Readability, suitability and comprehensibility in patient education materials for Swedish patients with colorectal cancer undergoing elective surgery: A mixed method design

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 94, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 202-209

  Smith, Frida ^a,b,c   Carlsson, Eva ^a,b,c   Kokkinakis, Dimitrios ^c   Forsberg, Markus ^c   Kodeda, Karl ^a,d   Sawatzky, Richard ^e   Friberg, Febe ^b,c,f   Öhlén, Joakim ^b,c,g  

^a SAHLGRENSKA UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^c UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^d SAHLGRENSKA ACADEMY AT UNIVERSITY OF GOTHENBURG   (Sweden)

^e TRINITY WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF STAVANGER   (Norway)

^g ERSTA HOSPITAL   (Sweden)

Author keywords

Colorectal cancer; Comprehensibility assessment in material; ERAS; Focus groups; Language technology analysis; Patient education materials; Readability assessment in material; Suitability assessment in material; Surgical care

Indexed keywords

AGED; ARTICLE; COLORECTAL CANCER; EDUCATION; EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; LANGUAGE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PATIENT SATISFACTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; READING; SWEDEN; VERY ELDERLY; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPREHENSION; HEALTH LITERACY; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MIDDLE AGED; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; REPRODUCIBILITY; STANDARDS; TEACHING;

AGED; AGED, 80 AND OVER; COLORECTAL NEOPLASMS; COMPREHENSION; ELECTIVE SURGICAL PROCEDURES; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; HEALTH KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, PRACTICE; HEALTH LITERACY; HUMANS; LANGUAGE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; READING; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SWEDEN; TEACHING MATERIALS;

EID: 84892820601     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.009     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. 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: J Moffitt Cancer Center 2009, 16:70.
2. Allvin R., Ehnfors M., Rawal N., Idvall E. Institutionen för vårdvetenskap och o, Institutionen för klinisk m, et al. experiences of the postoperative recovery process: an interview study. Open Nurs J 2008, 2:1-7.
3. Norlyk A., Harder I. After colonic surgery: the lived experience of participating in a fast-track programme. Int J Qual Studi Health Well-Being 2009, 4:170-180. [Epub 2009/01/01].
4. van Mossel C., Cosby C., Levi-Milne R., Purkis M.E., Leitz L., Scott S., et al. Information needs across the colorectal cancer care continuum: scoping the literature. Eur J Cancer Care 2012, 21:296-320.
5. ®) Society recommendations. Clin Nutr (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2012, 31:783.
6. ®) society recommendations. Clin Nutr (Edinburgh, Scotland) 2012, 31:801.
7. American Cancer Society Cancer facts and figures 2011, Available from:, [08.11.11]. http://www.cancer.org/acs/groups/content/@epidemiologysurveilance/documents/document/acspc-029771.pdf.
8. European Cancer Observatory Cancer fact sheet 2011, Available from:, [08.11.11]. http://eu-cancer.iarc.fr/country-930--european-union-27.html.
9. Arsalani-Zadeh R., Ullah S., Khan S., Macfie J. Current pattern of perioperative practice in elective colorectal surgery; a questionnaire survey of ACPGBI members. Int J Surg (London, England) 2010, 8:294-298.
10. Hasenberg T., Spies C., Schwenk W., Shang E., Keese M., Längle F., et al. 'Fast-track' colonic surgery in Austria and Germany - results from the survey on patterns in current perioperative practice. Colorectal Dis: Official J Assoc Coloproctol Great Britain and Ireland 2009, 11:162-167.
11. Kahokehr A., Robertson P., Sammour T., Soop M., Hill A.G. Perioperative care: a survey of New Zealand and Australian colorectal surgeons. Colorectal Dis 2011, 13:1308-1313.
12. Kehlet H., Büchler M.W., Beart J.R.W., Billingham R.P., Williamson R. Care after colonic operation - is it evidence-based? Results from a multinational survey in Europe and the United States. J Am Coll Surg 2006, 202:45-54.
13. Lassen K., Revhaug A., Hannemann P., Ljungqvist O., Fearon K., Dejong C.H.C., et al. Patterns in current perioperative practice: survey of colorectal surgeons in five northern European countries. Br Med J 2005, 330:1420-1421.
14. Allvin R., Berg K., Idvall E., Nilsson U. Postoperative recovery: a concept analysis. J Adv Nursing 2007, 57:552-558.
15. Friedman D.B., Hoffman-Goetz L. Literacy and health literacy as defined in cancer education research: a systematic review. Health Educ J 2008, 67:285-304.
16. Friedman D.B., Hoffman-Goetz L. An exploratory study of older adults' comprehension of printed cancer information: is readability a key factor?. J Health Commun 2007, 12:423-437.
17. Simon A.E., Wardle J. Socioeconomic disparities in psychosocial wellbeing in cancer patients. Eur J Cancer 2008, 44:572-578.
18. Cavalli-Bjorkman N., Lambe M., Eaker S., Sandin F., Glimelius B. Differences according to educational level in the management and survival of colorectal cancer in Sweden. Eur J Cancer (Oxford, England: 1990) 2011, 47:1398-1406. [Epub 2011/01/18].
19. Speros C. Health literacy: concept analysis. J Adv Nurs 2005, 50:633-640.
20. Mårtensson L., Hensing G. Health literacy - a heterogeneous phenomenon: a literature review. Scand J Caring Sci 2012, 26:151-160.
21. Payne S., Large S., Jarrett N., Turner P. Written information given to patients and families by palliative care units: a national survey. Lancet 2000, 355:1792.
22. Doak C.C., Doak L.G., Root J.H. Teaching patients with low literacy skills 1996, JB Lippincott Co., Philadelphia, PA.
23. Doak C.C., Doak L.G., Friedell G.H., Meade C.D. Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. Ca-A Cancer J Clin 1998, 48:151-162.
24. Shieh C., Hosei B. Printed health information materials: evaluation of readability and suitability. J Commun Health Nurs 2008, 25:73-90.
25. Ownby R.L. Influence of vocabulary and sentence complexity and passive voice on the readability of consumer-oriented mental health information on the Internet. AMIA Annual Symposium proceedings/AMIA Symposium AMIA Symposium 2005, 585-589.
26. Van Weert J.C.M., van Noort G., Bol N., van Dijk L., Tates K., Jansen J. Tailored information for cancer patients on the internet: effects of visual cues and language complexity on information recall and satisfaction. Patient Educ Couns 2011, 84:368-378.
27. Weintraub D., Maliski S.L., Fink A., Choe S., Litwin M.S. Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns 2004, 55:275-280.
28. Hoffmann T., Worrall L. Designing effective written health education materials: considerations for health professionals. Disabil Rehabil 2004, 26:1166-1173.
29. Kinnersley P, Butler C, Edwards A, Hood K, Cadbury N, Ryan R, et al. Interventions before consultations for helping patients address their information needs. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (Online).
30. Clayton L.H. TEMPtEd: development and psychometric properties of a tool to evaluate material used in patient education. J Adv Nurs 2009, 65:2229-2238.
31. Walsh T.M., Volsko T.A. Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 2008, 53:1310.
32. Finnie R.K.C., Felder T.M., Linder S.K., Mullen P.D. Beyond reading level A systematic review of the suitability of cancer education print and Web-based materials. J Cancer Educ 2010, 25:497-505.
33. Oosten P., Tanghe D., Hoste V. Towards an improved methodology for automated readability prediction. Conf on Lang Resources and Eval LREC Malta 2010, 775-782.
34. Translating biology: text mining tools that work 2008, Pac Symp Biocomput. K.Y.H. Bretonnel Cohen, P.E. Bourne, L. Hirschman (Eds.).
35. Simpson M.S., Demner-Fushman D. Biomedical text mining: a survey of recent progress. Mining text data 2012, 465-517. Springer, New York. C. Charu, C.X.Z. Aggarwal (Eds.).
36. 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: Official Publ Soc Public Health Educ 2006, 33:352-373.
37. Morse J.M., Linda N. Mixed method design principles and procedures 2009, California: Left Coast Press, Walnut Creek.
38. Eames S., McKenna K., Worrall L., Read S. The suitability of written education materials for stroke survivors and their carers. Top Stroke Rehabil 2003, 10:70-83.
39. Hoffmann T., McKenna K. Analysis of stroke patients' and carers' reading ability and the content and design of written materials: Recommendations for improving written stroke information. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 60:286-293.
40. Hoffmann T.L.L. Assessing the suitability of written stroke materials: an evaluation of the interrater reliability of the suitability assessment of matierals (SAM) checklist. Top Stroke Rehabil 2012, 19:417-422.
41. Rees C.E., Ford J.E., Sheard C.E. Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend?. Patient Educ Couns 2003, 49:263-272.
42. Wolf M.S., Chang C.-H., Davis T., Makoul G. Development and validation of the communication and attitudinal self-efficacy scale for cancer (CASE-cancer). Patient Educ Couns 2005, 57:333-341.
43. Hayes A.F., Krippendorff K. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Commun Methods Meas 2007, 1:77-89.
44. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: an introduction to its methodology 2004, Calif: Sage, Thousand Oaks.
45. Biber D. Variation across speech and writing 1988, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.
46. Björnsson CH. Läsbarhet. Stockholm Liber; 1968.
47. Freeman T. 'Best practice' in focus group research: making sense of different views. J Adv Nurs 2006, 56:491-497.
48. Morgan D.L. Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qual Health Res 2010, 20:718-722.
49. Wallace L.S., Turner L.W., Ballard J.E., Keenum A.J., Weiss B.D. Evaluation of web-based osteoporosis educational materials. J Women's Health 2005, 14:936-942.
50. Wolf M.S., Davis T.C., Shrank W.H., Neuberger M., Parker R.M. A critical review of FDA-approved medication guides. Patient Educ Couns 2006, 62:316-322.
51. Allvin R., Ehnfors M., Rawal N., Svensson E., Idvall E., Omvårdnad, Institutionen för medicin och h, Hälsouniversitetet Development of a questionnaire to measure patient-reported postoperative recovery: content validity and intra-patient reliability. J Eval Clin Pract 2009, 15:411-419.
52. Lithner M., Johansson J., Andersson E., Jakobsson U., Palmquist I., Klefsgard R. Perceived information after surgery for colorectal cancer - an explorative study. Colorectal Dis: Official J Assoc Coloproctol Great Britain and Ireland 2012, 14:1340-1350.
53. Rutten L.J.F., Arora N.K., Bakos A.D., Aziz N., Rowland J. Information needs and sources of information among cancer patients: a systematic review of research (1980-2003). Patient Educ Couns 2005, 57:250-261.
54. Dellson P., Nilbert M., Bendahl P., Malmström P., Carlsson C., Division V., et al. Towards optimised information about clinical trials; identification and validation of key issues in collaboration with cancer patient advocates. Eur J Cancer Care 2010, 20:445-454.
55. Jonsson C.A., Stenberg A., Frisman G.H. The lived experience of the early postoperative period after colorectal cancer surgery. Eur J Cancer Care 2011, 20:248-256.
56. Taylor C. Patients' experiences of 'feeling on their own' following a diagnosis of colorectal cancer: a phenomenological approach. Int J Nurs Stud 2001, 38:651-661. [Epub 2001/10/17].
57. Ohlsson-Nevo E., Andershed B., Nilsson U., Anderzén-Carlsson A. Life is back to normal and yet not - partners' and patient's experiences of life of the first year after colorectal cancer surgery. J Clin Nurs 2012, 21:555-563.