A health literacy analysis of the consumer-oriented COVID-19 information produced by ten state health departments

Nandita S. Mani, Terri Ottosen, Megan Fratta, Fei Yu

Abstract


Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic highlights the public’s need for quality health information that is understandable. This study aimed to identify (1) the extent to which COVID-19 messaging by state public health departments is understandable, actionable, and clear; (2) whether materials produced by public health departments are easily readable; (3) relationships between material type and understandability, actionability, clarity, and reading grade level; and (4) potential strategies to improve public health messaging around COVID-19. 

Methods: Based on US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics from June 30, 2020, we identified the ten states with the most COVID-19 cases and selected forty-two materials (i.e., webpages, infographics, and videos) related to COVID-19 prevention according to predefined eligibility criteria. We applied three validated health literacy tools (i.e., Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, CDC Clear Communication Index, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) to assess material understandability, actionability, clarity, and readability. We also analyzed correlations between scores on the three health literacy tools and material types.

Results: Overall, COVID-19 materials had high understandability and actionability but could be improved in terms of clarity and readability. Material type was significantly correlated with understandability, actionability, and clarity. Infographics and videos received higher scores on all tools.

Conclusions: Based on our findings, we recommend public health entities apply a combination of these tools when developing health information materials to improve their understandability, actionability, and clarity. We also recommend using infographics and videos when possible, taking a human-centered approach to information design, and providing multiple modes and platforms for information delivery.


Keywords


health literacy; communication; information design; COVID-19; public health; consumers; health information; infodemic; state health department; health education; health communication

Full Text:

PDF HTML

References


World Health Organization. Munich Security Conference [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2020 [cited 28 Jul 2020]. Available from: .

World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report – 86 [Internet]. World Health Organization; 2020 Apr [cited 25 Jul 2020]. Available from: .

Ottosen T, Mani NS, Fratta MN. Health information literacy awareness and capacity building: present and future. IFLA Journal. 2019 Jul 10;45(3):207–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0340035219857441.

Coleman C, Kurtz-Rossi S, McKinney J, Pleasant A, Rootman I, Shohet L. The Calgary Charter on Health Literacy: rationale and core principles for the development of health literacy curricula. Montreal, Quebec, Canada: The Centre for Literacy; 2010.

Ratzan SC, Parker RM. Introduction. In: Selden CR, Zorn M, Ratzan SC, Parker RM, eds. National Library of Medicine current bibliographies in medicine: health literacy (CBM 2000-1). Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2000.

Institute of Medicine. Health literacy: a prescription to end confusion. Nielsen-Bohlman L, Panzer AM, Kindig DA, eds. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2004.

Safeer RS, Keenan J. Health literacy: the gap between physicians and patients. Am Fam Physician. 2005 Aug 1;72(3):463–8.

Caballero A, Leath K, Watson J. COVID-19 consumer health information needs improvement to be readable and actionable by high-risk populations. Front Commun. 2020 Aug 7;5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00056.

Sorensen K. IHLA statement to the WHO on health literacy as an essential life-saving strategy during the pandemic [Internet]. IHLA; 2020 May [cited 9 Dec 2020]. Available from: .

Okan O, Sørensen K, Messer M. COVID-19: a guide to good practice on keeping people well informed [Internet]. The Conversation; 2020 [cited 31 Jul 2020]. Available from: .

Tangcharoensathien V, Calleja N, Nguyen T, Purnat T, D’Agostino M, Garcia-Saiso S, Landry M, Rashidian A, Hamilton C, AbdAllah A, Ghiga I, Hill A, Hougendobler D, van Andel J, Nunn M, Brooks I, Sacco PL, De Domenico M, Mai P, Gruzd A, Alaphilippe A, Briand S. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Jun 26;22(6):e19659. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/19659.

Okan O, Bollweg TM, Berens EM, Hurrelmann K, Bauer U, Schaeffer D. Coronavirus-related health literacy: a cross-sectional study in adults during the COVID-19 infodemic in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Jul 30;17(15):5503. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17155503.

Michie S, Rubin J, Amlôt R. Behavioural science must be at the heart of the public health response to covid-19 [Internet]. The BMJ Opinion; 2020 [cited 31 Jul 2020]. Available from: .

Van den Broucke S. Why health promotion matters to the COVID-19 pandemic, and vice versa. Health Promot Int. 2020 Apr 1;35(2):181–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daaa042.

Mishra V, Dexter JP. Comparison of readability of official public health information about COVID-19 on websites of international agencies and the governments of 15 countries. JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Aug 3;3(8):e2018033. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.18033.

Weiss BD. Health literacy and patient safety: help patients understand. Manual for clinicians. 2nd ed. American Medical Association; 2007.

Pacewicz J. States lead the fight against covid-19. That means we all depend on Medicaid now. [Internet]. The Washington Post; 2020 [cited 7 Oct 2020]. Available from: .

CDC. Things to know about the COVID-19 pandemic [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020 [cited 17 Dec 2020]. Available from: .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC COVID data tracker [Internet]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2020 [cited 28 Jun 2020]. Available from: .

Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and user’s guide [Internet]. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2013 Nov [cited 7 Sep 2020]. Report No.: AHRQ Publication No. 14-0002-EF. Available from: .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC clear communication index user guide. 2019 Aug [cited 1 May 2020]. Available from: .

Kincaid JP, Fishburne J, Robert P. R, Richard L. C, Brad S. Derivation of new readability formulas (automated readability index, fog count and Flesch Reading Ease formula) for Navy enlisted personnel. US Dept of the Navy; 1975 Feb.

Early ML, Kumar P, Marcell AV, Lawson C, Christianson M, Pecker LH. Literacy assessment of preimplantation genetic patient education materials exceed national reading levels. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020 Aug;37(8):1913–22. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-020-01837-z.

Lopez Ramos C, Williams JE, Bababekov YJ, Chang DC, Carter BS, Jones PS. Assessing the understandability and actionability of online neurosurgical patient education materials. World Neurosurg. 2019 Oct;130:e588–97. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2019.06.166.

McClure E, Ng J, Vitzthum K, Rudd R. A mismatch between patient education materials about sickle cell disease and the literacy level of their intended audience. Prev Chronic Dis. 2016 May 12;13:E64. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd13.150478.

Tran BNN, Ruan QZ, Epstein S, Ricci JA, Rudd RE, Lee BT. Literacy analysis of National Comprehensive Cancer Network patient guidelines for the most common malignancies in the United States. Cancer. 2018 Feb 15;124(4):769–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.31113.

Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) auto scoring form. 2013 Nov [cited 18 Dec 2020]. Available from: .

Chen DH, Johnson AR, Ayyala H, Lee ES, Lee BT, Tran BNN. A multimetric health literacy analysis of autologous versus implant-based breast reconstruction. Ann Plast Surg. 2020 Jul;85(S1 Suppl 1):S102–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/sap.0000000000002348.

Yiu A, Ng KK, Lee VW, Bajorek BV. Evaluating the understandability and actionability of web-based education materials for patients taking non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2020 Mar;54(2):476–83. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-019-00079-1.

Baur C, Prue C. The CDC Clear Communication Index is a new evidence-based tool to prepare and review health information. Health Promot Pract. 2014 Sep;15(5):629–37. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1524839914538969.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Frequently asked questions [Internet]. The CDC Clear Communication Index; 2015 [cited 10 Sep 2020]. Available from: .

Bonner C, Patel P, Fajardo MA, Zhuang R, Trevena L. Online decision aids for primary cardiovascular disease prevention: systematic search, evaluation of quality and suitability for low health literacy patients. BMJ Open. 2019 Mar 13;9(3):e025173. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-025173.

Chan HW, Russell AM, Smith MY. What is the quality of drug safety information for patients: an analysis of REMS educational materials. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2018 Sep;27(9):969–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.4614.

Eltorai AEM, Ghanian S, Adams CA, Born CT, Daniels AH. Readability of patient education materials on the american association for surgery of trauma website. Arch Trauma Res. 2014 Jun;3(2):e18161. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/atr.18161.

Gazarian PK, Cronin J, Dalto JL, Baker KM, Friel BJ, Bruce-Baiden W, Rodriguez LY. A systematic evaluation of advance care planning patient educational resources. Geriatr Nurs. 2019;40(2):174–80. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gerinurse.2018.09.011.

Lipari M, Berlie H, Saleh Y, Hang P, Moser L. Understandability, actionability, and readability of online patient education materials about diabetes mellitus. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2019 Jan 25;76(3):182–6. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxy021.

Arslan D, Sami Tutar M, Kozanhan B, Bagci Z. The quality, understandability, readability, and popularity of online educational materials for heart murmur. Cardiol Young. 2020 Mar;30(3):328–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s104795111900307x.

Modiri O, Guha D, Alotaibi NM, Ibrahim GM, Lipsman N, Fallah A. Readability and quality of wikipedia pages on neurosurgical topics. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2018 Mar;166:66–70. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clineuro.2018.01.021.

Saeed F, Anderson I. Evaluating the quality and readability of Internet information on meningiomas. World Neurosurg. 2017 Jan;97:312–16. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wneu.2016.10.001.

Collins-Thompson K, Callan JP. A language modeling approach to predicting reading difficulty. Proceedings of the Human Language Technology Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics: HLT-NAACL 2004 [Internet]. Association for Computational Linguistics; 2004 [cited 11 Dec 2020]. p. 193–200. Available from: .

Added Bytes. Readable. Horsham: Added Bytes; 2011.

IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp; 2020.

Shoemaker SJ, Wolf MS, Brach C. Development of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT): a new measure of understandability and actionability for print and audiovisual patient information. Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Sep;96(3):395–403. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2014.05.027.

Vishnevetsky J, Walters CB, Tan KS. Interrater reliability of the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). Patient Educ Couns. 2018;101(3):490–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2017.09.003.

Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Tip 6. Use caution with readability formulas for quality reports [Internet]. Agency for Health Research and Quality; 2015 [cited 3 Sep 2020]. Available from: .

National Institutes of Health. Presenting your information [Internet]. National Institutes of Health; 2017 [cited 10 Sep 2020]. Available from: .

Porter KJ, Alexander R, Perzynski KM, Kruzliakova N, Zoellner JM. Using the clear communication index to improve materials for a behavioral intervention. Health Commun. 2019;34(7):782–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2018.1436383.

Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Section 6: test your site with users with limited literacy skills [Internet]. Health Literacy Online; 2016 [cited 4 Sep 2020]. Available from: .

Schubbe D, Scalia P, Yen RW, Saunders CH, Cohen S, Elwyn G, van den Muijsenbergh M, Durand MA. Using pictures to convey health information: a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects on patient and consumer health behaviors and outcomes. Patient Educ Couns. 2020 Oct;103(10):1935–60. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2020.04.010.

Kontos E, Blake KD, Chou WYS, Prestin A. Predictors of eHealth usage: insights on the digital divide from the Health Information National Trends Survey 2012. J Med Internet Res. 2014 Jul 16;16(7):e172. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2196/jmir.3117.

Hong YA, Cho J. Has the digital health divide widened? Trends of health-related internet use among older adults from 2003 to 2011. J Gerontol B Psychol Sci Soc Sci. 2017 Sep 1;72(5):856–63. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbw100.

Levy H, Janke AT, Langa KM. Health literacy and the digital divide among older Americans. J Gen Intern Med. 2015 Mar;30(3):284–9. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-014-3069-5.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2021.1165

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.




Copyright (c) 2021 Nandita S. Mani, Terri Ottosen, Megan Fratta, Fei Yu

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.