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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |