Ruo; Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; Morris Weinberger; Aurelia Macabasco-O'Connell; Michael Pignone
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2011

3.  Patient education strategies in dermatology: part 2: methods.

Authors:  Matthew J Zirwas; Jessica L Holder
Journal:  J Clin Aesthet Dermatol       Date:  2009-12

4.  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

5.  Parental understanding of infant health information: health literacy, numeracy, and the Parental Health Literacy Activities Test (PHLAT).

Authors:  Disha Kumar; Lee Sanders; Eliana M Perrin; Nicole Lokker; Baron Patterson; Veronica Gunn; Joanne Finkle; Vivian Franco; Leena Choi; Russell L Rothman
Journal:  Acad Pediatr       Date:  2010-08-02       Impact factor: 3.107

6.  Evaluating allied health inpatient rehabilitation educational materials in terms of health literacy.

Authors:  Elizabeth G Hunter; Mark Dignan; Sophia Shalash
Journal:  J Allied Health       Date:  2012

7.  Use of a modified informed consent process among vulnerable patients: a descriptive study.

Authors:  Rebecca L Sudore; C Seth Landefeld; Brie A Williams; Deborah E Barnes; Karla Lindquist; Dean Schillinger
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 8.  Interventions to improve health outcomes for patients with low literacy. A systematic review.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Darren A DeWalt; Stacey Sheridan; Nancy Berkman; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  "Greenlight study": a controlled trial of low-literacy, early childhood obesity prevention.

Authors:  Lee M Sanders; Eliana M Perrin; H Shonna Yin; Andrea Bronaugh; Russell L Rothman
Journal:  Pediatrics       Date:  2014-05-12       Impact factor: 7.124

10.  Associations Between Caregiver Health Literacy and Preschool Children's Secondhand Smoke Exposure.

Authors:  Josie S Welkom; Kristin A Riekert; Cynthia S Rand; Michelle N Eakin
Journal:  J Pediatr Psychol       Date:  2015-09-01
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.