The effects of two health information texts on patient recognition memory: A randomized controlled trial

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 92, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 260-265

  Freed, Erin ^a   Long, Debra ^a   Rodriguez, Tonantzin ^b   Franks, Peter ^b   Kravitz, Richard L ^b   Jerant, Anthony ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Colorectal neoplasms; Early detection of cancer; Educational status; Health literacy; Mass screening; Mental recall; Patient education as topic; Patient education handout; Randomized controlled trial; Reading

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGE; AGED; ARTICLE; CANCER SCREENING; COLORECTAL CANCER; COMPREHENSION; CONTROLLED STUDY; EDUCATION; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMAN; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; READING; RECOGNITION; SELF EVALUATION;

COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; HEALTH LITERACY; MASS SCREENING; MENTAL RECALL; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PATIENT EDUCATION HANDOUT; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; READING;

AGED; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPREHENSION; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; EDUCATIONAL STATUS; FEMALE; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; MALE; MASS SCREENING; MEMORY; MENTAL RECALL; MIDDLE AGED; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; READING; RECOGNITION (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 84880326064     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.03.008     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Committee on Health Literacy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion 2004, National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
2. Ad Hoc Committee on Health Literacy for the Council of Scientific Affairs, American Medical Association Health literacy: report of the council on scientific affairs. J Amer Med Assoc 1999, 281:552-557.
3. Dewalt D.A., Berkman N.D., Sheridan S., Lohr K.N., Pignone M.P. Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 2004, 19:1228-1239.
4. Friedman D.B., Hoffman-Goetz L. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 2006, 33:352-373.
5. Davis T.C., Bocchini J.A., Fredrickson D., Arnold C., Mayeaux E.J., Murphy P.W., et al. Parent comprehension of polio vaccine information pamphlets. Pediatrics 1996, 97:804-810.
6. Davis T.C., Fredrickson D.D., Arnold C., Murphy P.W., Herbst M., Bocchini J.A. A polio immunization pamphlet with increased appeal and simplified language does not improve comprehension to an acceptable level. Patient Educ Couns 1998, 33:25-37.
7. Eaton M.L., Holloway R.L. Patient comprehension of written drug information. Am J Hosp Pharm 1980, 37:240-243.
8. Davis T.C., Holcombe R.F., Berkel H.J., Pramanik S., Divers S.G. Informed consent for clinical trials: a comparative study of standard versus simplified forms. J Natl Cancer Inst 1998, 90:668-674.
9. Meade C.D., Byrd J.C., Lee M. Improving patient comprehension of literature on smoking. Am J Public Health 1989, 79:1411-1412.
10. Coyne C.A., Xu R., Raich P., Plomer K., Dignan M., Wenzel L.B., et al. Randomized, controlled trial of an easy-to-read informed consent statement for clinical trial participation: a study of the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group. J Clin Oncol 2003, 21:836-842.
11. Murphy D.A., Hoffman D., Seage G.R., Belzer M., Xu J., Durako S.J., et al. Improving comprehension for HIV vaccine trial information among adolescents at risk of HIV. AIDS Care 2007, 19:42-51.
12. US Preventive Services Task Force Screening for colorectal cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2008, 149:627-637.
13. Davis T.C., Dolan N.C., Ferreira M.R., Tomori C., Green K.W., Sipler A.M., et al. The role of inadequate health literacy skills in colorectal cancer screening. Cancer Invest 2001, 19:193-200.
14. Dolan N.C., Ferreira M.R., Davis T.C., Fitzgibbon M.L., Rademaker A., Liu D., et al. Colorectal cancer screening knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs among veterans: does literacy make a difference?. J Clin Oncol 2004, 22:2617-2622.
15. Peterson N.B., Dwyer K.A., Mulvaney S.A., Dietrich M.S., Rothman R.L. The influence of health literacy on colorectal cancer screening knowledge, beliefs and behavior. J Natl Med Assoc 2007, 99:1105-1112.
16. Jerant A.F., Fenton J.J., Franks P. Determinants of racial/ethnic colorectal cancer screening disparities. Arch Intern Med 2008, 168:1317-1324.
17. Morris N.S., MacLean C.D., Chew L.D., Littenberg B. The Single Item Literacy Screener: evaluation of a brief instrument to identify limited reading ability. BMC Fam Pract 2006, 7:21.
18. Chew L.D., Griffin J.M., Partin M.R., Noorbaloochi S., Grill J.P., Snyder A., et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med 2008, 23:561-566.
19. Jeppesen K.M., Coyle J.D., Miser W.F. Screening questions to predict limited health literacy: a cross-sectional study of patients with diabetes mellitus. Ann Fam Med 2009, 7:24-31.
20. Fletcher J.M. Measuring reading comprehension. Sci Stud Read 2006, 10:323-330.
21. Sheng H.J. A cognitive model for teaching reading comprehension. English Teach Forum 2000, 38:12-15.
22. Royer JM, Cunningham DJ. On the theory and measurement of reading comprehension. Technical report no. 91. Center for the Study of Reading, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; 1978. [accessed 20.12.12]. http://www.ideals.illinois.edu/bitstream/handle/2142/17663/ctrstreadtechrepv01978i00091_opt.pdf%3Fsequence=1.
23. Van den Broek P., Gustafson M. Comprehension and memory for texts: three generations of reading research. Narrative comprehension, causality, and coherence 1999, Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ. S.R. Goldman, A.C. Graesser, P. Van den Broek (Eds.).
24. Pettit N.T., Cockriel I.W. A factor study of the literal reading comprehension test and the inferential reading comprehension test. J Lit Res 1974, 6:63-75.
25. Paulhus D.L. Measurement and control of response bias. Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes 1991, Academic Press, San Diego, CA. J.P. Robinson, P.R. Shaver, L.S. Wrightsman (Eds.).
26. Abdi H. Signal detection theory (SDT). Encyclopedia of measurement and statistics 2007, Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA. N. Salkind (Ed.).
27. Long D.L., Prat C.S. Memory for Star Trek: the role of prior knowledge in recognition revisited. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2002, 28:1073-1082.
28. Long D.L., Wilson J., Hurley R., Prat C.S. Assessing text representations with recognition: the interaction of domain knowledge and text coherence. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2006, 32:816-827.
29. Keating P. D-prime (signal detection) analysis 2004, University of California Los Angeles, Phonetics Lab, Los Angeles, CA, [accessed 09.02.12]. http://www.linguistics.ucla.edu/faciliti/facilities/statistics/dprime.htm.
30. Schulz K.F., Grimes D.A. Generation of allocation sequences in randomised trials: chance, not choice. Lancet 2002, 359:515-519.
31. Kincaid JP, Fishburne RP, Rogers RL, Chissom BS. Derivation of new readability formulas (Automated Readability Index, Fog Count and Flesch Reading Ease Formula) for Navy-enlisted personnel. Research Branch Report 8-75. Memphis, TN: U.S. Naval Air Station; 1975.
32. McLaughlin G.H. SMOG grading - a new readability formula. J Read 1969, 12:639-646.
33. Fry E. A readability formula that saves time. J Read 1968, 11:513-516.
34. Paasche-Orlow M.K., Schillinger D., Greene S.M., Wagner E.H. How health care systems can begin to address the challenge of limited literacy. J Gen Intern Med 2006, 21:884-887.
35. Bachelor's degree attainment tops 30 percent for the first time, Census Bureau reports 2012, U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC, [accessed 08.10.12]. http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/education/cb12-33.html.
36. Baker D.W. The meaning and the measure of health literacy. J Gen Intern Med 2006, 21:878-883.
37. D'Alessandro D.M., Kingsley P., Johnson-West J. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2001, 155:807-812.
38. Beck I.L., McKeown M.G., Sinatra G.M., Loxterman J.A. Revising social studies text from a text-processing perspective: evidence of improved comprehensibility. Read Res Q 1991, 26:251-276.
39. Haberlandt K.F., Graesser A.C. Component processes in text comprehension and some of their interactions. J Exp Psychol Gen 1985, 114:357-374.
40. Traxler M.J., Morris R.K., Seely R.E. Processing subject and object relative clauses: evidence from eye movements. J Mem Lang 2002, 47:69-90.