Readability statistics of patient information leaflets in a Speech and Language Therapy Department

References

• Baker D. W., Gazmararian J. A., Williams M. V., Scott T., Parker R. M., Green D., Ren J., Peel J. Functional health literacy and the risk of hospital admission among Medicare managed care enrollees. American Journal of Public Health 2002; 92((8))1278–1283
   Google Scholar
• Baker D. W., Wolf M. S., Feinglass J., Thompson J. A., Gazmararian J. A., Huang J. Health literacy and mortality among elderly persons. Archives of Internal Medicine 2007; 167((14))1503–1509
   Google Scholar
• Boulos M. N. British internet‐derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable?. Diabetes Technology and Therapeutics 2005; 7((3))528–535
   Google Scholar
• Brennan A., Worrall L., McKenna K. The relationship between specific features of aphasia‐friendly written material and comprehension of written material for people with aphasia: An exploratory study. Aphasiology 2005; 19((8))693–711
   Google Scholar
• Brown V. Preparing a patient information leaflet. Journal of Perioperative Practice 2006; 16((11))540–545
   Google Scholar
• Chestnutt I. G. Internet‐derived patient information on common oral pathologies: is it readable?. Primary Dental Care 2004; 11((2))51–54
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. NHS Toolkit for Producing Patient Information. 2003, Version 2.0.2003 (available at: http://www.nhsidentity.nhs.uk/patientinformationtoolkit/patientinfotoolkit.pdf) (accessed on 27 April 2007)
   Google Scholar
• Eames S., McKenna K., Worrall L., Read S. The suitability of written education materials for stroke survivors and their carers. Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation 2003; 10((3))70–83
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Flesch R. F. The Art of Readable Writing. Harper & Row, New York, NY 1973
   Google Scholar
• Friedman D., Hoffman G. A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and web‐based cancer information. Health Education and Behavior 2006; 33((3))352–373
   Google Scholar
• Fry E. A readability formula that saves time. Journal of Reading 1968; 11((7))265–271
   Google Scholar
• Gal I., Prigat A. Why organizations continue to create patient information leaflets with readability and usability problems: an exploratory study. Health Education Research 2005; 20((4))485–493
   Google Scholar
• Griffin J., McKenna K., Tooth L. Discrepancy between older clients' ability to read and comprehend and the reading level of written educational materials used by occupational therapists. American Journal of Occupational Therapy 2006; 60((1))70–80
   Google Scholar
• Gunning R. The Techniques of Clear Writing. McGraw‐Hill, New York, NY 1968
   Google Scholar
• Information Accreditation Scheme Q&A. Information Accreditation Scheme Q&A. 2007, (Department of Health) Gateway Reference, 8131, 1–4
   Google Scholar
• Mansoor L., Dowse R. Effect of pictograms on readability of patient information materials. Annals of Pharmacotherapy 2003; 37((7–8))1003–1009
   Google Scholar
• McCray A. T. Promoting health literacy. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2005; 12((2))152–163
   Google Scholar
• McLaughlin G. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. Journal of Reading 1969; 12((8))639–646
   Google Scholar
• Mwingira B., Dowse R. Development of written information for antiretroviral therapy: comprehension in a Tanzanian population. Pharmacy World and Science 2006; 29(3)173–182
   Google Scholar
• Nutbeam D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promotion International 2000; 15((3))259–267
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Office of National Statistics. Database. Office of National Statistics, London 2005, (available at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/expodata/spreadsheets/d5047.xls (accessed on 15 April 2007)
   Google Scholar
• Pothier D. D. Many patients may not understand consent forms. British Medical Journal 2005a; 330((7500))1151
   Google Scholar
• Pothier D. D. Patients and the internet: are websites on glue ear readable?. Clinical Otolaryngology 2005b; 30((6))566
   Google Scholar
• Rabin A. Determining difficulty levels of text written in languages other than English. Readability: It's Past, Present, & Future, B. L Zakaluk, S. J Samuels. International Reading Association, Newark, DE 1988; 46–76
   Google Scholar
• Taylor W. L. Cloze procedure: a new tool for measuring readability. Journalism Quarterly 1953; 30: 415–433
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weiss B. D., Blanchard J. S., McGee D. L., Hart G., Warren B., Burgoon M., Smith K. J. Illiteracy among Medicaid recipients and its relationship to health care costs. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 1994; 5((2))99–111
   Google Scholar
• Wilson F. L., Baker L. M., Brown‐Syed C., Gollop C. An analysis of the readability and cultural sensitivity of information on the National Cancer Institute's Web site: CancerNet. Oncology Nursing Forum 2000; 27((9))1403–1409
   Google Scholar