Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Cancer Education 4/2010

01-12-2010

Beyond Reading Level: A Systematic Review of the Suitability of Cancer Education Print and Web-based Materials

Authors: Ramona K. C. Finnie, Tisha M. Felder, Suzanne Kneuper Linder, Patricia Dolan Mullen

Published in: Journal of Cancer Education | Issue 4/2010

Login to get access

Abstract

Consideration of categories related to reading comprehension—beyond reading level—is imperative to reach low literacy populations effectively. “Suitability” has been proposed as a term to encompass six categories of such factors: content, literacy demand graphics, layout/typography, learning stimulation, and cultural appropriateness. Our purpose was to describe instruments used to evaluate categories of suitability in cancer education materials in published reports and their findings. We searched databases and reference lists for evaluations of print and Web-based cancer education materials to identify and describe measures of these categories. Studies had to evaluate reading level and at least one category of suitability. Eleven studies met our criteria. Seven studies reported inter-rater reliability. Cultural appropriateness was most often assessed; four instruments assessed only surface aspects of cultural appropriateness. Only two of seven instruments used, the suitability assessment of materials (SAM) and the comprehensibility assessment of materials (SAM + CAM), were described as having any evidence of validity. Studies using Simplified Measure of Goobledygook (SMOG) and Fry reported higher average reading level scores than those using Flesh-Kincaid. Most materials failed criteria for reading level and cultural appropriateness. We recommend more emphasis on the categories of suitability for those developing cancer education materials and more study of these categories and reliability and validity testing of instruments.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2003) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006–483) Kutner M, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C (2003) The health literacy of America’s adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006–483)
3.
go back to reference Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH (1996) Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven Company, Philadelphia, p 212 Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH (1996) Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven Company, Philadelphia, p 212
5.
go back to reference Ley P, Florio T (1996) The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med 1(1):7–28CrossRef Ley P, Florio T (1996) The use of readability formulas in health care. Psychol Health Med 1(1):7–28CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Meade CD, Smith CF (1991) Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns 17:153–158CrossRef Meade CD, Smith CF (1991) Readability formulas: cautions and criteria. Patient Educ Couns 17:153–158CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Nielson-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Nielson-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion.
8.
go back to reference Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J (2002) Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 52:151–162CrossRef Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J (2002) Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin 52:151–162CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Meade CD, McKinney WP, Barnas GP (1994) Educating patients with limited literacy skills: the effectiveness of printed and videotaped materials about colon cancer. Am J Public Health 84(1):119–121CrossRefPubMed Meade CD, McKinney WP, Barnas GP (1994) Educating patients with limited literacy skills: the effectiveness of printed and videotaped materials about colon cancer. Am J Public Health 84(1):119–121CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Kreuter MW, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen J (1999) One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med 21(4):276–283CrossRefPubMed Kreuter MW, Greenberg E, Jin Y, Paulsen J (1999) One size does not fit all: the case for tailoring print materials. Ann Behav Med 21(4):276–283CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Kline KN (2007) Cultural sensitivity and health promotion: assessing breast cancer education pamphlets designed for African American women. Health Commun 21(1):85–96PubMed Kline KN (2007) Cultural sensitivity and health promotion: assessing breast cancer education pamphlets designed for African American women. Health Commun 21(1):85–96PubMed
14.
go back to reference Bichakjian CK, Schwartz JL, Wang TS, Hall JM, Johnson TM, Biermann JS (2002) Melanoma information on the Internet: often incomplete—a public health opportunity? J Clin Oncol 20(1):134–141CrossRefPubMed Bichakjian CK, Schwartz JL, Wang TS, Hall JM, Johnson TM, Biermann JS (2002) Melanoma information on the Internet: often incomplete—a public health opportunity? J Clin Oncol 20(1):134–141CrossRefPubMed
15.
go back to reference Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M (2004) Patient education materials about the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med 140(9):721–728PubMed Fagerlin A, Rovner D, Stableford S, Jentoft C, Wei JT, Holmes-Rovner M (2004) Patient education materials about the treatment of early stage prostate cancer: a critical review. Ann Intern Med 140(9):721–728PubMed
16.
go back to reference Black PC, Penson DF (2006) Prostate cancer on the Internet—information or misinformation. [see comment][erratum appears in J Urol. 2006 Aug;176(2):844]. J Urol 175(5):1836–1842CrossRefPubMed Black PC, Penson DF (2006) Prostate cancer on the Internet—information or misinformation. [see comment][erratum appears in J Urol. 2006 Aug;176(2):844]. J Urol 175(5):1836–1842CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Bock B, Graham A, Sciamanna C et al (2004) Smoking cessation treatment on the Internet: content, quality, and usability. Nicotine Tob Res 6(2):207–219CrossRefPubMed Bock B, Graham A, Sciamanna C et al (2004) Smoking cessation treatment on the Internet: content, quality, and usability. Nicotine Tob Res 6(2):207–219CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Molassiotis A, Xu M (2004) Quality and safety issues of Web-based information about herbal medicines in the treatment of cancer. Complement Ther Med 12(4):217–227CrossRefPubMed Molassiotis A, Xu M (2004) Quality and safety issues of Web-based information about herbal medicines in the treatment of cancer. Complement Ther Med 12(4):217–227CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N (2009) Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Canc Contr 16(1):70–78 Helitzer D, Hollis C, Cotner J, Oestreicher N (2009) Health literacy demands of written health information materials: an assessment of cervical cancer prevention materials. Canc Contr 16(1):70–78
24.
go back to reference Kaphingst KA, Zanfini CJ, Emmons KM (2006) Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy (United States). Cancer Cause Control 17(2):147–151CrossRef Kaphingst KA, Zanfini CJ, Emmons KM (2006) Accessibility of web sites containing colorectal cancer information to adults with limited literacy (United States). Cancer Cause Control 17(2):147–151CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Weintraub D, Maliski SL, Fink A, Choe S, Litwin MS (2004) Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns 55(2):275–280CrossRefPubMed Weintraub D, Maliski SL, Fink A, Choe S, Litwin MS (2004) Suitability of prostate cancer education materials: applying a standardized assessment tool to currently available materials. Patient Educ Couns 55(2):275–280CrossRefPubMed
26.
go back to reference Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE (2003) Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend? Patient Educ Couns 49(3):263–272CrossRefPubMed Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE (2003) Patient information leaflets for prostate cancer: which leaflets should healthcare professionals recommend? Patient Educ Couns 49(3):263–272CrossRefPubMed
27.
go back to reference Wilson FL, Baker LM, Brown-Syed C, Gollop C (2000) An analysis of the readability and cultural sensitivity of information on the National Cancer Institute's website: CancerNet. Oncol Nurs Forum 27(9):1403–1409PubMed Wilson FL, Baker LM, Brown-Syed C, Gollop C (2000) An analysis of the readability and cultural sensitivity of information on the National Cancer Institute's website: CancerNet. Oncol Nurs Forum 27(9):1403–1409PubMed
28.
go back to reference Mohrmann CC, Coleman EA, Coon SK et al (2000) An analysis of printed breast cancer information for African American women. J Cancer Educ 15(1):23–27PubMed Mohrmann CC, Coleman EA, Coon SK et al (2000) An analysis of printed breast cancer information for African American women. J Cancer Educ 15(1):23–27PubMed
29.
go back to reference Guidry JJ, Fagan P, Walker V (1998) Cultural sensitivity and readability of breast and prostate printed cancer education materials targeting African Americans. J Natl Med Assoc 90(3):165–169PubMed Guidry JJ, Fagan P, Walker V (1998) Cultural sensitivity and readability of breast and prostate printed cancer education materials targeting African Americans. J Natl Med Assoc 90(3):165–169PubMed
30.
go back to reference Friedman DB, Kao EK (2008) A comprehensive assessment of the difficulty level and cultural sensitivity of online cancer prevention resources for older minority men. Prev Chronic Dis 5(1):A07PubMed Friedman DB, Kao EK (2008) A comprehensive assessment of the difficulty level and cultural sensitivity of online cancer prevention resources for older minority men. Prev Chronic Dis 5(1):A07PubMed
31.
go back to reference Thomson MD, Hoffman-Goetz L (2007) Readability and cultural sensitivity of Web-based patient decision aids for cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review. Med Inform Internet Med 32(4):263–286CrossRefPubMed Thomson MD, Hoffman-Goetz L (2007) Readability and cultural sensitivity of Web-based patient decision aids for cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review. Med Inform Internet Med 32(4):263–286CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Resnicow K, Baranowski T, Ahluwalia J, Braithwaite RL (1999) Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified. Ethn Dis 9:10–21PubMed Resnicow K, Baranowski T, Ahluwalia J, Braithwaite RL (1999) Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified. Ethn Dis 9:10–21PubMed
33.
go back to reference Bloch B (1983) Bloch's assessment guide for ethnic/cultural variations. In: Orque M, Bloch B, Monroy E (eds) Ethnic nursing care: a multicultural approach. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, pp 49–75 Bloch B (1983) Bloch's assessment guide for ethnic/cultural variations. In: Orque M, Bloch B, Monroy E (eds) Ethnic nursing care: a multicultural approach. Mosby, St. Louis, MO, pp 49–75
34.
go back to reference Guidry JJ, Walker VD (1999) Assessing cultural appropriateness in printed cancer materials. Cancer Pract 7(6):291–296CrossRefPubMed Guidry JJ, Walker VD (1999) Assessing cultural appropriateness in printed cancer materials. Cancer Pract 7(6):291–296CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Agre P, Dougherty J, Pirone J (2002) Creating a CD-ROM program for cancer-related patient education. Oncol Nurs Forum Online 29(3):573–580CrossRef Agre P, Dougherty J, Pirone J (2002) Creating a CD-ROM program for cancer-related patient education. Oncol Nurs Forum Online 29(3):573–580CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Foltz AT, Sullivan JM (1999) Limited literacy revisited implications for patient education. Cancer Pract 7(3):145–150CrossRefPubMed Foltz AT, Sullivan JM (1999) Limited literacy revisited implications for patient education. Cancer Pract 7(3):145–150CrossRefPubMed
37.
go back to reference Foltz A, Sullivan J (1996) Reading level, learning presentation preference, and desire for information among cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 11(1):32–38PubMed Foltz A, Sullivan J (1996) Reading level, learning presentation preference, and desire for information among cancer patients. J Cancer Educ 11(1):32–38PubMed
38.
go back to reference Folkins A, Sadler GR, Ko C, Branz P, Marsh S, Bovee M (2005) Improving the deaf community's access to prostate and testicular cancer information: a survey study. BMC Public Health 5:63CrossRefPubMed Folkins A, Sadler GR, Ko C, Branz P, Marsh S, Bovee M (2005) Improving the deaf community's access to prostate and testicular cancer information: a survey study. BMC Public Health 5:63CrossRefPubMed
39.
go back to reference Bader JL, Strickman-Stein N (2003) Evaluation of new multimedia formats for cancer communications. J Med Internet Res 5(3):e16CrossRefPubMed Bader JL, Strickman-Stein N (2003) Evaluation of new multimedia formats for cancer communications. J Med Internet Res 5(3):e16CrossRefPubMed
40.
go back to reference Walling AM, Maliski S, Bogorad A, Litwin MS (2004) Assessment of content completeness and accuracy of prostate cancer patient education materials. Patient Educ Couns 54(3):337–343CrossRefPubMed Walling AM, Maliski S, Bogorad A, Litwin MS (2004) Assessment of content completeness and accuracy of prostate cancer patient education materials. Patient Educ Couns 54(3):337–343CrossRefPubMed
41.
go back to reference Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1999) Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials. King's Fund Publishing, London, p 219 Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1999) Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials. King's Fund Publishing, London, p 219
Metadata
Title
Beyond Reading Level: A Systematic Review of the Suitability of Cancer Education Print and Web-based Materials
Authors
Ramona K. C. Finnie
Tisha M. Felder
Suzanne Kneuper Linder
Patricia Dolan Mullen
Publication date
01-12-2010
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of Cancer Education / Issue 4/2010
Print ISSN: 0885-8195
Electronic ISSN: 1543-0154
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-010-0075-0

Other articles of this Issue 4/2010

Journal of Cancer Education 4/2010 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine