Readability and Patient Education Materials Used for Low-Income Populations
Readability and Patient Education Materials Used for Low-Income Populations
复制标题
DOI：
10.1097/01.nur.0000343079.50214.31
复制
发表时间：
2009-01-01
影响因子：
1.2
通讯作者：
Wilson, Meg
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Wilson, Meg
超过9000万美国人的健康素养水平较低，这可能导致健康状况不佳。评估患者教育材料的可读性是健康教育的重要组成部分。目的：本研究的目的是描述服务于低收入人群的社区卫生保健机构中使用的PEMs的可读性，以进一步了解健康素养的复杂领域。设计：本研究采用描述性、相关性和非实验性设计。环境：本研究的环境是在中西部城市地区的5个免费和低成本的社区诊所。样本：由专业来源（政府机构、制药公司和州/国家组织）或供应商制作的35个独特的药品管理文件组成最终样本。方法：采用简单的Gobbledygook量表（SMOG）、Flesch- kincaid量表和Flesch- Reading Ease量表测量可读性。通过t检验和Spearman p相关性确定显著性。结果：使用所有测量方法都注意到年级水平的变化。平均Flesch-Kincaid评分水平为7.01，烟雾评分为9.89。Flesch Reading Ease的平均水平为63.40，估计是八年级和九年级的水平。雾霾一直比弗莱什-金凯高出2到4个等级。专业开发的PEMs在使用SMOG和Flesch- kincaid时的阅读水平都有显著提高，而使用Flesch reading Ease时的阅读难度比由个体提供者编写的PEMs要高。结论：患者教育材料的写作水平对于一般成年人来说太高了。应仔细分析所有的pem，以确保它们达到建议的五年级水平。进一步了解现有的可读性措施对于建立和（或）评估可加强安全网提供者服务并支持积极健康结果的公共服务机制至关重要。启示：护士必须扩大他们的知识素养和可读性的各个方面，并采取积极主动的作用，评估和发展的PEMs。需要进一步的研究来确定最佳的可读性措施。
More than 90 million Americans have low levels of health literacy that may contribute to poor health outcomes. Assessment of the readability of patient education materials (PEMs) is a vital component of health education. Purpose: The aim of this study was to describe the readability of PEMs used in community healthcare settings serving low-income populations to provide further insight into the complex area of health literacy. Design: A descriptive, correlational, and nonexperimental design was used for this study. Setting: The setting for this study was 5 free and low-cost community clinics in a Midwestern urban area. Sample: Thirty-five unique PEMs produced by professional sources (government agencies, drug companies, and state/national organizations) or by providers comprised the final sample. Methods: Readability was measured using Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Flesch-Kincaid, and Flesch Reading Ease. Significance was determined through t tests and Spearman p correlations. Findings: Variability in grade levels was noted using all measures. Mean Flesch-Kincaid grade level was 7.01, and that for SMOG was 9.89. Mean level for Flesch Reading Ease was 63.40, an estimated eighth and ninth grade level. The SMOG consistently measured 2 to 4 grades levels higher than did Flesh-Kincaid. Professionally developed PEMs had significantly higher reading levels using both SMOG and Flesch-Kincaid and were more difficult to read using Flesch Reading Ease when compared with those prepared by individual providers. Conclusions: Patient education materials were written at a level too high for the average adult. All PEMs should be analyzed carefully to ensure that they are at the recommended fifth grade level. Further understanding of available measures of readability is critical in the creation and/or assessment of PEMs that will strengthen services from safety net providers and support positive health outcomes. Implications: Nurses must expand their knowledge of all aspects of literacy and readability and take a proactive role in assessment and development of PEMs. Further research is needed to determine the best readability measures.