Designing written patient information in primary dental care: The right tools for the job

Dental Update

Volumn 39, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 57-62

  Elledge, Ross O C ^a  

^a WORCESTERSHIRE ROYAL HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; COMPREHENSION; CULTURAL COMPETENCE; DENTAL PROCEDURE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; READING; STANDARD; TEACHING; WRITING;

CHECKLIST; COMPREHENSION; CULTURAL COMPETENCY; DENTAL CARE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PRIMARY HEALTH CARE; QUALITY CONTROL; READING; TEACHING MATERIALS; WRITING;

EID: 84864871605     PISSN: 03055000     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12968/denu.2012.39.1.57     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Moult M, Franck L, Brady H. Ensuring Quality Information for Patients: development and preliminary validation of a new instrument to improve the quality of written health care information. Health Expectations 2004; 7: 165-175.
2. O'Neill P, Humphris GM, Field EA. The use of an information leaflet for patients undergoing wisdom tooth removal. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 1996; 34: 331-334.
3. Patel JH, Moles DR, Cunningham SJ. Factors affecting information retention in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008; 133(4 Suppl): S61-S67.
4. Barkhordar A, Pollard D, Hobkirk JA. A comparison of written and multimedia material for informing patients about dental implants. Dent Update 2000; 27: 80-84.
5. Jackson C, Lindsay S. Reducing anxiety in new dental patients by means of leaflets. Br Dent J 1995; 179(5): 163-167.
6. Petti S, Scully C. Oral cancer knowledge and awareness: primary and secondary effects of an information leaflet. Oral Oncol 2007; 43(4): 408-415.
7. Department of Health. Toolkit for Producing Patient Information, 2003. Crown copyright, 2003.
8. General Medical Council. Seeking Patients' Consent: The Ethical Considerations. GMC, 2001.
9. Lewis MA, Newton JT. An evaluation of the quality of commercially produced patient information leaflets. Br Dent J 2006; 201(2): 114-117.
10. Nicholls S, Hankins M, Hooley C, Smith H. A survey of the quality and accuracy of information leaflets about skin cancer and sun-protective behaviour available from UK general practices and community pharmacies. J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2009; 23(5): 566-569.
11. O'Brien I, Lambie L, Stacy-Baynes S. Is quality cancer information available for consumers in New Zealand? A national stocktake and review of written consumer cancer information. N Z Med J 2009; 122(1294): 23-32.
12. Charvet-Berard AI, Chopard P, Perneger TV. Measuring quality of patient information documents with an expanded EQIP scale. Patient Educ Couns 2008; 70(3): 407-411.
13. DISCERN project team. The DISCERN Handbook. University of Oxford and The British Library, 1998.
14. Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R. DISCERN: An instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999; 53(2): 105-111.
15. Charnock D, Shepperd S. Learning to DISCERN online: applying an appraisal tool to health websites in a workshop setting. Health Educ Res 2004; 19(4): 440-446.
16. DISCERN online [home page on the Internet]. Available from http://www. discern.org.uk.
17. Carey S, Low S, Hansbro J. Adult Literacy in Britain. Summary of Key Findings London, UK: Office of National Statistics (ONS) Social Survey Division, 1997.
18. Freimuth VS, Mettger W. Is there a hardto-reach audience? Public Health Rep 1990; 105(3): 232-238.
19. Meade C, Smith C. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns 1991; 17: 153-158.
20. Paz SH, Liu H, Fongwa MN, Morales LS, Hays RD. Readability estimates for commonly used health-related quality of life surveys. Qual Life Res 2009; 18(7): 889-900.
21. McLaughlin HG. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Read 1969; 12: 642-646.
22. Estey A, Musseau A, Keehn L. Comprehension levels of patients reading health information. Patient Educ Couns 1991; 18: 165-169.
23. Calderon JL, Morales LS, Liu H, Hays RD. Variation in the readability of items within surveys. Am J Med Qual 2006; 21: 49-56.
24. Bailin A, Grafstein A. The linguistic assumptions underlying readability formulae: a critique. Lang Commun 2001; 21: 285-301.
25. Fry EB. Reading formulas: maligned but valid. J Read 1989; 32: 292-297.
26. Hoffman-Goetz L, Friedman DB. A systematic review of culturally sensitive cancer prevention resources for ethnic minorities. Ethn Dis 2006; 16(4): 971-977.
27. Elledge RO, Khazaee-Farid R, Walker RJ, Sundaram K, Monaghan A. A librarybased ecological study to investigate the contribution of ethnicity to the incidence of oral cancer within health authorities in England and Wales. Br J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2010 Jan 19 [Epub ahead of print].
28. Resnicow K, Baranowski T, Ahluwalia JS, Braithwaite RL. Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified. Ethn Dis 1999; 9: 10-21.
29. Guidry JJ, Larke P, Walker VD, Fagan P, McDowell T, Cormeaux S. Cancer prevention materials for African Americans: cultural sensitivity assessment tool manual. College Station (TX): Texas Cancer Council, 1996.
30. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. Assessment of cultural sensitivity of cancer information in ethnic print media. J Health Commun 2006; 11(4): 425-447.