Abstract
Objectives
To determine whether the reading level of health information printouts and the inclusion of commercial information varied in a statistically significant manner in printouts obtained from a retail pharmacy.
Methods
A total of 31 different health information printouts were evaluated for reading level using the Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability analysis. Chi-square was used to determine differences in the presence or absence of four commercial content parameters: mention of a health organization, mention of a manufacturer, mention of a drug, or mention of a dose.
Results
A single-sample t-test revealed a statistically significant difference in reading level among the health information printouts, t(30) = 47.91, p < 0.000, two-tailed. Chi-square analysis found no significant difference in whether a health organization, χ2(1, n = 31) = 1.58, p = 0.21, or a manufacturer, χ2 (1, n = 31) = 2.61, p = 0.11, were mentioned. There was a statistically significant difference in whether a drug, χ2(1, n = 31) = 9.32, p = 0.002, or a dose, χ2(1, n = 31) = 20.16, p = 0.000, was mentioned.
Conclusions
The fact that reading levels and the mention of a drug or dose was significantly different among the printouts suggests that these were not random events. It is thought that printouts, which have strong commercial overtones, are prepared in a manner to influence consumers to seek these products from their health care provider and not to strictly provide information on a particular health condition or disease state.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
- 1.
United States Department of Education. 1992 National Adult Literacy Survey: Overview. http://www.nces.ed.gov/nadlits/naal92/overview.html. (Accessed March 11, 1999)
- 2.
Davis TC, Crouch MA, Wills G, Miller S, Abdehou DM. The gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Family Practice. 1990;31(5):533–538.
- 3.
Davis TC, Mayeaux EJ, Fredrickson D, Bocchini JA, Jackson RH, Murphy PW. Reading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics. 1994;93(4):460–468.
- 4.
Jackson RH, Davis TC, Bairnsfather LE, George RB, Crouch MA, Gault H. Patient reading ability: An overlooked problem in health care. Southern Med J. 1991;84(10):1172–1175.
- 5.
Leichter SB, Nieman JA, Moore RW, Collins P, Rhodes A. Readability of self-care instructional pamphlets for diabetic patients. Diabetes Care. 1981;4(6):627–629.
- 6.
McNeal B, Salisbury Z, Baumgardner P, Wheeler FC. Comprehension assessment of diabetes education program participants. Diabetes Care. 1984;7(3):232–235.
- 7.
Meade CD, Byrd JC. Patient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature. Am J Public Health. 1989;79(2):204–206.
- 8.
Morrow GR. How readable are subject consent forms? J Am Med Assoc. 1980;244(1):56–58.
- 9.
Powers RD. Emergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed Materials. Ann Emergency Med. 1988;17(2):124–126.
- 10.
Ryan-Haddad A, Bramble JD, Lee B, Mucker A, Kellner V. OTC product labels and older patients. U.S. Pharmacist. January 2000:38–47.
- 11.
Smith S. Readability testing health information. http://www.prenataled.com/story9.htm. (Accessed February 17, 1999)
- 12.
Marinac JS. Outpatient Cardiology. In Burke JM, Coonce SL, DeYoung GR, Hak LJ, Kuehl PG, Marinac JS, Mays-Holland TA, McMullin T, Oles KS, Smith CL. (Eds.) 2000 Update in Therapeutics. Kansas City, MO: American College of Clinical Pharmacy; 2000: 334.
Author information
Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rolland, P.D. Differences in Reading Level and Commercial Information Content in Pharmacy-Provided Health Information Printouts. Ther Innov Regul Sci 36, 187–192 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150203600124
Published:
Issue Date:
Key Words
- Commercial information
- Health information
- Literacy
- Readability analysis