Loading…

Tools Used to Evaluate Written Medicine and Health Information: Document and User Perspectives

This study aims to identify and review tools used to evaluate consumer-oriented written medicine (WMI) and health (WHI) information from a document and user perspective. Articles that met the following inclusion criteria were reviewed: studies evaluating readability, presentation, suitability, quali...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Health education & behavior 2011-08, Vol.38 (4), p.389-403
Main Authors:	Luk, Alice, Aslani, Parisa, Stud, Grad Cert Ed
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Subjects:	Biological and medical sciences Comprehension Consumers Content Validity Drug Labeling - methods Global health Health Health care Health education Health Literacy Humans Information Sources Literacy Measures (Individuals) Medical sciences Medicine Miscellaneous Patient education Patient Education as Topic - methods Patient satisfaction Pharmaceutical Preparations Prescription drugs Prevention and actions Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Readability Reading Materials Smog Suitability Writing
Citations:	Items that this one cites
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

cited_by
cites	cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-3a2259a17762d786f5e671533a09e0376cd285a3e606308cb4eb0dcd063cff153
container_end_page	403
container_issue	4
container_start_page	389
container_title	Health education & behavior
container_volume	38
creator	Luk, Alice Aslani, Parisa Stud, Grad Cert Ed
description	This study aims to identify and review tools used to evaluate consumer-oriented written medicine (WMI) and health (WHI) information from a document and user perspective. Articles that met the following inclusion criteria were reviewed: studies evaluating readability, presentation, suitability, quality of WMI/WHI. A total of 152 articles were identified, of which 64 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine original studies used evaluation tools and 5 reviewed a specific group of tools. Sixteen detailed the development or validation of an instrument. Fifteen studies evaluated WMI and 28 evaluated WHI. Twenty-three evaluation instruments were identified. Of the seven readability tests, SMOG was predominantly used (12 of 43 studies). Eight tools measured health literacy, with REALM being the most popular instrument (7 of 43). SAM was the most commonly used presentation tool (12 of 43 studies). Many tools are available to evaluate WMI and WHI. However, the majority are researcher focused. Most evaluate readability and presentation, revealing a gap in valid and reliable tools for assessing quality of information, and those that can be used by consumers.
doi_str_mv	10.1177/1090198110379576
format	article
fullrecord	<record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_902097700</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ934411</ericid><jstor_id>45056731</jstor_id><sage_id>10.1177_1090198110379576</sage_id><sourcerecordid>45056731</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-3a2259a17762d786f5e671533a09e0376cd285a3e606308cb4eb0dcd063cff153</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqF0U1v1DAQBmALgegH3DkAspAQp8DYju2YG2oXWlQEh1bciLzOBLJK7MV2KvHvccmylXqAk229j0czGkKeMHjNmNZvGBhgpmEMhDZSq3vkkEnJK8W4vl_uJa5u8gNylNIGAJQB-ZAccFYbEGAOybfLEMZErxJ2NAe6urbjbDPSr3HIGT39hN3gBo_U-o6eoR3zD3ru-xAnm4fg39LT4OYJff4DSplIv2BMW3R5uMb0iDzo7Zjw8e48JlfvV5cnZ9XF5w_nJ-8uKldzlithOZfGlpEU73SjeolKMymEBYNlNuU63kgrUIES0Lh1jWvoXFderu8LPCavlrrbGH7OmHI7DcnhOFqPYU6tAQ5Ga4D_yqYBYxRIXuSLO3IT5ujLGAVJaDiHuiBYkIshpYh9u43DZOOvlkF7s6P27o7Kl-e7uvN6wm7_4e9SCni5AzY5O_bRejekW1fXTHKji3u6OIyD28erj0YUwUpcLXGy3_G293_09Wzxm5RD3NerJUilBRO_ATW_tjQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>885082204</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Tools Used to Evaluate Written Medicine and Health Information: Document and User Perspectives</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection</source><source>ERIC</source><source>SAGE</source><creator>Luk, Alice ; Aslani, Parisa ; Stud, Grad Cert Ed</creator><creatorcontrib>Luk, Alice ; Aslani, Parisa ; Stud, Grad Cert Ed</creatorcontrib><description>This study aims to identify and review tools used to evaluate consumer-oriented written medicine (WMI) and health (WHI) information from a document and user perspective. Articles that met the following inclusion criteria were reviewed: studies evaluating readability, presentation, suitability, quality of WMI/WHI. A total of 152 articles were identified, of which 64 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine original studies used evaluation tools and 5 reviewed a specific group of tools. Sixteen detailed the development or validation of an instrument. Fifteen studies evaluated WMI and 28 evaluated WHI. Twenty-three evaluation instruments were identified. Of the seven readability tests, SMOG was predominantly used (12 of 43 studies). Eight tools measured health literacy, with REALM being the most popular instrument (7 of 43). SAM was the most commonly used presentation tool (12 of 43 studies). Many tools are available to evaluate WMI and WHI. However, the majority are researcher focused. Most evaluate readability and presentation, revealing a gap in valid and reliable tools for assessing quality of information, and those that can be used by consumers.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1090-1981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1552-6127</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1177/1090198110379576</identifier><identifier>PMID: 21490309</identifier><identifier>CODEN: HEDBFS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications</publisher><subject>Biological and medical sciences ; Comprehension ; Consumers ; Content Validity ; Drug Labeling - methods ; Global health ; Health ; Health care ; Health education ; Health Literacy ; Humans ; Information Sources ; Literacy ; Measures (Individuals) ; Medical sciences ; Medicine ; Miscellaneous ; Patient education ; Patient Education as Topic - methods ; Patient satisfaction ; Pharmaceutical Preparations ; Prescription drugs ; Prevention and actions ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Readability ; Reading Materials ; Smog ; Suitability ; Writing</subject><ispartof>Health education & behavior, 2011-08, Vol.38 (4), p.389-403</ispartof><rights>Copyright © 2011 Society for Public Health Education</rights><rights>2011 by SOPHE</rights><rights>2015 INIST-CNRS</rights><rights>Copyright SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC. Aug 2011</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-3a2259a17762d786f5e671533a09e0376cd285a3e606308cb4eb0dcd063cff153</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45056731$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/45056731$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925,30999,31000,58238,58471,79364</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ934411$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=24415297$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21490309$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Luk, Alice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aslani, Parisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stud, Grad Cert Ed</creatorcontrib><title>Tools Used to Evaluate Written Medicine and Health Information: Document and User Perspectives</title><title>Health education & behavior</title><addtitle>Health Educ Behav</addtitle><description>This study aims to identify and review tools used to evaluate consumer-oriented written medicine (WMI) and health (WHI) information from a document and user perspective. Articles that met the following inclusion criteria were reviewed: studies evaluating readability, presentation, suitability, quality of WMI/WHI. A total of 152 articles were identified, of which 64 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine original studies used evaluation tools and 5 reviewed a specific group of tools. Sixteen detailed the development or validation of an instrument. Fifteen studies evaluated WMI and 28 evaluated WHI. Twenty-three evaluation instruments were identified. Of the seven readability tests, SMOG was predominantly used (12 of 43 studies). Eight tools measured health literacy, with REALM being the most popular instrument (7 of 43). SAM was the most commonly used presentation tool (12 of 43 studies). Many tools are available to evaluate WMI and WHI. However, the majority are researcher focused. Most evaluate readability and presentation, revealing a gap in valid and reliable tools for assessing quality of information, and those that can be used by consumers.</description><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>Comprehension</subject><subject>Consumers</subject><subject>Content Validity</subject><subject>Drug Labeling - methods</subject><subject>Global health</subject><subject>Health</subject><subject>Health care</subject><subject>Health education</subject><subject>Health Literacy</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Information Sources</subject><subject>Literacy</subject><subject>Measures (Individuals)</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Miscellaneous</subject><subject>Patient education</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic - methods</subject><subject>Patient satisfaction</subject><subject>Pharmaceutical Preparations</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><subject>Prevention and actions</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene</subject><subject>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</subject><subject>Readability</subject><subject>Reading Materials</subject><subject>Smog</subject><subject>Suitability</subject><subject>Writing</subject><issn>1090-1981</issn><issn>1552-6127</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2011</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7SW</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNqF0U1v1DAQBmALgegH3DkAspAQp8DYju2YG2oXWlQEh1bciLzOBLJK7MV2KvHvccmylXqAk229j0czGkKeMHjNmNZvGBhgpmEMhDZSq3vkkEnJK8W4vl_uJa5u8gNylNIGAJQB-ZAccFYbEGAOybfLEMZErxJ2NAe6urbjbDPSr3HIGT39hN3gBo_U-o6eoR3zD3ru-xAnm4fg39LT4OYJff4DSplIv2BMW3R5uMb0iDzo7Zjw8e48JlfvV5cnZ9XF5w_nJ-8uKldzlithOZfGlpEU73SjeolKMymEBYNlNuU63kgrUIES0Lh1jWvoXFderu8LPCavlrrbGH7OmHI7DcnhOFqPYU6tAQ5Ga4D_yqYBYxRIXuSLO3IT5ujLGAVJaDiHuiBYkIshpYh9u43DZOOvlkF7s6P27o7Kl-e7uvN6wm7_4e9SCni5AzY5O_bRejekW1fXTHKji3u6OIyD28erj0YUwUpcLXGy3_G293_09Wzxm5RD3NerJUilBRO_ATW_tjQ</recordid><startdate>20110801</startdate><enddate>20110801</enddate><creator>Luk, Alice</creator><creator>Aslani, Parisa</creator><creator>Stud, Grad Cert Ed</creator><general>SAGE Publications</general><general>Sage Publications</general><general>SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20110801</creationdate><title>Tools Used to Evaluate Written Medicine and Health Information: Document and User Perspectives</title><author>Luk, Alice ; Aslani, Parisa ; Stud, Grad Cert Ed</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-3a2259a17762d786f5e671533a09e0376cd285a3e606308cb4eb0dcd063cff153</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2011</creationdate><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>Comprehension</topic><topic>Consumers</topic><topic>Content Validity</topic><topic>Drug Labeling - methods</topic><topic>Global health</topic><topic>Health</topic><topic>Health care</topic><topic>Health education</topic><topic>Health Literacy</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Information Sources</topic><topic>Literacy</topic><topic>Measures (Individuals)</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Miscellaneous</topic><topic>Patient education</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic - methods</topic><topic>Patient satisfaction</topic><topic>Pharmaceutical Preparations</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><topic>Prevention and actions</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene</topic><topic>Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine</topic><topic>Readability</topic><topic>Reading Materials</topic><topic>Smog</topic><topic>Suitability</topic><topic>Writing</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Luk, Alice</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aslani, Parisa</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Stud, Grad Cert Ed</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Nursing & Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Health education & behavior</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Luk, Alice</au><au>Aslani, Parisa</au><au>Stud, Grad Cert Ed</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ934411</ericid><atitle>Tools Used to Evaluate Written Medicine and Health Information: Document and User Perspectives</atitle><jtitle>Health education & behavior</jtitle><addtitle>Health Educ Behav</addtitle><date>2011-08-01</date><risdate>2011</risdate><volume>38</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>389</spage><epage>403</epage><pages>389-403</pages><issn>1090-1981</issn><eissn>1552-6127</eissn><coden>HEDBFS</coden><abstract>This study aims to identify and review tools used to evaluate consumer-oriented written medicine (WMI) and health (WHI) information from a document and user perspective. Articles that met the following inclusion criteria were reviewed: studies evaluating readability, presentation, suitability, quality of WMI/WHI. A total of 152 articles were identified, of which 64 satisfied the inclusion criteria. Fifty-nine original studies used evaluation tools and 5 reviewed a specific group of tools. Sixteen detailed the development or validation of an instrument. Fifteen studies evaluated WMI and 28 evaluated WHI. Twenty-three evaluation instruments were identified. Of the seven readability tests, SMOG was predominantly used (12 of 43 studies). Eight tools measured health literacy, with REALM being the most popular instrument (7 of 43). SAM was the most commonly used presentation tool (12 of 43 studies). Many tools are available to evaluate WMI and WHI. However, the majority are researcher focused. Most evaluate readability and presentation, revealing a gap in valid and reliable tools for assessing quality of information, and those that can be used by consumers.</abstract><cop>Los Angeles, CA</cop><pub>SAGE Publications</pub><pmid>21490309</pmid><doi>10.1177/1090198110379576</doi><tpages>15</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext	fulltext
identifier	ISSN: 1090-1981
ispartof	Health education & behavior, 2011-08, Vol.38 (4), p.389-403
issn	1090-1981 1552-6127
language	eng
recordid	cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_902097700
source	Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection; ERIC; SAGE
subjects	Biological and medical sciences Comprehension Consumers Content Validity Drug Labeling - methods Global health Health Health care Health education Health Literacy Humans Information Sources Literacy Measures (Individuals) Medical sciences Medicine Miscellaneous Patient education Patient Education as Topic - methods Patient satisfaction Pharmaceutical Preparations Prescription drugs Prevention and actions Public health. Hygiene Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine Readability Reading Materials Smog Suitability Writing
title	Tools Used to Evaluate Written Medicine and Health Information: Document and User Perspectives
url	http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-28T21%3A25%3A56IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Tools%20Used%20to%20Evaluate%20Written%20Medicine%20and%20Health%20Information:%20Document%20and%20User%20Perspectives&rft.jtitle=Health%20education%20&%20behavior&rft.au=Luk,%20Alice&rft.date=2011-08-01&rft.volume=38&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=389&rft.epage=403&rft.pages=389-403&rft.issn=1090-1981&rft.eissn=1552-6127&rft.coden=HEDBFS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1177/1090198110379576&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E45056731%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c421t-3a2259a17762d786f5e671533a09e0376cd285a3e606308cb4eb0dcd063cff153%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=885082204&rft_id=info:pmid/21490309&rft_ericid=EJ934411&rft_jstor_id=45056731&rft_sage_id=10.1177_1090198110379576&rfr_iscdi=true