Cargando…
The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies
BACKGROUND: Poor literacy can impact achieving optimal health outcomes. The aim of this project was to assess the readability of parent information leaflets (PILs). METHODS: A single-centre study using paediatric PILs. Five readability tests were applied (Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of G...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group US
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10444605/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37120650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02608-z |
_version_ | 1785093984867057664 |
---|---|
author | Nash, Elizabeth Bickerstaff, Matthew Chetwynd, Andrew J. Hawcutt, Daniel B. Oni, Louise |
author_facet | Nash, Elizabeth Bickerstaff, Matthew Chetwynd, Andrew J. Hawcutt, Daniel B. Oni, Louise |
author_sort | Nash, Elizabeth |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Poor literacy can impact achieving optimal health outcomes. The aim of this project was to assess the readability of parent information leaflets (PILs). METHODS: A single-centre study using paediatric PILs. Five readability tests were applied (Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI) and Automated Readability Index (ARI)). Results were compared to standards and by subtype. RESULTS: A total of 109 PILs were obtained; mean (±SD) number of characters was 14,365 (±12,055), total words 3066 (±2541), number of sentences 153 (±112), lexical density 49 (±3), number of characters per word 4.7 (±0.1), number of syllables per word 1.6 (±0.1) and number of words per sentence 19.1 (±2.5). The Flesch reading ease score was 51.1 (±5.6), equating to reading age 16–17 years. The mean PIL readability scores were GFI (12.18), SMOG (11.94), FKGL (10.89), CLI (10.08) and ARI (10.1). There were 0 (0%) PILs classed as easy (score <6), 21 (19%) mid-range (6–10) and 88 (81%) were difficult (>10). They were significantly above the recommended reading age (p < 0.0001) and commercial studies were least accessible (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Existing PILs are above the national reading level. Researchers should use readability tools to ensure that they are accessible. IMPACT: Poor literacy is a barrier to accessing research and achieving good health outcomes. Current parent information leaflets are pitched far higher than the national reading age. This study provides data to demonstrate the reading age of a large portfolio of research studies. This work raises awareness of literacy as a barrier to research participation and provides tips on how to improve the readability of patient information leaflets to guide investigators. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-10444605 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2023 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group US |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-104446052023-08-24 The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies Nash, Elizabeth Bickerstaff, Matthew Chetwynd, Andrew J. Hawcutt, Daniel B. Oni, Louise Pediatr Res Clinical Research Article BACKGROUND: Poor literacy can impact achieving optimal health outcomes. The aim of this project was to assess the readability of parent information leaflets (PILs). METHODS: A single-centre study using paediatric PILs. Five readability tests were applied (Gunning Fog Index (GFI), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Coleman–Liau Index (CLI) and Automated Readability Index (ARI)). Results were compared to standards and by subtype. RESULTS: A total of 109 PILs were obtained; mean (±SD) number of characters was 14,365 (±12,055), total words 3066 (±2541), number of sentences 153 (±112), lexical density 49 (±3), number of characters per word 4.7 (±0.1), number of syllables per word 1.6 (±0.1) and number of words per sentence 19.1 (±2.5). The Flesch reading ease score was 51.1 (±5.6), equating to reading age 16–17 years. The mean PIL readability scores were GFI (12.18), SMOG (11.94), FKGL (10.89), CLI (10.08) and ARI (10.1). There were 0 (0%) PILs classed as easy (score <6), 21 (19%) mid-range (6–10) and 88 (81%) were difficult (>10). They were significantly above the recommended reading age (p < 0.0001) and commercial studies were least accessible (p < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Existing PILs are above the national reading level. Researchers should use readability tools to ensure that they are accessible. IMPACT: Poor literacy is a barrier to accessing research and achieving good health outcomes. Current parent information leaflets are pitched far higher than the national reading age. This study provides data to demonstrate the reading age of a large portfolio of research studies. This work raises awareness of literacy as a barrier to research participation and provides tips on how to improve the readability of patient information leaflets to guide investigators. Nature Publishing Group US 2023-04-29 2023 /pmc/articles/PMC10444605/ /pubmed/37120650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02608-z Text en © Crown 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Clinical Research Article Nash, Elizabeth Bickerstaff, Matthew Chetwynd, Andrew J. Hawcutt, Daniel B. Oni, Louise The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
title | The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
title_full | The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
title_fullStr | The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
title_full_unstemmed | The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
title_short | The readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
title_sort | readability of parent information leaflets in paediatric studies |
topic | Clinical Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10444605/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37120650 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41390-023-02608-z |
work_keys_str_mv | AT nashelizabeth thereadabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT bickerstaffmatthew thereadabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT chetwyndandrewj thereadabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT hawcuttdanielb thereadabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT onilouise thereadabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT nashelizabeth readabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT bickerstaffmatthew readabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT chetwyndandrewj readabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT hawcuttdanielb readabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies AT onilouise readabilityofparentinformationleafletsinpaediatricstudies |