Evaluation of the readability of acog patient education pamphlets

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Volumn 93, Issue 5, 1999, Pages 771-774

  FREDA, MARGARET COMERFORD ^a   DAMUS, KARLA ^a   MERKATZ, IRWIN R ^a  

^a ALBERT EINSTEIN COLLEGE OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; MATERNAL CARE; MEDICAL LITERATURE; NORMAL HUMAN; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; READING;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; EVALUATION STUDIES; FEMALE; GYNECOLOGY; HUMANS; INFANT, NEWBORN; MIDDLE AGED; OBSTETRICS; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION; PREGNANCY; PRENATAL CARE; READING;

EID: 0032926407     PISSN: 00297844     EISSN: 1873233X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/s0029-7844(98)00518-3     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. U.S. Public Health Service. Caring for our future: The content of prenatal care. Washington DC: U.S. Government Publication Office, 1989.
2. Doak C, Doak L, Root J. Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd ed. New York, New York: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996.
3. Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Fam Pract 1990;31:533-8.
4. Miller B, Bodie M. Determination of reading comprehension levels for effective patient education materials. Nurs Res 1994;43:118-9.
5. Jackson RH, Davis TC, Bairnsfather LE, George RB, Crouch MA, Gault H. Patient reading ability: An overlooked problem in health care. South Med J 1991;84:1172-5.
6. Foltz A, Sullivan J. Reading level, learning presentation preference, and desire for information among cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 1996;11:32-8.
7. Williams MV, Parker RM, Baker DW, Parikh NS, Pitkin K, Coates WC, et al. Inadequate functional health literacy among patients at two public hospitals. JAMA 1995;274:1677-82.
8. Redman BK. The process of patient education, 8th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Year Book Inc., 1997.
9. Meade CD, Byrd JC, Lee M. Improving patient comprehension of literature on smoking. Am J Public Health 1989;79:1411-2.
10. Olson AV. A question of reading validity. J Res Dev Educ 1986;19:33-40.
11. Calabro K, Taylor WC, Kapadia A. Pregnancy, alcohol use and the effectiveness of written health education materials. Patient Educ Counseling 1996;2:301-9.
12. Klare GR. Readability. In: Person D, ed. Handbook of reading research. New York: Longman, 1984:681-744.
13. Meade CD, Smith CF. Readability formulas: Cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Counseling 1991;17:153-8.
14. Zion AB, Aiman J. Level of reading difficulty in the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists patient education pamphlets. Obstet Gynecol 1989;74:955-60.
15. Fry E. Fry readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extensions to level 17. J Reading 1977;12:242-52.
16. Fusaro JA. Applying statistical rigor to a validation study of the Fry readability graph. Reading Res Instruction 1988;28:44-8.
17. Flesch R. The art of readable writing. New York, New York: Harper & Row, 1974.
18. Gunning R, Kallan R. How to take the fog out of business writing. Chicago, Illinois: Dartnell, 1994.
19. McLaughlin GH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading 1969;12:639-46.
20. Mathews MS, Ventura AM. Birth and fertility rates by educational attainment: United States, 1994. Monthly Vital Statistics Report NCHS 45 (10) Supplement April 24, 1997.
21. Arthur VA. Written patient information: A review of the literature. J Adv Nurs 1995;21:1081-6.
22. Estey A, Musseau A, Keehn L. Patient's understanding of health information: A multihospital comparison. Patient Educ Counseling 1994;24:73-8.
23. Ott BB, Hardie TL. Readability of advance directive documents. Image J Nurs Sch 1997;29:53-7.
24. Cooley ME, Moriarty H, Berger MS, Selm-Orr D, Coyle B, Short T. Patient literacy and the readability of written cancer educational materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 1995;22:1345-51.
25. Sarna L, Ganley BJ. A survey of lung cancer patient education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 1995;22:1545-50.
26. Dowe MC, Lawrence PA, Carlson J, Keyserling TC. Patients' use of health-teaching materials at three readability levels. Appl Nurs Res 1997;10:86-93.
27. Meade CD, Howser DM. Consent forms: How to determine and improve readability. Oncol Nurs Forum 1992;19:1523-8.