Purpose: Millions of adults lack adequate reading skills and many written patient education materials do not reflect national guidelines for readability and suitability of materials, resulting in barriers to patients being partners in their own health care. The purpose of this study was to evaluate commonly used printed health materials for readability and suitability for patients with limited general or health literacy skills, while providing easy recommendations to health care providers for how to improve the materials.
Methods: Materials (N = 97) from three clinical areas that represented excellence in nursing care in our organization (stroke, cancer, and maternal-child) were reviewed for a composite reading grade level and a Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) score.
Results: Twenty-eight percent of the materials were at a 9th grade or higher reading level, and only 23% were 5th grade or below. The SAM ratings for not suitable, adequate, and superior were 11%, 58%, and 31%, respectively. Few materials were superior on both scales. The SAM scale was easy to use and required little training of reviewers to achieve interrater reliability.
Conclusions: Improving outcomes and reducing health disparities are increasingly important, and patients must be partners in their care for this to occur. One step to increasing patient understanding of written instructions is improving the quality of the materials in the instruction for all patients and their families, especially those with limited literacy skills.
Clinical relevance: Using materials that are written in a manner that facilitates the uptake and use of patient education content has great potential to improve the ability of patients and families to be partners in care and to improve outcomes, especially for those patients and families with limited general literacy or health literacy skills.
Keywords: Health literacy; health communication; patient education; reading level; suitability of materials.
© 2014 Sigma Theta Tau International.
Williams AM, Muir KW, Rosdahl JA. Williams AM, et al. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016 Aug 3;16:133. doi: 10.1186/s12886-016-0315-0. BMC Ophthalmol. 2016. PMID: 27487960 Free PMC article. Review.
Rhee RL, Von Feldt JM, Schumacher HR, Merkel PA. Rhee RL, et al. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013 Oct;65(10):1702-6. doi: 10.1002/acr.22046. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2013. PMID: 23687011
Tian C, Champlin S, Mackert M, Lazard A, Agrawal D. Tian C, et al. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014 Aug;80(2):284-90. doi: 10.1016/j.gie.2014.01.034. Epub 2014 Mar 25. Gastrointest Endosc. 2014. PMID: 24674352
Hoffmann T, McKenna K. Hoffmann T, et al. Patient Educ Couns. 2006 Mar;60(3):286-93. doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.020. Epub 2005 Aug 10. Patient Educ Couns. 2006. PMID: 16098708
Morony S, Flynn M, McCaffery KJ, Jansen J, Webster AC. Morony S, et al. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015 Jun;65(6):842-50. doi: 10.1053/j.ajkd.2014.11.025. Epub 2015 Feb 4. Am J Kidney Dis. 2015. PMID: 25661679 Review.
Martins MV, Koert E, Sylvest R, Maeda E, Moura-Ramos M, Hammarberg K, Harper J. Martins MV, et al. Hum Reprod. 2024 Feb 1;39(2):293-302. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dead253. Hum Reprod. 2024. PMID: 38088127 Free PMC article.
Wang YN, Heidl AJ, Angeles PM, Farnesi BC, Alberga AS, Cohen TR. Wang YN, et al. PEC Innov. 2023 Feb 24;2:100143. doi: 10.1016/j.pecinn.2023.100143. eCollection 2023 Dec. PEC Innov. 2023. PMID: 37214509 Free PMC article.
Chang MC, Yu JH, Hsieh JG, Wei MH, Wang YW. Chang MC, et al. Med Educ Online. 2023 Dec;28(1):2173042. doi: 10.1080/10872981.2023.2173042. Med Educ Online. 2023. PMID: 36718508 Free PMC article.
Knottnerus B, Heijmans M, Rademakers J. Knottnerus B, et al. BMC Prim Care. 2022 May 11;23(1):115. doi: 10.1186/s12875-022-01723-w. BMC Prim Care. 2022. PMID: 35546226 Free PMC article.
Adefolarin AO, Gershim A. Adefolarin AO, et al. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022 Apr 15;22(1):322. doi: 10.1186/s12884-022-04575-5. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2022. PMID: 35428198 Free PMC article.