Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T04:27:27.419Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Unsuitable readability levels of patient information pertaining to dementia and related diseases: a comparative analysis

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 June 2008

Markus Weih ,
Angelika Reinhold ,
Tanja Richter-Schmidinger ,
Anne-Kathrin Sulimma ,
Harald Klein  and
Johannes Kornhuber
Markus Weih*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Angelika Reinhold
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Tanja Richter-Schmidinger
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Anne-Kathrin Sulimma
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
Harald Klein
Affiliation:
Department of Social Sciences, University of Osnabrück, Germany
Johannes Kornhuber
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany
*
Correspondence should be addressed to: Professor Markus Weih, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Erlangen-Nuremberg, Schwabachanlage 6, 91054 Erlangen, Germany. Phone: +49 9131 854-4698; Fax.: +49 9131 854-4196. Email: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Our study investigated the readability of printed material about dementia that is offered to patients and caregivers.

Methods: Comparisons of various brochures (at least three standard pages in length) on dementia and related disorders were made using automated measuring by the SMOG readability index grade.

Results: 118 brochures were assessed (25 in English, 93 in German), for which the mean readability was found to be high school/college level as measured by the SMOG readability index (grade 13.6 ± 1.8). No differences in readability were observed between materials produced by pharmaceutical companies and other sources. Furthermore, recently published brochures were not more readable than older ones. Shorter brochures, English brochures and those containing medical facts were easier to read than longer ones, those written in German or brochures primarily addressing psychosocial care/social issues. The sentence length was above the 20 word recommendation in 25% of the brochures. The average font size of the brochure texts was small (mean font size 11.1 ± 1.6 point) with only 25% of brochures having a font size of 12 or more, as recommended.

Conclusions: Written patient information and educational material of more than three standard pages is often published at unsuitably high readability levels using small fonts. Information material about dementia should be designed and tested prior to distribution among patients and caregivers. Future studies should address material shorter than three pages and material for younger caregivers.

Keywords

Alzheimer's diseasepsycho educationpatient communication
Type
Research Article
Information
International Psychogeriatrics , Volume 20 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 1116 - 1123
Copyright
Copyright © International Psychogeriatric Association 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bachmann, C. (2007). Testen Sie Ihren Text! Textanalyse. http://leichtlesbar.chGoogle Scholar
Beaman, K. (1984). Coordination and subordination revisited: syntactic complexity in spoken and written narrative discourse. In Tannen, D. (ed.), Coherence in Spoken and Written Discourse (pp. 45–80). Norwood NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Coleman, E. B. (1964). The comprehensibility of several grammatical transformations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 48, 186–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chesson, A. L. Jr., Murphy, P. W., Arnold, C. L. and Davis, T. C. (1998). Presentation and reading level of sleep brochures: are they appropriate for sleep disorder patients? Sleep, 21, 406–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, T. C., Crouch, M. A., Wills, G., Miller, S. and Abdehou, D. M. (1990). The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. Journal of Family Practice, 31, 533–538.Google Scholar
Davis, T. C., Mayeaux, E. J., Fredrickson, D., Bocchini, J. A. Jr., Jackson, R. H. and Murphy, P. W. (1994). Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics, 93, 460–468.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Estrada, C. A., Hrfyniewicz, M. M., Higgs, V. B., Collins, C. and Byrd, J. C. (2000). Anticoagulant patient information material is written at high readability levels. Stroke, 31, 2966–2970.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
EU (1998). Guideline on Readability of the Label and Package Leaflet of Medical Products for Human Use. EU Guideline 92/27/EEC Council Directive. Brussels: European Commission.Google Scholar
Flesch, R. (1948). A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 32, 221–233.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galloway, G., Murphy, P., Chesson, A. L. and Martinez, K. (2003). MDA and AAEM informational brochures: can patients read them? Journal of the American Association of Neuroscience Nurses, 35, 171–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gunning, R. (1952). The Technique of Clear Writing. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Hearth-Holmes, M. et al. (1997). Literacy in patients with a chronic disease: systemic lupus erythematosus and the reading level of patient education materials. Journal of Rheumatology, 24, 2335–2339.Google ScholarPubMed
Klein, H. (2004). TextQuest Version 1.9: German Handbook for Text Analysis.Google Scholar
Kubba, H. (2000). Reading skills of otolaryngology outpatients: implications for information provision. Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 114, 694–696.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mader, T. J. and Playe, S. J. (1997). Emergency medicine research consent form readability assessment. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 29, 534–539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McLaughlin, G. (1969). SMOG grading: a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 12, 639–646.Google Scholar
National Literacy Trust (2008). http://www.literacytrust.org.uk/campaign/SMOG.htmlGoogle Scholar
Paasche-Orlow, M. K., Taylor, H. A. and Brancati, F. L. (2003). Readability standards for informed-consent forms as compared with actual readability. New England Journal of Medicine, 348, 721–726.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Powers, R. D. (1988). Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed materials. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 17, 124–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, H., Gooding, S., Brown, R. and Frew, A. (1998). Evaluation of readability and accuracy of information leaflets in general practice for patients with asthma. BMJ, 317, 264–265.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vanderplas, J. V. and Vanderplas, J. H. (1980). Some factors affecting legibility of printed materials for older adults. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 50, 923–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, B. D. and Palmer, R. (2004). Relationship between health care costs and very low literacy skills in a medically needy and indigent Medicaid population. Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, 17, 44–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiss, B. D., Hart, G. and Pust, R. E. (1991). The relationship between literacy and health. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 1, 351–363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weiss, B. D. et al. (1994). Illiteracy among Medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved, 5, 99–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Zakaluk, B. L. and Samuels, S. J. (1988). Readability: Its Past, Present and Future. Newark, NJ: International Reading Association.Google Scholar