Skip directly to site content Skip directly to page options Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link Skip directly to A-Z link
Volume 21, Number 7—July 2015
Dispatch

Readability of Ebola Information on Websites of Public Health Agencies, United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and Europe

Enrique Castro-SánchezComments to Author , Elpiniki Spanoudakis, and Alison H. Holmes
Author affiliations: Imperial College London, London, UK; and National Institute for Health Research, London

Main Article

Table

Readability of Ebola public information published by selected public health agencies*

Readability formula Selected website
 Mean ± SD (95% CI)
ECDC (20.0)† PHE (16.40)† CDC (17.49)† Government of Canada (16.38)† WHO (NA) Government of Australia (12.55)†
Gunning Fog Index 13.7 (hard to read) 13.9 (hard to read) 10.7 (hard to read) 12.9 (hard to read) 10.3 (fairly easy to read) 14.1 (hard to read) 12.6 ± 1.68 (10.83–14.36)
Flesch Reading Ease Score 48.2 (difficult to read) 45.4 (difficult to read) 53 (fairly difficult to read) 42.2 (difficult to read) 62.3 (standard/avg) 42 (difficult to read) 48.85 ± 7.76 (40.69–57.00)
Automated Readability Index 11.6 (17–18 y old) 12.5 (18–19 y old) 7.8 (12–14 y old) 11.8 (17–18 y old) 8.6 (13–15 y old) 11.9 (17–18 y old) 10.7 ± 1.97 (8.62–12.77)
Coleman-Liau Index 12 (12th grade) 12 (12th grade) 10 (10th grade) 13 (college) 9 (9th grade) 11 (11th grade) 11.16 ± 1.47 (9.62–12.71)
SMOG Index 10.7 (11th grade) 11 (11th grade) 9.4 (9th grade) 11.1 (11th grade) 8.4 (8th grade) 11.5 (12th grade) 10.35 ± 1.19 (9.09–11.60)
Linsear Write Formula 13 (college) 14.1 (college) 8.4 (8th grade) 12.6 (college) 9.5 (10th grade) 14.1 (college) 11.95 ± 2.42 (9.40–14.49)
Flesch-Kincaid US Grade Level 11.3 (11th grade) 12.1 (12th grade) 9.2 (9th grade) 11.8 (12th grade) 8.8 (9th grade) 12.4 (12th grade) 10.93 ± 1.54 (9.31–12.55)

*ECDC, European Centre for Disease Control; PHE, Public Health England; CDC, US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; WHO, World Health Organization; NA, not applicable; avg, average; SMOG, simple measure of gobbledygook. Items in parentheses are general assessments, age levels, or US-equivalent grade levels.
†Percentage of adults 16–65 years of age with literacy proficiency below reading level recommended for health information materials. ECDC percentage refers to a sample of 17 European Union Member States (12).

Main Article

References
  1. World Health Organization. Statement on the 1st meeting of the IHR emergency committee on the 2014 Ebola outbreak in West Africa. World Health Organization, IHR Emergency Committee regarding Ebola; 2014 [cited 2014 Nov 11]. http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/statements/2014/ebola-20140808/en/
  2. World Health Organization. WHO Disease Outbreak News 1st October 2014: Ebola virus disease—United States of America. World Health Organization, Global alert and response; 2014 [cited 2014 Nov 11]. http://www.who.int/csr/don/01-october-2014-ebola/en/
  3. Ebola in West Africa: gaining community trust and confidence. Lancet. 2014;383:1946. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Mosquera  M, Melendez  V, Latasa  P. Handling Europe’s first Ebola case: internal hospital communication experience. Am J Infect Control. 2015;Feb 24:pii: S0196-6553(15)00033-4.
  5. Nutbeam  D. Health literacy as a public health goal: a challenge for contemporary health education and communication strategies into the 21st century. Health Promot Int. 2000;15:259–67. DOIGoogle Scholar
  6. White  S, Chen  J, Atchison  R. Relationship of preventive health practices and health literacy: a national study. Am J Health Behav. 2008;32:227–42. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Rudd  RE. Health literacy skills of U.S. adults. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31(Suppl 1):S8–18. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. National Work Group on Literacy and Health. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. J Fam Pract. 1998;46:168–76 .PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Albright  J, de Guzman  C, Acebo  P, Paiva  D, Faulkner  M, Swanson  J. Readability of patient education materials: implications for clinical practice. Appl Nurs Res. 1996;9:139–43. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Cotugna  N, Vickery  CE, Carpenter-Haefele  KM. Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health. 2005;30:213–9. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Calvo  MG, Carreiras  M. Selective influence of test anxiety on reading processes. Br J Psychol. 1993;84:375–88 and. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD skills outlook 2013: first results from the survey of adult skills. Paris. Organ. 2013;•••: .DOIGoogle Scholar
  13. van Bekkum  JE, Hilton  S. Primary care nurses’ experiences of how the mass media influence frontline healthcare in the UK. BMC Fam Pract. 2013;14:178. DOIPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fox  S. Digital divisions. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2005 [cited 2014 Nov 11]. http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2005/PIP_Digital_Divisions_Oct_5_2005.pdf
  15. Meade  C, Smith  C. Readability formulae: cautions and criteria. Patient Education and Counseling. 1991;17:153e8.

Main Article

Page created: June 15, 2015
Page updated: June 15, 2015
Page reviewed: June 15, 2015
The conclusions, findings, and opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the official position of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors' affiliated institutions. Use of trade names is for identification only and does not imply endorsement by any of the groups named above.
file_external