Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 27, Issue 4, pp 738–743 | Cite as

Quality and Readability of Information Materials for People with Brain Tumours and Their Families

  • Danette LangbeckerEmail author
  • Monika Janda


Written information is commonly used to inform patients about their disease and treatment but must be evidence-based and understandable to be useful. This study assessed the quality of the content and the readability of information brochures for people affected by brain tumours. We randomly selected 18 publicly available brochures. Brochures were assessed by criteria to assess the quality of content using the DISCERN instrument. Readability was tested using three commonly used formulas, which yield the reading grade level required to comprehend the brochure (sixth grade level recommended). The mean overall DISCERN score was 3.17 out of a maximum of 5 (moderate quality); only one achieved a rating greater than 4 (high quality). Only one brochure met the sixth grade readability criteria. Although brochures may have accurate content, few satisfied all of the recommended criteria to evaluate their content. Existing brochures need to be critically reviewed and simplified and consumer-focused brochures, produced.


Patient information Patient education Brain tumours Readability Information Cancer 



The authors would like to thank Karen Remm, Angela Williamson and Ashley Walton for their assistance with this study.


  1. 1.
    Kohler BA, Ward E, McCarthy BJ, Schymura MJ, Ries LA, Eheman C, Jemal A, Anderson RN, Ajani UA, Edwards BK (2011) Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975–2007, featuring tumors of the brain and other nervous system. J Natl Canc Inst 103:714–736CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Janda M, Eakin EG, Bailey L, Walker D, Troy K (2006) Supportive care needs of people with brain tumours and their carers. Support Care Canc 14:1094–1103CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Catt S, Chalmers A, Fallowfield L (2008) Psychosocial and supportive-care needs in high-grade glioma. Lancet Oncol 9:884–891PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Parvataneni R, Polley MY, Freeman T, Lamborn K, Prados M, Butowski N, Liu R, Clarke J, Page M, Rabbitt J, Fedoroff A, Clow E, Hsieh E, Kivett V, Deboer R, Chang S (2011) Identifying the needs of brain tumor patients and their caregivers. J Neurooncol 104:737–744PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Janda M, Steginga S, Dunn J, Langbecker D, Walker D, Eakin EG (2008) Unmet supportive care needs and interest in services among patients with a brain tumour and their carers. Patient Educ Counsel 71:251–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sheard C, Garrud P (2006) Evaluation of generic patient information: effects on health outcomes, knowledge and satisfaction. Patient Educ Counsel 61:43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dewalt DA, Berkman ND, Sheridan S, Lohr KN, Pignone MP (2004) Literacy and health outcomes: a systematic review of the literature. J Gen Intern Med 19:1228–1239PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bunge M, Muhlhauser I, Steckelberg A (2010) What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Counsel 78:316–328CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shepperd S, Charnock D, Gann B (1999) Helping patients access high quality health information. BMJ 319:764–766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Charnock D, Shepperd S, Needham G, Gann R (1999) DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written consumer health information on treatment choices. J Epidemiol Community Health 53:105–111PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Freda MC, Damus K, Merkatz IR (1999) Evaluation of the readability of ACOG patient education pamphlets. Obstet Gynecol 93:771–774PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Weih M, Reinhold A, Richter-Schmidinger T, Sulimma AK, Klein H, Kornhuber J (2008) Unsuitable readability levels of patient information pertaining to dementia and related diseases: a comparative analysis. Int Psychogeriatr 20:1116–1123PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sullivan K, O'Conor F (2001) A readability analysis of Australian stroke information. Top Stroke Rehabil 7:52–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tucha O, Smely C, Preier M, Lange KW (2000) Cognitive deficits before treatment among patients with brain tumors. Neurosurgery 47:324–334PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Rees CE, Ford JE, Sheard CE (2002) Evaluating the reliability of DISCERN: a tool for assessing the quality of written patient information on treatment choices. Patient Educ Counsel 47:273–275CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luk A, Aslani P (2011) Tools used to evaluate written medicine and health information: document and user perspectives. Health Educ Behav 38:389–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading—a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–646Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11(513–6):575–578Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Dollahite J, Thompson C, McNew R (1996) Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Educ Counsel 27:123–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Flesch RF (1979) How to write plain english: a book for lawyers and consumers. Harper and Row, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mumford ME (1997) A descriptive study of the readability of patient information leaflets designed by nurses. J Adv Nurs 26:985–991PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1998) Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials. King's Fund, LondonGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rozmovits L, Ziebland S (2004) What do patients with prostate or breast cancer want from an Internet site? A qualitative study of information needs. Patient Educ Counsel 53:57–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Simonds SK (1995) Communication theory and the search for effective feedback. J Hum Hypertens 9:5–10PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Chen JY, Hovey E, Rosenthal M, Livingstone A, Simes J. COGNO patterns of care study in neuro-oncology in Australia, 2011, Co-operative Trials Group for Neuro-Oncology, SydneyGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Langbecker D, Janda M, Yates P (2012) Development and piloting of a brain tumour-specific question prompt list. Eur J Canc Care. 21(4):517–526Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pander Maat H, Lentz L (2010) Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Counsel 80:113–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Nursing and Institute of Health and Biomedical InnovationQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia
  2. 2.School of Public Health and Social Work and Institute of Health and Biomedical InnovationQueensland University of TechnologyKelvin GroveAustralia

Personalised recommendations