The aim of this research was to evaluate the patient education materials prepared and published by nurses and physicians in terms of the qualitative properties of these materials, including readability, understandability, and actionability. A total of 38 patient education materials prepared by nurses and physicians in a university hospital in Turkey were evaluated. The readability of the materials was assessed using the formulas proposed by Atesman and Cetinkaya. The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) form was used for estimating the understandability and actionability. Data were analyzed using the percentile and mean values, and the Kendall’s Tau-c and correlation tests were used for interobserver agreement. According to the assessments based on the readability formulas, 55.3% of the materials were moderately difficult, while 81.6% had instructional-level readability (U.S. Grades 8 and 9) with a moderate to low level of understandability and actionability. Consequently, the patient education materials evaluated in our study had a moderate level of readability, understandability, and actionability.
AguileraC.PerezM. A.PalacioL. M. A. (2010). Readability of diabetes education materials: Implications for reaching patients with written materials. Salud Uninorte, 26, 12-26.
2.
AteşmanE (1997). Measurement of readibility in Turkish. Ankara University TOMER Language Journal, 58, 71-74.
3.
BezirciB.YilmazA. E. (2010). A software library for measurement of readability of texts and a new readability metric for Turkish. DEU Engineering Faculty Science Journal, 12(3), 49-62.
4.
CetinkayaG. (2010). Identifying and classifying the readability levels of the Turkish texts (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Social Sciences, Ankara University.
5.
ChinnL.McGuirtS.PuriS. (2014). The readability of online patient education materials from major anesthesiology associations and the American society of anesthesiologists. Open Journal of Anesthesiology, 4, 1-7.
6.
CobanA. (2014). A compilation study on the concept of readability. Journal of Language and Literature Education, 9, 96-111.
7.
D’AlssandroD. M.KingsleyP.Johnson-WestJ. (2001). The readability of pediatric patient education materials on world wide web. Archive of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 155, 807-812.
8.
EkerL.TuzunE. H.AytarA.DaskapanA. (2013). Readability levels of health education materials used in physical therapy and rehabilitation clinics. Fizyoterapirehabilitasyon, 24, 193-198.
9.
El-HaddadN.SpoonerC.Denney-WilsonE.HarrisM. (2016). Readability and content analysis of lifestyle education resources for weight management in Australian general practice. BMC Obesity, 3, Article 16.
10.
EltoraiA. E. M.GhanianS.AdamsC. A.Jr.BornC. T.DanielsA. H. (2014). Readability of patient education materials on the American association for surgery of trauma website. Archives of Trauma Research, 3(2), e18161.
11.
GriffinD. B. (2005). Health literacy and the comprehension of printed patient education materials for African Americans with diabetes (Doctoral dissertation). University of Alabama, Birmingham.
12.
HansberryD. R.AgarwalN.ShahR.SchmittP. J.BaredesS.SetzenM.CarmelP. W.. . . EloyJ. A. (2014). Analysis of the readability of patient education materials from surgical subspecialties. Laryngoscope, 124, 405-412.
13.
HoweC. J.BarnesD. M.EstradaG. B.GodinezI. (2016). Readability and suitability of Spanish language hypertension and diabetes patient education materials. Journal of Community Health Nursing, 33, 171-180.
14.
IseriC. (1999). Health-education materials: Readability, usability, and suitability (Doctoral dissertation). Graduate School of Education and Psychology, Pepperdine University.
15.
Jewish General Hospital Publication. (2008). How to create effective written patient learning materials (Adapted by the JGH Patient Education Network [PEN] Working Group from the McGill University Health Centre Standards for Developing Effective Written Patient Learning Materials). Retrieved from http://www.jgh.ca/uploads/Library/HandbookEngJan20.pdf
16.
KayaN.KayaH. (2008). A determining of the readability of written patient education materials designed by nurses. Ataturk University School of Nursing Journal, 11(1), 1-6.
17.
Kocİ.EryurtM. A.AdaliT.SeckinerP. (2008). Demographic transformation of Turkey fertility, family planning, mother-child health and changes in mortality among the under-five-year-old: 1968-2008. Ankara, Turkey: Hacettepe University Institute of Population Studies.
18.
LangbeckerD. H.JandaM. (2012). Quality and readability of information materials for people with brain tumours and their families. Journal of Cancer Education, 27, 738-743.
19.
Leist-SmithM. (2007). The correlation of the readability of postpartum patient education materials and the health literacy level of postpartum patients (Master’s thesis). Northern Kentucky University.
20.
ShoemakerS. J.WolfM. S.BrachC. (2014). The Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT) and user’s guide (An Instrument to Assess the Understandability and Actionability of Print and Audiovisual Education Materials [Version 1.0], AHRQ Publication No. 14-0002-EF). Retrieved from http://www.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/publications/files/pemat_guide.pdf
21.
SimmonsA. J. (2016). Health portal functionality and the use of patient-centered technology (Doctoral dissertation). Walden University.
22.
TemurT. (2003). Concept of readability. TUBAR, XIII, 169-179.
23.
WeihM.ReinholdA.Richter-SchmidingerT.SulimmaA. K.KleinH.KornhuberJ. (2008). Unsuitable readability levels of patient information pertaining to dementia and related diseases: A comparative analysis. International Psychogeriatrics, 20, 1116-1123.
24.
WilsonM. (2009). Readability and patient education materials used for low-income populations. Clinical Nurse Specialist, 23, 33-40.
25.
YesilyurtM. E.KaradenizO.GulelF. E.CağlarA.GulerS.UyarK. (2016). Mean and expected schooling years by cities in Turkey (TOBB ETU Social Policy Platform, Platform Note’ 16). Ankara.
26.
ZelmerC.ZimdarsP.ParkerS.SafdarN. (2015). Evaluating the usefulness of patient education materials on surgical site infection: A systematic assessment. American Journal of Infection Control, 43, 167-168.
27.
ZorbazK. Z. (2007). An evaluation of the word-sentence lengths and readability levels of tales in Turkish textbooks. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 3, 87-101.
