Beyond Reading Level: A Systematic Review of the Suitability of Cancer Education Print and Web-based Materials
- 550 Downloads
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.
KeywordsSuitability Cancer Educational materials
UT SPH research librarians Margaret Anderson-Foster, MS, MPH and Helena Vonville, MLS, MPH designed the search strategy; Valandra German, MPH assisted in coding studies; Karyn Popham provided editorial assistance; and the health promotion and behavioral sciences doctoral research seminar members made helpful comments on multiple versions of this paper.
- 1.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)Google Scholar
- 2.Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L (2006) A systematic review of readability and comprehension instruments used for print and Web-based cancer information. Health Educ Behav 33(3):352, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2009192269&site=ehost-live CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 3.Doak CC, Doak LG, Root JH (1996) Teaching patients with low literacy skills, 2nd edn. Lippincott-Raven Company, Philadelphia, p 212Google Scholar
- 4.Doak LG, Doak CC, Meade CD (1996) Patient education. Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 23(8):1305–1312, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=1996041916&site=ehost-live PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Nielson-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA (2004) Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion.Google Scholar
- 11.Doak CC, Doak LG, Friedell GH, Meade CD (1998) Improving comprehension for cancer patients with low literacy skills: strategies for clinicians. CA 48(3):151–162, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=1998052766&site=ehost-live PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 12.Chan E, Haynes MC, O'Donnell F, Bachino C, Vernon SW (2003) Cultural sensitivity and informed decision making about prostate cancer screening. J Commun Health 28(6):393–405, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2004017253&site=ehost-live CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Singh J (2003) Reading grade level and readability of printed cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum 30(5):867–870, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=2003134939&site=ehost-live CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 20.Guidry JJ, Larke P, Walker VD, Fagan P, McDowell T, Cormeaux S (1996) Cancer prevention materials for African-Americans: cultural sensitivity assessment tool manual. http://www.cprit.state.tx.us/pcemat/titlepage.html. Accessed 19 June 2009.
- 21.Massett HA (1996) Appropriateness of Hispanic print materials: a content analysis. Health Educ Res 11(2):231–242, http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=rzh&AN=1997009423&site=ehost-live CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 22.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):70–78Google Scholar
- 23.Friedman DB, Hoffman-Goetz L (2006) Assessment of cultural sensitivity of cancer information in ethnic print media. J Health Comm: Int Pers 11(4):425, http://www.informaworld.com/10.1080/10810730600671920 Google Scholar
- 33.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 49–75Google Scholar
- 41.Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1999) Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials. King's Fund Publishing, London, p 219Google Scholar