Cargando…

How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences

We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincai...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Lagassé, Lisa P., Rimal, Rajiv N., Smith, Katherine C., Storey, J. Douglas, Rhoades, Elizabeth, Barnett, Daniel J., Omer, Saad B., Links, Jonathan
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Public Library of Science 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3201941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22039401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023583
_version_ 1782214952582381568
author Lagassé, Lisa P.
Rimal, Rajiv N.
Smith, Katherine C.
Storey, J. Douglas
Rhoades, Elizabeth
Barnett, Daniel J.
Omer, Saad B.
Links, Jonathan
author_facet Lagassé, Lisa P.
Rimal, Rajiv N.
Smith, Katherine C.
Storey, J. Douglas
Rhoades, Elizabeth
Barnett, Daniel J.
Omer, Saad B.
Links, Jonathan
author_sort Lagassé, Lisa P.
collection PubMed
description We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) measure assessed literacy level for each group of documents. ANOVA models tested for differences in FK scores across target audiences and over time. Readability was assessed for documents targeting non-technical audiences using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Overall, there was a main-effect by audience, F(5, 82) = 29.72, P<.001, but FK scores did not vary over time, F(2, 82) = .34, P>.05. A time-by-audience interaction was significant, F(10, 82) = 2.11, P<.05. Documents targeting non-technical audiences were found to be text-heavy and densely-formatted. The vocabulary and writing style were found to adequately reflect audience needs. The reading level of CDC guidance documents about H1N1/09 influenza varied appropriately according to the intended audience; sub-optimal formatting and layout may have rendered some text difficult to comprehend.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3201941
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Public Library of Science
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-32019412011-10-28 How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences Lagassé, Lisa P. Rimal, Rajiv N. Smith, Katherine C. Storey, J. Douglas Rhoades, Elizabeth Barnett, Daniel J. Omer, Saad B. Links, Jonathan PLoS One Research Article We assessed the literacy level and readability of online communications about H1N1/09 influenza issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) during the first month of outbreak. Documents were classified as targeting one of six audiences ranging in technical expertise. Flesch-Kincaid (FK) measure assessed literacy level for each group of documents. ANOVA models tested for differences in FK scores across target audiences and over time. Readability was assessed for documents targeting non-technical audiences using the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM). Overall, there was a main-effect by audience, F(5, 82) = 29.72, P<.001, but FK scores did not vary over time, F(2, 82) = .34, P>.05. A time-by-audience interaction was significant, F(10, 82) = 2.11, P<.05. Documents targeting non-technical audiences were found to be text-heavy and densely-formatted. The vocabulary and writing style were found to adequately reflect audience needs. The reading level of CDC guidance documents about H1N1/09 influenza varied appropriately according to the intended audience; sub-optimal formatting and layout may have rendered some text difficult to comprehend. Public Library of Science 2011-10-25 /pmc/articles/PMC3201941/ /pubmed/22039401 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023583 Text en Lagassé et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Lagassé, Lisa P.
Rimal, Rajiv N.
Smith, Katherine C.
Storey, J. Douglas
Rhoades, Elizabeth
Barnett, Daniel J.
Omer, Saad B.
Links, Jonathan
How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
title How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
title_full How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
title_fullStr How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
title_full_unstemmed How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
title_short How Accessible Was Information about H1N1 Flu? Literacy Assessments of CDC Guidance Documents for Different Audiences
title_sort how accessible was information about h1n1 flu? literacy assessments of cdc guidance documents for different audiences
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3201941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22039401
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0023583
work_keys_str_mv AT lagasselisap howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT rimalrajivn howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT smithkatherinec howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT storeyjdouglas howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT rhoadeselizabeth howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT barnettdanielj howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT omersaadb howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences
AT linksjonathan howaccessiblewasinformationabouth1n1fluliteracyassessmentsofcdcguidancedocumentsfordifferentaudiences