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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nash, Elizabeth, Bickerstaff, Matthew, Chetwynd, Andrew J., Hawcutt, Daniel B., Oni, Louise
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