Consensus on the legibility criteria of health education leaflets
Keywords:
Legibilidad. Método Delphi. Educación para la salud.Abstract
Introduction. To identify the most relevant aspects that guarantee the readability, clarity and simplicity of written health education materials. Methods. Delphi methodology in order to reach a state of consensus among health education experts on criteria of legibility in the design and publication of informative material and literature. Results. Seventeen experts reached agreement on the principal recommendations for ensuring the legibility of health education materials. They were as follows: a) text content and layout: to structure the text using a title or subtitle, message explanation and conclusion; b) text construction: to use simple and concise sentences, diagrams and examples, and graphically highlighting the principal ideas; c) lexical comprehension: to use simple words and avoid technical language and abbreviations; d) typography: to use an easy-to-read font. Conclusions. There is a high degree of consensus regarding the way health education materials should be drawn up. This list of recommendations could be used as an instrument for reviewing and improving the design of health education materials. In general, it is recommended to identify the users of the leaflets and involve them in the writing and design.Downloads
References
3. World Health Organisation. Health for all policy framework for the WHO European Region: 2005 update. Copenhagen: WHO, 2006.
4. VIRTANEN H, LEINO-KILPI H, SALANTERÄ S. Empowering discourse in patient education. Patient Education and Counseling 2007, 662:140-146.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.12.010
5. SIEGEL M. Marketing Public Health: Strategies to Promote Social Change. Toronto, Jones & Bartlett Publishers 2007.
6. ENTWISTLE VA, WATT IS. Patient involvement in treatment decision-making: The case for a broader conceptual framework. Patient Education and Counseling 2006; 633: 268-278.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2006.05.002
7. BARRIO-CANTALEJO IM, SIMÓN-LORDA P, MELGUIZO M , ESCALONA IM, MARIJUÁN MI, HERNANDO P. Validación de la Escala INFLESZ para evaluar la legibilidad de los textos dirigidos a pacientes. An Sist San Navarra 2008: 31: 135-152.
https://doi.org/10.4321/S1137-66272008000300004
8. BERNIER MJ. Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed education materials. Patient Educ Couns 1996; 29: 283-299.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0738-3991(96)00927-5
9. IDOATE GARCÍA VM. La comprensibilidad del consentimiento informado. An Sist San Navarra 2000; 23: 109-113.
10. GOST GARDE J, SILVESTRE C, EZPELETA P, ASTIER P, DÍAZ DE RADA O, ARTÁZCOZ MT. Evaluación de la práctica clínica del Consentimiento Informado en los ensayos clínicos. An Sist San Navarra 2003; 26: 35-42.
https://doi.org/10.4321/S1137-66272003000100004
11. HOUTS PS, DOAK CC, DOAK LG, LOSCALZO MJ. The role of pictures in improving health communication: A review of research on attention, comprehension, recall, and adherence. Patient Education and Counseling. 2006; 612: 173-190.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.05.004
12. IDOATE GARCÍA VM. La utilización de los cuestionarios para la valoración psicosocial de las lumbalgias. An Sist San Navarra 1997; 20: 337-345.
13. European Commission. Guideline on the readability of the label and package leaflet of medicinal products for human use. Brussels WHO, 2006.
14. World Health Organisation. Education for Health: Manual on Health Education in Primary Health Care Geneva: WHO, 1989: 30.
15. 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 Education and Counseling 2006; 63: 286-293.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.06.020
16. QUIRK P. Screening for Literacy and Readability: Implications for the Advanced Practice Nurse. Clin Nurse Spec 2000; 141: 26-32.
https://doi.org/10.1097/00002800-200001000-00010
17. FREDA MC. The readability of American Academy of Pediatrics patient education brochures. J Pediatr Health Care 2005; 193: 151-156.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pedhc.2005.01.013
18. SANSGIRY SS, CADY PS, PATIL S. Readability of over-the-counter medication labels. J Am Pharm Assoc 1997; 375: 522-528.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S1086-5802(16)30244-3
19. HENDRICKSON RL, HUEBNER CE, RIEDY CA. Readability of pediatric health materials for preventive dental care. BMC Oral Health 2006; 6: 14.
https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-6-14
20. FLESCH R. How to write, speak and think more effectively. New York: Harper 1958.
21. CHALL JS, DALE E. Readability revisited, the new Dale-Chall readability formula. Cambridge, MA:Brookline Brooks 1995.
22. FRY EB. Fry's readability graph: Clarifications, validity, and extension to level 17. Journal of Reading 1977; 213: 242-252.
23. GUNNING R. The technique of clear writing. New York: McGraw-Hill 1952.
24. CARDINAL BJ, MARTIN JJ, SACHS ML. Readability of written informed consent forms used in exercise and sport psychology research. Res Q Exerc Sport 1996; 673: 360-362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.1996.10607965
25. ALDRIDGE MD. Writing and designing patient education materials. Nephrol Nursing J 2004; 314: 373-377.
26. MONSIVAIS D, REYNOLDS A. Developing and evaluating Patient Education Materials. Journal of continuing Education Nursing 2003; 344: 172-176.
https://doi.org/10.3928/0022-0124-20030701-09
27. RICHAUDEAU F. La lisibilité. Paris:CEPL/Retz, 1973 p11.
28. BAS AMORÓS E. La Planificación por Escenarios: una técnica de análisis exploratorio para el diseño de Estrategias. Anales de Economía y Administración de Empresas 1997; 5: 77-87.
29. MANSOOR LE, DOWSE R. Effect of pictograms on readability of patient information materials. Ann Pharmacother 2003; 377-8: 1003-1009.
https://doi.org/10.1345/aph.1C449
30. HWANG SW, TRAM CQ, KNARR N. The effect of illustrations on patient comprehension of medication instruction labels. BMC Fam Pract 2005; 61:26. Edición electrónica. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2296/6/26
https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2296-6-26
31. SHARP SM. Consent documents for oncology trials: does anybody read these things? Am J Clin Oncol 2004; 276: 570-575.
https://doi.org/10.1097/01.coc.0000135925.83221.b3
32. DICKINSON D, RAYNOR DK, DUMAN M. Patient information leaflets for medicines: using consumer testing to determine the most effective design. Patient Education and Counseling 2001, 43: 147-159.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2011 Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
La revista Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra es publicada por el Departamento de Salud del Gobierno de Navarra (España), quien conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright ) sobre el artículo publicado y favorece y permite la difusión del mismo bajo licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional (CC BY-SA 4.0). Esta licencia permite copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente el artículo, siempre que siempre que se cite la autoría y la publicación inicial en Anales del Sistema Sanitario de Navarra, y se distinga la existencia de esta licencia de uso.
