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.
DavisTCCrouchMAWillsGMillerSAbdehouDMThe gap between patient reading comprehension and the readability of patient education materials. J Family Practice.1990;31(5):533–538.
3.
DavisTCMayeauxEJFredricksonDBocchiniJAJacksonRHMurphyPWReading ability of parents compared with reading level of pediatric patient education materials. Pediatrics.1994;93(4):460–468.
4.
JacksonRHDavisTCBairnsfatherLEGeorgeRBCrouchMAGaultH.Patient reading ability: An overlooked problem in health care. Southern Med J.1991;84(10):1172–1175.
5.
LeichterSBNiemanJAMooreRWCollinsPRhodesA.Readability of self-care instructional pamphlets for diabetic patients. Diabetes Care.1981;4(6):627–629.
6.
McNealBSalisburyZBaumgardnerPWheelerFCComprehension assessment of diabetes education program participants. Diabetes Care.1984;7(3):232–235.
7.
MeadeCDByrdJCPatient literacy and the readability of smoking education literature. Am J Public Health.1989;79(2):204–206.
8.
MorrowGRHow readable are subject consent forms?J Am Med Assoc.1980;244(1):56–58.
9.
PowersRDEmergency department patient literacy and the readability of patient-directed Materials. Ann Emergency Med.1988;17(2):124–126.
10.
Ryan-HaddadABrambleJDLeeBMuckerAKellnerV.OTC product labels and older patients. U.S. Pharmacist. January 2000:38–47.
MarinacJSOutpatient Cardiology. In BurkeJMCoonceSLDe YoungGRHakLJKuehlPGMarinacJSMays-HollandTAMcMullinTOlesKSSmithCL. (Eds.) 2000 Update in Therapeutics.Kansas City, MO: American College of Clinical Pharmacy; 2000: 334.
