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

Readability assessment of the British Association of Dermatologists' patient information leaflets

BACKGROUND

The British Association of Dermatologists (BAD) develops and produces patient information leaflets (PILs) for British clinicians and the general public, and its website provides access to all the PILs. Health literacy across the UK remains variable. Readability instruments assess the comprehensibility of text, predominately using a composite of sentence length and/or word-syllable number. Instruments usually report text readability categorized by United States (US) grades; ideally, health literature should be rated at US grade ≤ 6 (UK Year 7; age 11-12 years).

METHODS

In collaboration with the BAD, PILs on the BAD website (n = 203) were downloaded for readability assessment. PILs were processed prior to analysis using Readability Studio software (Oleander Software, Vandalia, OH, USA). Established readability metrics were used: Flesch-Kincaid (FK), Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG), Gunning fog index (GFI), Fry, FORCAST and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE).

RESULTS

The mean (95% CI) US grade levels for all BAD PILs were: 9.8 (9.7-10.0) for FK, 12.1 (12.0-12.3) for SMOG, 11.8 (11.6-11.9) for GFI, 11.5 (11.1-11.8) for Fry and 10.7 (10.6-10.8) for FORCAST. For FRE, the level is reported from a normal spectrum of 0-100, and was found to be 52.2 (95% CI 34.0-78.0) in this study. In the UK context, the mean readability levels of the BAD PILs were rated as Year 10 (age 14-15 years) for FK and Year 13 (aged 17-18 years) for SMOG. For FK, outputs, only 1.0% of PILs (2 of 203) were the recommended US grade ≤ 6 according to FK, and for SMOG rating, none was rated at this level.

DISCUSSION

The majority of BAD PILs have been written at a level that will be challenging for some patients to read. Reducing sentence length and aiming for shorter words will improve accessibility.

Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review

Approximately one-third of adults in the United States (U.S.) have limited health literacy. Those with limited health literacy often have difficultly navigating the health care environment, including navigating care across the cancer continuum (e.g., prevention, screening, diagnosis, treatment). Evidence-based interventions to assist adults with limited health literacy improve health outcomes; however, little is known about health literacy interventions in the context of cancer and their impact on cancer-specific health outcomes. The purpose of this review was to identify and characterize the literature on health literacy interventions across the cancer care continuum. Specifically, our aim was to review the strength of evidence, outcomes assessed, and intervention modalities within the existing literature reporting health literacy interventions in cancer. Our search yielded 1036 records (prevention/screening n = 174; diagnosis/treatment n = 862). Following deduplication and review for inclusion criteria, we analyzed 87 records of intervention studies reporting health literacy outcomes, including 45 pilot studies (prevention/screening n = 24; diagnosis/treatment n = 21) and 42 randomized controlled trials or quasi-experimental trials (prevention/screening n = 31; diagnosis/treatment n = 11). This literature included 36 unique interventions (prevention/screening n = 28; diagnosis/treatment n = 8), mostly in the formative stages of intervention development, with few assessments of evidence-based interventions. These gaps in the literature necessitate further research in the development and implementation of evidence-based health literacy interventions to improve cancer outcomes.

Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"

Starting breast cancer screening at age 40 versus 50 may increase potential harms frequency with a small mortality benefit. Younger women's screening decisions, therefore, may be complex. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for women under 50 and may support women under 55 for whom guidelines vary. How women with limited health literacy (LHL) approach breast cancer screening decision-making is less understood, and most SDM tools are not designed with their input. This phenomenological study sought to characterize mammography counseling experiences among women with LHL and primary care providers (PCPs). Women ages 40-54 with LHL who had no history of breast cancer or mammogram within 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a safety-net hospital. PCPs at this site were invited to participate. Qualitative interviews explored mammography counseling experiences. Patients also reviewed sample information materials. A constant comparison technique generated four themes salient to 25 patients and 20 PCPs: addressing family history versus comprehensive risk assessment; potential mammography harms discussions; information delivery preferences; and integrating pre-visit information tools. Findings suggest that current counseling techniques may not be responsive to patient-identified needs. Opportunities exist to improve how mammography information is shared and increase accessibility across the health literacy spectrum.

Readability and understandability of clinical research patient information leaflets and consent forms in Ireland and the UK: a retrospective quantitative analysis

OBJECTIVES

The first aim of this study was to quantify the difficulty level of clinical research Patient Information Leaflets/Informed Consent Forms (PILs/ICFs) using validated and widely used readability criteria which provide a broad assessment of written communication. The second aim was to compare these findings with best practice guidelines.

DESIGN

Retrospective, quantitative analysis of clinical research PILs/ICFs provided by academic institutions, pharmaceutical companies and investigators.

SETTING

PILs/ICFs which had received Research Ethics Committee approval in the last 5 years were collected from Ireland and the UK.

INTERVENTION

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

PILs/ICFs were evaluated against seven validated readability criteria (Flesch Reading Ease, Flesh Kincaid Grade Level, Simplified Measure of Gobbledegook, Gunning Fog, Fry, Raygor and New Dale Chall). The documents were also scored according to two health literacy-based criteria: the Clear Communication Index (CCI) and the Suitability Assessment of Materials tool. Finally, the documents were assessed for compliance with six best practice metrics from literacy agencies.

RESULTS

A total of 176 PILs were collected, of which 154 were evaluable. None of the PILs/ICFs had the mean reading age of <12 years recommended by the American Medical Association. 7.1% of PILs/ICFs were evaluated as 'Plain English', 40.3%: 'Fairly Difficult', 51.3%: 'Difficult' and 1.3%: 'Very Difficult'. No PILs/ICFs achieved a CCI >90. Only two documents complied with all six best practice literacy metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

When assessed against both traditional readability criteria and health literacy-based tools, the PILs/ICFs in this study are inappropriately complex. There is also evidence of poor compliance with guidelines produced by literacy agencies. These data clearly evidence the need for improved documentation to underpin the consent process.

Testing innovative strategies to reduce the social gradient in the uptake of bowel cancer screening: a programme of four qualitatively enhanced randomised controlled trials

Background

Bowel cancer screening reduces cancer-specific mortality. There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), which may lead to inequalities in cancer outcomes.

Objective

To reduce socioeconomic inequalities in uptake of the NHS BCSP’s guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) without compromising uptake in any socioeconomic group.

Design

Workstream 1 explored psychosocial determinants of non-uptake of gFOBt in focus groups and interviews. Workstream 2 developed and tested four theoretically based interventions: (1) ‘gist’ information, (2) a ‘narrative’ leaflet, (3) ‘general practice endorsement’ (GPE) and (4) an ‘enhanced reminder’ (ER). Workstream 3 comprised four national cluster randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the cost-effectiveness of each intervention.

Methods

Interventions were co-designed with user panels, user tested using interviews and focus groups, and piloted with postal questionnaires. RCTs compared ‘usual care’ (existing NHS BCSP invitations) with usual care plus each intervention. The four trials tested: (1) ‘gist’ leaflet (n = 163,525), (2) ‘narrative’ leaflet (n = 150,417), (3) GPE on the invitation letter (n = 265,434) and (4) ER (n = 168,480). Randomisation was based on day of mailing of the screening invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) score associated with each individual’s home address was used as the marker of socioeconomic circumstances (SECs). Change in the socioeconomic gradient in uptake (interaction between treatment group and IMD quintile) was the primary outcome. Screening uptake was defined as the return of a gFOBt kit within 18 weeks of the invitation that led to a ‘definitive’ test result of either ‘normal’ (i.e. no further investigation required) or ‘abnormal’ (i.e. requiring referral for further testing). Difference in overall uptake was the secondary outcome.

Results

The gist and narrative trials showed no effect on the SECs gradient or overall uptake (57.6% and 56.7%, respectively, compared with 57.3% and 58.5%, respectively, for usual care; allp-values > 0.05). GPE showed no effect on the gradient (p = 0.5) but increased overall uptake [58.2% vs. 57.5% in usual care, odds ratio (OR) = 1.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.04 to 1.10;p < 0.0001]. ER showed a significant interaction with SECs (p = 0.005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived IMD quintile (14.1% vs. 13.3% in usual care, OR = 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.20;p = 0.003) than the least deprived (34.7% vs. 34.9% in usual care OR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.06;p = 0.98), and higher overall uptake (25.8% vs. 25.1% in usual care, OR = 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11;p = 0.001). All interventions were inexpensive to provide.

Limitations

In line with NHS policy, the gist and narrative leaflets supplemented rather than replaced existing NHS BCSP information. This may have undermined their effect.

Conclusions

Enhanced reminder reduced the gradient and modestly increased overall uptake, whereas GPE increased overall uptake but did not reduce the gradient. Therefore, given their effectiveness and very low cost, the findings suggest that implementation of both by the NHS BCSP would be beneficial. The gist and narrative results highlight the challenge of achieving equitable delivery of the screening offer when all communication is written; the format is universal and informed decision-making mandates extensive medical information.

Future work

Socioculturally tailored research to promote communication about screening with family and friends should be developed and evaluated.

Trial registration

Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN74121020.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Programme Grants for Applied Research programme and will be published in full inProgramme Grants for Applied Research; Vol. 5, No. 8. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Methodological review: quality of randomized controlled trials in health literacy

BACKGROUND

The growing move towards patient-centred care has led to substantial research into improving the health literacy skills of patients and members of the public. Hence, there is a pressing need to assess the methodology used in contemporary randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of interventions directed at health literacy, in particular the quality (risk of bias), and the types of outcomes reported.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic database search for RCTs involving interventions directed at health literacy in adults, published from 2009 to 2014. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool was used to assess quality of RCT implementation. We also checked the sample size calculation for primary outcomes. Reported evidence of efficacy (statistical significance) was extracted for intervention outcomes in any of three domains of effect: knowledge, behaviour, health status. Demographics of intervention participants were also extracted, including socioeconomic status.

RESULTS

We found areas of methodological strength (good randomization and allocation concealment), but areas of weakness regarding blinding of participants, people delivering the intervention and outcomes assessors. Substantial attrition (losses by monitoring time point) was seen in a third of RCTs, potentially leading to insufficient power to obtain precise estimates of intervention effect on primary outcomes. Most RCTs showed that the health literacy interventions had some beneficial effect on knowledge outcomes, but this was typically for less than 3 months after intervention end. There were far fewer reports of significant improvements in substantive patient-oriented outcomes, such as beneficial effects on behavioural change or health (clinical) status. Most RCTs featured participants from vulnerable populations.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation shows that health literacy trial design, conduct and reporting could be considerably improved, particularly by reducing attrition and obtaining longer follow-up. More meaningful RCTs would also result if health literacy trials were designed with public and patient involvement to focus on clinically important patient-oriented outcomes, rather than just knowledge, behaviour or skills in isolation.

Comprehensibility of Health-Related Documents for Older Adults with Different Levels of Health Literacy: A Systematic Review

A systematic review was conducted to assess the available evidence for the effectiveness of interventions aiming to improve the comprehensibility of health-related documents in older adults (≥50) with different levels of health literacy. Seven databases were searched (2005 forward), and references in relevant reviews were checked. The selection procedure was conducted by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and assessment of the quality of the resulting studies were conducted by 1 reviewer and checked for accuracy by a 2nd reviewer. A total of 38 intervention studies had a study population of older adults (n = 35) or made an explicit comparison between age groups, including older adults (n = 3). Inconsistent evidence was found for the importance of design features to enhance the comprehensibility of health-related documents. Only for narratives and multiple-feature revisions (e.g., combining revisions in textual and visual characteristics) did the included studies provide evidence that they may be effective for older adults. Using narrative formats and/or multiple-feature revisions of health-related documents seem to be promising strategies for enhancing the comprehensibility of health-related documents for older adults. The lack of consistent evidence for effective interventions stresses the importance of (a) replication and (b) the use of standardized research methodologies.

Sociopsychological tailoring to address colorectal cancer screening disparities: a randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Interventions tailored to sociopsychological factors associated with health behaviors have promise for reducing colorectal cancer screening disparities, but limited research has assessed their impact in multiethnic populations. We examined whether an interactive multimedia computer program (IMCP) tailored to expanded health belief model sociopsychological factors could promote colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample.

METHODS

We undertook a randomized controlled trial, comparing an IMCP tailored to colorectal cancer screening self-efficacy, knowledge, barriers, readiness, test preference, and experiences with a nontailored informational program, both delivered before office visits. The primary outcome was record-documented colorectal cancer screening during a 12-month follow-up period. Secondary outcomes included postvisit sociopsychological factor status and discussion, as well as clinician recommendation of screening during office visits. We enrolled 1,164 patients stratified by ethnicity and language (49.3% non-Hispanic, 27.2% Hispanic/English, 23.4% Hispanic/Spanish) from 26 offices around 5 centers (Sacramento, California; Rochester and the Bronx, New York; Denver, Colorado; and San Antonio, Texas).

RESULTS

Adjusting for ethnicity/language, study center, and the previsit value of the dependent variable, compared with control patients, the IMCP led to significantly greater colorectal cancer screening knowledge, self-efficacy, readiness, test preference specificity, discussion, and recommendation. During the followup period, 132 (23%) IMCP and 123 (22%) control patients received screening (adjusted difference = 0.5 percentage points, 95% CI -4.3 to 5.3). IMCP effects did not differ significantly by ethnicity/language.

CONCLUSIONS

Sociopsychological factor tailoring was no more effective than nontailored information in encouraging colorectal cancer screening in a multiethnic sample, despite enhancing sociopsychological factors and visit behaviors associated with screening. The utility of sociopsychological tailoring in addressing screening disparities remains uncertain.

The effect of word familiarity on actual and perceived text difficulty

There is little evidence that readability formula outcomes relate to text understanding. The potential cause may lie in their strong reliance on word and sentence length. We evaluated word familiarity rather than word length as a stand-in for word difficulty. Word familiarity represents how well known a word is, and is estimated using word frequency in a large text corpus, in this work the Google web corpus. We conducted a study with 239 people, who provided 50 evaluations for each of 275 words. Our study is the first study to focus on actual difficulty, measured with a multiple-choice task, in addition to perceived difficulty, measured with a Likert scale. Actual difficulty was correlated with word familiarity (r=0.219, p<0.001) but not with word length (r=-0.075, p=0.107). Perceived difficulty was correlated with both word familiarity (r=-0.397, p<0.001) and word length (r=0.254, p<0.001).