A framework for the evaluation of patient information leaflets

Health Expectations

Volumn 15, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 283-294

  Garner, Mark ^a   Ning, Zhenye ^b   Francis, Jill ^c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

^b NORTHWEST NORMAL UNIVERSITY   (China)

^c UNIVERSITY OF ABERDEEN   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Evaluation; Framework; Linguistics; Patient information leaflets; Theoretical model; Written communication

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPREHENSION; HUMAN; INTERPERSONAL COMMUNICATION; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT EDUCATION; PUBLICATION; READING;

COMMUNICATION; COMPREHENSION; HUMANS; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; READING;

EID: 84865389558     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2011.00665.x     Document Type: Article

References (51)

1. Department of Health. The information standard, 2010. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/PatientChoice/BetterInformationChoicesHealth/Informationstandard/index.htm, accessed 3 February 2010.
2. Department of Health. The information accreditation scheme, 2010. Available at: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/PatientChoice/BetterInformationChoicesHealth/Informationaccreditation/index.htm, accessed 3 February 2010.
3. Moult B, Franck LS, 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.
4. Ley P, Florio T. The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychology, Health and Medicine, 1996; 1: 7-28.
5. Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N. Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Cancer Control, 2009; 16: 70-78.
6. Sarma M, Alpers JH, Prideaux DJ, Kroemer DJ. The comprehensibility of Australian educational literature for patients with asthma. Medical Journal of Australia, 1995; 162: 360-363.
7. Shrank W, Avorn J, Rolon C, Shekelle P. Effect of content and format of prescription drug labels on readability, understanding and medication use: a systematic review. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2007; 41: 783-801.
8. Ordovas Baines JP, Lopez Briz E, Urbieta Sanz E, Torregrosa Sanchez R, Jimenez Torres NV. An analysis of patient information sheets for obtaining informed consent in clinical trials. Medicina Clinica, 1999; 112: 90-94.
9. Mansoor LE, Dowse R. Effect of pictograms on readability of patient information materials. Annals of Pharmacotherapy, 2003; 37: 1003-1009.
10. Mwingira B, Dowse R. Development of written information for antiretroviral therapy: comprehension in a Tanzanian population. Pharmacy World and Science, 2007; 29: 173-182.
11. Sustersic M, Meneau A, Dremont R, Paris A, Laborde L, Bosson JL. Developing patient information sheets in general practice. Method proposal. Revue du Praticien, 2008; 58 (19 Suppl): 17-24.
12. Joshi HB, Newns N, Stainthorpe A, MacDonagh RP, Keeley FXJ, Timoney AG. The development and validation of a patient-information booklet on ureteric stents. BJU International, 2001; 88: 329-334.
13. Wright P. Criteria and ingredients for successful patient information. Journal of Audiovisual Media in Medicine, 2003; 26: 6-10.
14. Mumford ME. A descriptive study of the readability of patient information leaflets designed by nurses. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 1997; 26: 985-991.
15. Pothier L, Day R, Harris C, Pothier DD. Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a speech and language therapy department. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 2008; 43: 712-722.
16. Dixon-Woods M. Writing wrong? An analysis of published discourse about the use of patient information leaflets. Social Science and Medicine, 2001; 52: 1417-1432.
17. Ley P. Communication with Patients: Improving Communication, Satisfaction and Compliance. London: Chapman and Hall, 1992.
18. Mayberry JF, Mayberry MK. Effective instruction for patients. The Journal of the Royal College of Physicians of London, 1996; 30: 205-208.
19. O'Donnell M, Entwistle V. Consumer involvement in research projects: the activities of research funders. Health Policy, 2004; 69: 229-238.
20. Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE. Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend?Patient Education and Counseling, 2003; 49: 263-272.
21. Doak LG, Doak CC. Patient comprehension profiles: recent findings and strategies. Patient Counselling and Health Education, 1980; 1: 101-106.
22. Iddo G, Prigat A. Why organizations continue to create patient information leaflets with readability and usability problems: an exploratory study. Health Education Research, 2005; 20: 485-493.
23. Ley P. The measurement of comprehensibility. International Journal of Health Education, 1973; 11: 17-20.
24. Kealley J, Smith C, Winser B. Information empowers but who is empowered?Communication and Medicine, 2004; 1: 119-129.
25. Garner M, Johnson E. The transformation of discourse in emergency calls to the police, Oxford University Press (in press).
26. Nelson CK. The haunting of communication research by dead metaphors: for reflexive analyses of the communication research literature. Language & Communication, 2001; 21: 245-272.
27. Shannon CE, Weaver W. The Mathematical Theory of Communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1964.
28. Reddy MJ. The Conduit Metaphor - A Case of Frame Conflict in our Language About Language. Ortony, Metaphor and Thought, 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993: 164-201.
29. Garner M. Language: An Ecological View. Oxford: Peter Lang, 2004.
30. Sless D. Repairing messages: the hidden cost of the inappropriate theory. Australian Journal of Communication, 1986; 9: 82-93.
31. Leeds-Hurwitz W. Social Approaches to Communication. New York: The Guildford Press, 1995.
32. Fry E. A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading, 1967; 11: 513-516.
33. McLaughlin HG. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. Journal of Reading, 1969; 12: 639-646.
34. Gunning R. The FOG index after twenty years. Journal of Business Communication, 1968; 6: 3-13.
35. Flesch R. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1948; 32: 221-233.
36. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of New Readability Formula for Navy Enlisted Personnel. Millington, TN: Navy Research Branch, 1975.
37. Taylor WL. Cloze procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly, 1953; 30: 415-433.
38. Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print ad web-based cancer information. Health Education & Behavior, 2006; 33: 352-373.
39. Davison A, Kantor RN. On the failure of readability formulas to define readable text: a case study from adaptations. Reading Research Quarterly, 1982; 17: 187-209.
40. Meade CD, Smith CF. Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counseling, 1991; 17: 153-158.
41. Beck IL, McKeown MG, Sinatra GM, Loxterman JA. Revising social studies texts from a text-processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility. Reading Research Quarterly, 1991; 26: 251-276.
42. Frantz JP. Effect of location and procedural explicitness on user processing of and compliance with product warnings. Human Factors, 1994; 36: 532-546.
43. Wynne M. Developing Linguistics Corpora: A Guide to Good Practice. Oxford: Oxbow Books, 2005.
44. McEnery T, Wilson A. Corpus Linguistics. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1998.
45. CLASS Writing Group: Brittenden J, Burr J et al. The CLASS Study: Comparison of LAser, Surgery and foam Sclerotherapy as a treatment for varicose veins. Lancet, 2008. Available at: http://www.lancet.com/protocol-reviews/09PRT-2275, accessed 31 january 2011.
46. Leech G, Rayson P, Wilson A. Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. Available at: http://ucrel.lancs.ac.uk/bncfreq/, accessed 19 March 2010.
47. Kinstch W. Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998: 124.
48. Cutts M. Oxford Guide to Plain English. Cambridge: Oxford University Press, 2007.
49. Forrest A. The Patient Information Leaflet as Communication: A Mixed Methods Study to Inform a Trial of Surgical Interventions. Unpublished dissertation, University of Aberdeen, 2009.
50. Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. New York: John Wiley & Sons., 2002.
51. Hrisos S, Dickinson HO, Eccles MP, Francis J, Johnston M. Are there valid proxy measures of clinical behaviour?Implementation Science, 2009; 4: 37.