Nutrition and diet therapy are at the center of health promotion activities and self-management of chronic diseases. To assist an individual in making informed decisions regarding his or her diet and increase adherence to dietary recommendations or treatments, healthcare professionals must select health information that is appropriate to the client’s level of understanding. A systematic approach in the evaluation of patient education material, whether in print or on the World Wide Web, must focus on the information’s content, literacy level, graphical displays, layout and typography, motivating principles, cultural relevance, and feasibility. Additional criteria should be evaluated when accessing Web sites and include source, site credibility, conflict of interest, disclaimer, disclosure, navigation, and interactivity information.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. U.S. obesity trends: trends by state 1985-2008. http://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/trends.html. Published November20, 2009. Accessed January 28, 2010.
2.
RankinSHStallingsKDLondonR. Patient Education in Health and Illness. 5th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2005.
3.
RedmanB. The Practice of Patient Education. 9th ed.St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 2001.
4.
MarcelDE. Standards review project gives rise to new provision of care chapter. Joint Commission. 2003;1(7):1-11.
5.
PhillipsLD. Patient education: understanding the process to maximize time and outcomes. J Intrave Nurs. 1999;22:19-35.
6.
American Hospital Association. A Patient’s Bill of Rights. Vol. 2006. Washington, DC: American Hospital Association; 1998.
7.
HornerSDSurrattDJuliussonS. Improving readability of patient education materials. J Community Health Nurs. 2000;17(1):15-23.
8.
DavisTCWolfMS. Health literacy: implications for family medicine. Fam Med. 2004;36:595-598.
FoxS. Pew Internet and American Life Project: the social life of health information: American’s pursuit of health takes place within a widening network of both online and offline sources. http://www.pewinternet.org. Accessed January 27, 2010.
11.
UnderbakkeGMcBridePESpencerE. Web-based resources for medical nutrition education. Am J Clin Nutr. 2006;83(suppl):951S-955S.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2006-2008 American Community Survey 3-Year Estimates. http://factfinder.census.gov. Retrieved January 28, 2010.
14.
FrenchKSLarrabeeJH. Relationships among educational material readability, client literacy, perceived beneficence, and perceived quality. J Nurs Care Qual. 1999;13(6):68-82.
15.
WilsonFLRacineETekieliVWilliamsB. Literacy, readability, and cultural barriers: critical factors to consider when educating older African Americans about anticoagulation therapy. J Clin Nurs. 2003;12:275-282.
16.
KutnerMGreenbergEJinYPaulsenC. The Health Literacy of America’s Adults: Results From the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NCES 2006-483). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics; 2006.
17.
SchneiderM. 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy (NAAL) Results. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Statistics; 2005.
18.
BakerDWParkerRMWilliamsMV. The healthcare experience of patients with low literacy. Arch Fam Med. 1996;5(6):329-334.
19.
MayeauxEMurphyPArnoldCDavisTJacksonRSentellT. Improving patient education for patients with low literacy skills. Am Fam Physician. 1996;53:205-211.
20.
ParikhNSParkerRMNurssJRBakerDWWilliamsMV. Shame and health literacy: the unspoken connection. Patient Educ Couns. 1996;27:33-39.
21.
BassI. Health literacy: implications for teaching the adult patient. J Infus Nurs. 2005;28:15-22.
DoakCDoakLLorigK. Selecting, preparing, and using materials. In: LorigK, ed. Patient Education: A Practical Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 1996:117-129.
27.
FryE. A readability formula that saves time. J Reading. 1968;11:513-516, 575-578.
28.
McLaughlinGH. SMOG grading: a new readability formula. J Reading. 1969;12:639-646.
29.
BuolusMN. British Internet-derived patient information on diabetes mellitus: is it readable?Diabetes Technol Ther. 2005;7:528-535.
30.
Sand-JecklinK. The impact of medical terminology on readability of patient education materials. J Community Nurs. 2007;24(2):119-129.
31.
CotugnaNVickeryCECarpenter-HaefeleKM. Evaluation of literacy level of patient education pages in health-related journals. J Community Health. 2005;30:213-219.
32.
EamesSMcKennaKWorrallLReadS. The suitability of written education materials for stroke survivors and their careers. Top Stroke Rehabil. 2003;10(3):70-83.
33.
Nielsen-BohlmanLPanzerAMHamlinBKindigDA, eds. Health Literacy: A Prescription to End Confusion. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2002.
34.
PawlakR. Economic considerations of health literacy. Nurs Econ. 2005;23:173-180.
35.
Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Healthy People 2010 Chapter 11: Health Communications. http://www.healthypeople.gov. Accessed January 29, 2010.
36.
D’AlessandroDMKingsleyPJohnson-WestJ. The readability of pediatric patient education materials on the World Wide Web. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2001;30:807-812.
37.
DoakCCDoakLGMeadeCD. Strategies to improve cancer education materials. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1996;23:1305-1312.
38.
National Work Group on Literacy and Health. Communicating with patients who have limited literacy skills. J Fam Pract. 1998;46:168-176.
39.
Farrell-MillerPGentryP. How effective are your patient education materials? Guidelines for developing and evaluating written educational materials. Diabetes Educ. 1989;15:418-422.
40.
WilsonFL. Patient education materials nurses use in community health. W J Nurs Res. 1996;18:195-205.
41.
BastableSB. Nurse as Educator: Principles of Teaching and Learning for Nursing Practice. 2nd ed.Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett; 2003.
42.
Clear Health Communication. Pfizer Principles for Clear Health Communication: A Handbook for Creating Patient Education Materials That Enhance Understanding and Promote Health Outcomes. 2nd ed.http://www.pfizerhealthliteracy.com. Accessed January 29, 2010.
43.
U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Cancer Institute. Pink Book: Making Health Communication Programs Work. http://www.cancer.gov/pinkbook. Accessed January 29, 2010.
44.
GuidryJJFaganPWalkerV. Cultural sensitivity and readability of breast and prostate printed cancer education materials targeting African Americans. J Natl Med Assoc. 1998;90:165-169.
45.
MassettHA. Appropriateness of Hispanic print materials: a content analysis. Health Educ Res. 1996;11:231-242.
46.
Frank-StrombergMCohenR. Evaluating written patient education materials. Semin Oncol Nurs. 1991;7:125-134.
BremnerDQuinnJQuinnWVeledarE. Surfing the net for medical information about psychological trauma: an empirical study of the quality and accuracy of trauma-related websites. Med Inform Internet Med. 2006;31(3):227-236.
50.
BernierMJ. Establishing the psychometric properties of a scale for evaluating quality in printed education materials. Patient Educ Couns. 1996;29(3):283-299.
51.
PolitDFBeckCT. Nursing Research: Principles and Methods. 7th ed.Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
52.
CharnockDShepperdSNeedhamGGannR. DISCERN: an instrument for judging the quality of written health information on treatment choice. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1999;53:105-111.
53.
ClaytonLH. TEMPtEd: development and psychometric properties of a tool to evaluate materials used in patient education. J Adv Nurs. 2009;65(10):2229-2237.
54.
AndrisDKrzywdaE, eds. The A.S.P.E.N. Nutrition Support Patient Education Manual. Silver Spring, MD: ASPEN American Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition; 2008.
55.
DavisTCLongSWJacksonRH. Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine: a shortened screening instrument. Fam Med. 1993;25:391-395.
