Journal of Cancer Education

, Volume 32, Issue 3, pp 483–486 | Cite as

The Persistence of the Pamphlet: On the Continued Relevance of the Health Information Pamphlet in the Digital Age

Article

Abstract

Since the early 2000s, web and digital health information and education has progressed in both volume and innovation (Dutta-Bergman 2006; Mano, Computers in Human Behavior 39 404 412, 2014). A growing number of leading Canadian health institutions (e.g., hospitals, community health centers, and health ministries) are migrating much of their vital public health information and education, once restricted to pamphlets and other physically distributed materials, to online platforms. Examples of these platforms are websites and web pages, eLearning modules, eBooks, streamed classrooms, audiobooks, and online health videos. The steady migration of health information to online platforms is raising important questions for fields of patient education, such as cancer education. These questions include, but are not limited to (a) are pamphlets still a useful modality for patient information and education when so much is available on the Internet? (b) If so, what should be the relationship between print-based and online health information and education, and when should one modality take precedence over the other? This article responds to these questions within the Canadian health care context.

Keywords

Patient education Health literacy Health equity Digital resources Consumer health information Pamphlet Technology 

References

  1. 1.
    Dutta-Bergman M (2006) Media use theory and Internet use for health care. In: Murero M, Rice E (eds) The Internet and health care: theory, research and practice. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah, pp 83–103Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Mano R (2014) Social media and online health services: a health empowerment perspective to online health information. Comput Hum Behav 39:404–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Di Noia J, Schwinn T, Dastur Z, Schinke S (2003) The relative efficacy of pamphlets, CD-ROM, and the Internet for disseminating adolescent drug abuse prevention programs: an exploratory study. Prev Med 37(6):646–653CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Armstrong A, Idriss N, Kim R (2011) Effects of video-based, online education on behavioral and knowledge outcomes in sunscreen use: a randomized controlled trial. Patient Educ Couns 83:273–277CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Reavley N, Cvetkovski S, Jorm A (2011) Sources of information about mental health and links to help seeking: findings from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 46:1267–1264CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kwan M, Arbour-Nicitopoulos K, Lowe D, Taman S, Faulkner G (2010) Student reception, sources, and believability of health-related information. J Am Coll Heal 58(6):555–562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Burns P, Jones S, Iverson D, Caputi P (2013) Where do older Australians receive their health information? Health information sources and their perceived reliability. J Nursing Educ Pract 3(12):60–69Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blanch-Hartigan D, Blake K, Viswanath K (2014) Cancer survivors’ use of numerous information sources for cancer-related information: does more matter? J Cancer Educ 29:488–496CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Davis T, Williams M, Marin E, Parker R, Glass J (2002) Health literacy and cancer communication. A Cancer J Clin 52:134–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haight M, Quan-Haase A, Corbett B (2014) Revisiting the digital divide in Canada: the impact of demographic factors on access to the internet, level of online activity, and social networking site usage. Inf, Commun Soc 17(4):503–519CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lorig K, Holman H (2003) Self-management education: history, definition, outcomes, and mechanisms. Ann Behav Med 26(1):1–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Korp P (2006) Health on the Internet: implications for health promotion. Health Educ Res 21(1):78–86CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Renahy E, Chauvin P (2006) Internet uses for health information seeking: a literature review. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique 54(3):263–275CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Willis E (2014) The making of expert patients: the role of online health communities in arthritis self-management. J Health Psychol 19(12):1613–1625CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Papadakos C, Papadakos J, Catton P, Houston P, McKernan P, Jusko Friedman A (2014) From theory to pamphlet: the 3Ws and an H process for the development of meaningful patient education resources. J Cancer Educ 29(2):304–310CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Papadakos J, Urowitz S, Olmstead C, Jusko Friedman A, Zhu J, Catton P. (2014). Informational needs of gastrointestinal oncology patients. Health Expectations, November 7Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zarcadoolas C (2010) The simplicity complex: exploring simplified health messages in a complex world. Health Promot Int 26(3):338–350CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zarcadoolas C, Pleasant A, Greer D (2005) Understanding health literacy: an expanded model. Health Promot Int 20(2):195–203CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Zarcadoolas C, Blanco M, Boyer J (2002) Unweaving the Web: an exploratory study of low-literate adults’ navigation skills on the World Wide Web. J Health Commun 7:309–324CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    McInnis N, Haglund B (2011) Readability of online health information: implications for health literacy. Inform Health Soc Care 36(4):173–189CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudd R, Kaphingst K, Colton T, Gregoire J, Hyde J (2006) Rewriting public health information in plain language. J Health Commun: Int Perspect 9(3):195–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Stableford S, Mettger W (2007) Plain language: a strategic response to the health literacy challenge. J Public Health Policy 28:71–93CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wicklund K, Ramos K (2009) Plain language: effective communication in the health care setting. J Hosp Librariansh 9:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Eichner J, Dullabh P. (2007) Accessible health information technology (IT) for populations with limited literacy: A guide for developers and purchasers of health IT. Prepared for National Resource Centre for Health IT, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. AHRQ publication No. 08-0010-EFGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Walsh T, Volsko T (2008) Readability assessment of internet-based consumer health information. Respir Care 53(10):1310–1315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Whitten P, Nazione S, Lauckner C (2013) Tools for assessing the quality and accessibility of online health information: initial testing among breast cancer websites. Inform Health Soc Care 38(4):366–381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Brown D, Ludwig R, Buck G, Durham D, Shumard T, Graham S (2004) Health literacy: universal precautions needed. J Allied Health 33(2):150–155PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    DeWalt D, Broucksou K, Hawk V, Hink A, Rudd R, Callahan L (2011) Developing and testing the health literacy universal precautions approach. Nurs Outlook 59(2):85–94CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Papadakos J, Bussiere-Cote S, Abdelmutti N, Catton P, Jusko Friedman A, Massey C, Urowitz S, Ferguson S (2012) Informational needs of gynecologic cancer survivors. Gynecol Oncol 124(3):452–7CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Health Equity Impact Assessment (2012) Workbook (Version 2.0). Ontario Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MOHLTC). Accessed on July 30th, 2015. Retrieved from: http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/pro/programs/heia/docs/workbook.pdf

Copyright information

© American Association for Cancer Education 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Patient and Family Education, Princess Margaret Cancer CentreELLICSRTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Radiation Medicine Program, Princess Margaret Cancer CentrePrincess Margaret Cancer CentreTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations