Abstract
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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
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 103:714–736
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 14:1094–1103
Catt S, Chalmers A, Fallowfield L (2008) Psychosocial and supportive-care needs in high-grade glioma. Lancet Oncol 9:884–891
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 104:737–744
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 71:251–258
Sheard C, Garrud P (2006) Evaluation of generic patient information: effects on health outcomes, knowledge and satisfaction. Patient Educ Counsel 61:43–47
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 19:1228–1239
Bunge M, Muhlhauser I, Steckelberg A (2010) What constitutes evidence-based patient information? Overview of discussed criteria. Patient Educ Counsel 78:316–328
Shepperd S, Charnock D, Gann B (1999) Helping patients access high quality health information. BMJ 319:764–766
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 53:105–111
Freda MC, Damus K, Merkatz IR (1999) Evaluation of the readability of ACOG patient education pamphlets. Obstet Gynecol 93:771–774
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 20:1116–1123
Sullivan K, O'Conor F (2001) A readability analysis of Australian stroke information. Top Stroke Rehabil 7:52–60
Tucha O, Smely C, Preier M, Lange KW (2000) Cognitive deficits before treatment among patients with brain tumors. Neurosurgery 47:324–334
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 47:273–275
Luk A, Aslani P (2011) Tools used to evaluate written medicine and health information: document and user perspectives. Health Educ Behav 38:389–403
McLaughlin GH (1969) SMOG grading—a new readability formula. J Read 12:639–646
Fry E (1968) A readability formula that saves time. J Read 11(513–6):575–578
Dollahite J, Thompson C, McNew R (1996) Readability of printed sources of diet and health information. Patient Educ Counsel 27:123–134
Flesch RF (1979) How to write plain english: a book for lawyers and consumers. Harper and Row, New York
Mumford ME (1997) A descriptive study of the readability of patient information leaflets designed by nurses. J Adv Nurs 26:985–991
Coulter A, Entwistle V, Gilbert D (1998) Informing patients: an assessment of the quality of patient information materials. King's Fund, London
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 53:57–64
Simonds SK (1995) Communication theory and the search for effective feedback. J Hum Hypertens 9:5–10
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, Sydney
Langbecker D, Janda M, Yates P (2012) Development and piloting of a brain tumour-specific question prompt list. Eur J Canc Care. 21(4):517–526
Pander Maat H, Lentz L (2010) Improving the usability of patient information leaflets. Patient Educ Counsel 80:113–119
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Karen Remm, Angela Williamson and Ashley Walton for their assistance with this study.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Langbecker, D., Janda, M. Quality and Readability of Information Materials for People with Brain Tumours and Their Families. J Canc Educ 27, 738–743 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0401-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13187-012-0401-9