Search

Objective: The research compared and contrasted hand-scoring and computerized methods of evaluating the grade level of patient education materials that are distributed at an academic medical center in east Tennessee and sought to determine if these materials adhered to the American Medical Association’s (AMA’s) recommended reading level of sixth grade.Methods: Librarians at an academic medical center located in the heart of Appalachian Tennessee initiated the assessment of 150 of the most used printed patient education materials. Based on the Flesch-Kincaid (F-K) scoring rubric, 2 of the 150 documents were excluded from statistical comparisons due to the absence of text (images only). Researchers assessed the remaining 148 documents using the hand-scored Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) method and the computerized F-K grade level method. For SMOG, 3 independent reviewers hand-scored each of the 150 documents. For F-K, documents were analyzed using Microsoft Word. Reading grade levels scores were entered into a database for statistical analysis. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC). Paired t-tests were used to compare readability means.Results: Acceptable inter-rater reliability was found for SMOG (ICC=0.95). For the 148 documents assessed, SMOG produced a significantly higher mean reading grade level (M=9.6, SD=1.3) than F-K (M=6.5, SD=1.3; p

Objective: This scoping review investigates how knowledge and skills are assessed in the information literacy (IL) instruction for students in physical therapy, occupational therapy, or speech-language pathology, regardless of whether the instruction was given by a librarian. The objectives were to discover what assessment measures were used, determine whether these assessment methods were tested for reliability and validity, and provide librarians with guidance on assessment methods to use in their instruction in evidence-based practice contexts.Methods: A scoping review methodology was used. A systematic search strategy was run in Ovid MEDLINE and adapted for CINAHL; EMBASE; Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) (EBSCO); Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA); Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts (LISTA); and Proquest Theses and Dissertations from 1990 to January 16, 2017. Forty articles were included for data extraction.Results: Three major themes emerged: types of measures used, type and context of librarian involvement, and skills and outcomes described. Thirty-four measures of attitude and thirty-seven measures of performance were identified. Course products were the most commonly used type of performance measure. Librarians were involved in almost half the studies, most frequently as instructor, but also as author or assessor. Information literacy skills such as question formulation and database searching were described in studies that did not involve a librarian.Conclusion: Librarians involved in instructional assessment can use rubrics such as the Valid Assessment of Learning in Undergraduate Education (VALUE) when grading assignments to improve the measurement of knowledge and skills in course-integrated IL instruction. The adapted Fresno test could be modified to better suit the real-life application of IL knowledge and skills.

Objectives: This study aimed to systematically identify and evaluate the readability and document complexity of currently available family history tools for the general public. Methods: Three steps were undertaken to identify family history tools for evaluation: (a) Internet searches, (b) expert consultation, and (c) literature searches. Tools identified were assessed for readability using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) readability formula. The complexity of documents (i.e., forms collecting family history information) was assessed using the PMOSE/IKIRSCH document readability formula. Results: A total of 78 tools were identified, 47 of which met the criteria for inclusion. SMOG reading grade levels for multimedia-based tools ranged from 10.1 to 18.3, with an average score of 13.6. For print-based tools, SMOG ranged from 8.7 to 14.1, with an average score of 12.0. Document complexity ranged from very low complexity (level 1 proficiency) to high complexity (level 4 proficiency). Conclusion: The majority of tools are written at a reading grade level that is beyond the 8th grade average reading level in the United States. The lack of family history tools that are easy to read or use may compromise their potential effectiveness in identifying individuals at increased risk for chronic diseases in the general population.

Objective The study's purpose was to test the generalizability of an individualized information prescription model, which has been previously validated for educating patients about hypertension in emergency department and community health center settings. Study investigators assessed the effects of educational materials targeted to health literacy levels and learning styles on patients' diabetes knowledge in a community clinic setting. Methods From May to August 2012, 160 patients were recruited and randomized into intervention (n = 81) and control (n = 79) groups. Inclusion criteria included 18 years or older, English or Spanish speaker, and a type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Measures included modified versions of the Diabetes Knowledge Test and Subjective Numeracy Scale, along with brief health literacy and learning style assessments. Study team members contacted both groups after 2 and 6 weeks to reassess diabetes knowledge. Results The control group showed no significant change in diabetes knowledge at both follow-ups. In contrast, the mean number of diabetes knowledge questions answered correctly by the intervention group increased significantly after 2 weeks (Δ = 2.66, P = 0.000), which persisted at 6 weeks (Δ = 2.46, P = 0.00). Conclusions This study showed that patients' knowledge about diabetes increased significantly after exposure to educational materials targeted to their health literacy levels and learning style preferences and that the model is transferrable among health conditions.

Low health literacy is associated with poor health outcomes. Research is needed to understand the mechanisms and pathways of its effects. Computer-based assessment tools may improve efficiency and cost-effectiveness of health literacy research. The objective of this preliminary study was to assess if administration of the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (STOFHLA) through a computer-based medium was comparable to the paper-based test in terms of accuracy and time to completion. A randomized, crossover design was used to compare computer versus paper format of the STOFHLA at a Midwestern family medicine residency program. Eighty participants were initially randomized to either computer ( n = 42) or paper ( n = 38) format of the STOFHLA. After a 30-day washout period, participants returned to complete the other version of the STOFHLA. Data analysis revealed no significant difference between paper- and computer-based surveys ( p = .9401; N = 57). The majority of participants showed “adequate” health literacy via paper- and computer-based surveys (100% and 97% of participants, respectively). Electronic administration of STOFHLA results were equivalent to the paper administration results for evaluation of adult health literacy. Future investigations should focus on expanded populations in multiple health care settings and validation of other health literacy screening tools in a clinical setting.

Objectives: This study examined the levels of genetic knowledge, health literacy and beliefs about causation of health conditions among individuals in different age groups. Methods: Individuals (n = 971) recruited through 8 community health centers in Suffolk County, New York, completed a one-time survey. Results: Levels of genetic knowledge were lower among individuals in older age groups (26–35, p = 0.011; 36–49, p = 0.002; 50 years and older, pConclusions: Providing additional information that compensates for their lower genetic knowledge may help individuals in older age groups benefit from rapidly emerging genetic health information more fully. Increasing the levels of genetic knowledge about common complex diseases may help motivate individuals to engage in health promoting behaviors to maintain healthy weight through increases in behavioral causal attributions.

Genomic research is transforming our understanding of the role of genes in health and disease. These advances, and their application to common diseases that affect large segments of the general population, suggest that researchers and practitioners in public health genomics will increasingly be called upon to translate genomic information to individuals with varying levels of health literacy and numeracy. This paper discusses the current state of research regarding public understanding of genetics and genomics, the influence of health literacy and numeracy on genetic communication, and behavioral responses to genetic and genomic information. The existing research suggests that members of the general public have some familiarity with genetic and genomic terms but have gaps in understanding of underlying concepts. Findings from the limited research base to date indicate that health literacy affects understanding of print and oral communications about genetic and genomic information. Numeracy is also likely to be an important predictor of being able to understand and apply this information, although little research has been conducted in this area to date. In addition, although some research has examined behavior change in response to the receipt of information about genetic risk for familial disorders and genomic susceptibility to common, complex diseases, the effects of health literacy and numeracy on these responses have not been examined. Potential areas in which additional research is needed are identified and practical suggestions for presenting numeric risk information are outlined. Public health genomics researchers and practitioners are uniquely positioned to engage in research that explores how different audiences react to and use genomic risk information.