An analysis of the readability characteristics of oral health information literature available to the public in Tasmania, Australia

被引:13
作者
Barnett, Tony [1 ]
Hoang, Ha [1 ]
Furlan, Ashlea [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Tasmania, Ctr Rural Hlth, Locked Bag 1322, Launceston, Tas 7250, Australia
[2] Oral Hlth Serv Tasmania, Northern Dent Ctr, 2 Kelham St, Launceston, Tas 7250, Australia
关键词
Oral health; Health education and promotion materials; Dental; Health literacy; Readability; PATIENT EDUCATION MATERIALS; CARIES;
D O I
10.1186/s12903-016-0196-x
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background: The effectiveness of print-based health promotion materials is dependent on their readability. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of print-based oral health information literature publically available in Tasmania, Australia. Methods: Oral health education brochures were collected from 11 dental clinics across Tasmania and assessed for structure and format, content and readability. Reading level was calculated using three widely-used measures: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) reading grade level. Results: The FKGL of the 67 brochures sampled ranged from grade 3 to 13. The grade level for government health department brochures (n = 14) ranged from grade 4 to 11 (5.6 +/- 1.8). Reading levels for materials produced by commercial sources (n = 22) ranged from 3 to 13 (8.3 +/- 2.1), those from professional associations (n = 22) ranged from grade 7 to 11 (8.9 +/- 0.9) and brochures produced by other sources (n = 9) ranged from 5 to 10 (7.6 +/- 1.5). The SMOG test was positively correlated with the FKGL (r(s) = 0.92, p < 0.001) though consistently rated materials 2-3 grades higher. The reading level required to comprehend brochures published by government sources were, on average, lower than those from commercial, professional and other sources. Government materials were also more likely to contain fewer words and professional jargon terms than brochures from the other sources. Conclusion: A range of oral health information brochures were publically available for patients in both public and private dental clinics. However, their readability characteristics differed. Many brochures required a reading skill level higher than that suited to a large proportion of the Tasmanian population. Readability and other characteristics of oral health education materials should be assessed to ensure their suitability for use with patients, especially those suspected of having low literacy skills.
引用
收藏
页数:11
相关论文
共 26 条
[1]   Readability of patient education materials: Implications for clinical practice [J].
Albright, J ;
deGuzman, C ;
Acebo, P ;
Paiva, D ;
Faulkner, M ;
Swanson, J .
APPLIED NURSING RESEARCH, 1996, 9 (03) :139-143
[2]   Readability of published rental educational materials [J].
Alexander, RE .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION, 2000, 131 (07) :937-942
[3]  
Amini H, 2007, PEDIATR DENT, V29, P431
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1975, Technical Report
[5]  
[Anonymous], 2004, HLTH LITERACY PRESCR
[6]  
[Anonymous], 2008, AD LIT LIF SKILLS SU
[7]   How readable are Australian paediatric oral health education materials? [J].
Arora, Amit ;
Lam, Andy S. F. ;
Karami, Zahra ;
Do, Loc Giang ;
Harris, Mark Fort .
BMC ORAL HEALTH, 2014, 14
[8]   'What do these words mean?': A qualitative approach to explore oral health literacy in Vietnamese immigrant mothers in Australia [J].
Arora, Amit ;
Nguyen, Deon ;
Quang Vinh Do ;
Bao Nguyen ;
Hilton, Glen ;
Do, Loc Giang ;
Bhole, Sameer .
HEALTH EDUCATION JOURNAL, 2014, 73 (03) :303-312
[9]   'I can't relate it to teeth': a qualitative approach to evaluate oral health education materials for preschool children in New South Wales, Australia [J].
Arora, Amit ;
McNab, Michelle A. ;
Lewis, Matthew W. ;
Hilton, Glen ;
Blinkhorn, Anthony S. ;
Schwarz, Eli .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PAEDIATRIC DENTISTRY, 2012, 22 (04) :302-309
[10]   Assessing Readability of Patient Education Materials: Current Role in Orthopaedics [J].
Badarudeen, Sameer ;
Sabharwal, Sanjeev .
CLINICAL ORTHOPAEDICS AND RELATED RESEARCH, 2010, 468 (10) :2572-2580