Using the Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit to Improve the Quality of Patient Materials

被引:69
作者
Brega, Angela G. [1 ,2 ]
Freedman, Megan A. G. [1 ]
LeBlanc, William G. [2 ]
Barnard, Juliana [3 ]
Mabachi, Natabhona M. [4 ,5 ]
Cifuentes, Maribel [2 ]
Albright, Karen [1 ,3 ]
Weiss, Barry D. [6 ]
Brach, Cindy [7 ]
West, David R. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Colorado Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Community & Behav Hlth, Aurora, CO 80045 USA
[2] Univ Colorado, Dept Family Med, Aurora, CO USA
[3] Univ Colorado, Adult & Child Ctr Hlth Outcomes Res & Delivery Sc, Aurora, CO USA
[4] Amer Acad Family Phys, Kansas City, KS USA
[5] Univ Kansas, Med Ctr, Dept Family Med, Kansas City, KS 66103 USA
[6] Univ Arizona, Dept Family & Community Med, Tucson, AZ USA
[7] Agcy Healthcare Res & Qual, Ctr Delivery Org & Mkt, Rockville, MD USA
基金
美国医疗保健研究与质量局;
关键词
READABILITY; PRINT; INFORMATION;
D O I
10.1080/10810730.2015.1081997
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
Patient materials are often written above the reading level of most adults. Tool 11 of the Health Literacy Universal Precautions Toolkit ("Design Easy-to-Read Material") provides guidance on ensuring that written patient materials are easy to understand. As part of a pragmatic demonstration of the Toolkit, we examined how four primary care practices implemented Tool 11 and whether written materials improved as a result. We conducted interviews to learn about practices' implementation activities and assessed the readability, understandability, and actionability of patient education materials collected during pre- and postimplementation site visits. Interview data indicated that practices followed many action steps recommended in Tool 11, including training staff, assessing readability, and developing or revising materials, typically focusing on brief documents such as patient letters and information sheets. Many of the revised and newly developed documents had reading levels appropriate for most patients andin the case of revised documentsbetter readability than the original materials. In contrast, the readability, understandability, and actionability of lengthier patient education materials were poor and did not improve over the 6-month implementation period. Findings guided revisions to Tool 11 and highlighted the importance of engaging multiple stakeholders in improving the quality of patient materials.
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 76
页数:8
相关论文
共 30 条
[1]   Readability of ASPS and ASAPS Educational Web Sites: An Analysis of Consumer Impact [J].
Aliu, Oluseyi ;
Chung, Kevin C. .
PLASTIC AND RECONSTRUCTIVE SURGERY, 2010, 125 (04) :1271-1278
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2010, AHRQ Publication
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2003, HLTH LIT AM ADULTS R
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1999, DOING QUAL RES
[5]   Residents' ability to identify patients with poor literacy skills [J].
Bass, PF ;
Wilson, JF ;
Griffith, CH ;
Barnett, DR .
ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2002, 77 (10) :1039-1041
[6]  
Brega A. G., 2015, AHRQ HLTH LIT UNIVER
[7]  
Breitmayer B J, 1993, Image J Nurs Sch, V25, P237, DOI 10.1111/j.1547-5069.1993.tb00788.x
[8]  
Charmaz K., 2014, BROKERAGE CLOSURE
[9]  
Doak C.H., 1996, Teaching patients with low literacy skills
[10]   A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information [J].
Friedman, Daniela B. ;
Hoffman-Goetz, Laurie .
HEALTH EDUCATION & BEHAVIOR, 2006, 33 (03) :352-373