ArticleBMC oral health2014
How readable are Australian paediatric oral health education materials?
Article in BMC oral health, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Four-level evaluation of health promotion intervention for preventing early childhood caries: a randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2017Trial
- A comprehensive analysis of alcohol and other drug educational resources available in New South Wales, Australia for content, suitability and readability.Addiction science & clinical practice · 2025Article
- Association of parental oral health literacy, early childhood oral health behaviors, and caries severity with oral health-related quality of life among preschool children.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Exploring Barriers and Facilitators to Dietary Assessment and Advice in the Paediatric Population Attending Dental Clinics: A Scoping Review.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2025Article
- Readability analysis of ChatGPT's responses on lung cancer.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Assessment of the Readability of Web-Based Patient Education Material From Major Canadian Pediatric Associations: Cross-sectional Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2022Article
- Views of Indian Migrants on Adaptation of Child Oral Health Leaflets: A Qualitative Study.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Impact of oral health on Australian urban Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families: a qualitative study.International journal for equity in health · 2019Article
- Effectiveness of oral health education intervention among female primary school children in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.The Saudi dental journal · 2018Article
- Adaptation of child oral health education leaflets for Arabic migrants in Australia: a qualitative study.BMC oral health · 2018Article
- Content analysis of nutritional information in paediatric oral health education leaflets.BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- An analysis of the readability characteristics of oral health information literature available to the public in Tasmania, Australia.BMC oral health · 2016Article
- The development and evaluation of educational resources for young women with neurofibromatosis type 1 undergoing breast cancer surveillance.Women's health (London, England)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this study was to analyse the readability of paediatric oral health education leaflets available in Australia.
methodsForty paediatric oral health education materials were analysed for general readability according to the following parameters: Thoroughness; Textual framework; Terminology; and Readability (Flesch-Kincaid grade level (FKGL), Gunning Fog index (Fog) and Simplified Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)).
resultsLeaflets produced by the industry were among the hardest to read with an average readability at the 8th grade (8.4 ± 0.1). The readability of leaflets produced by the commercial sector was at the 7th grade (7.1 ± 1.7) and the government at the 6th grade (6.3 ± 1.9). The FKGL consistently yielded readabilities 2 grades below the Fog and SMOG indexes. In the content analyses, 14 essential paediatric oral health topics were noted and Early Childhood Caries (ECC) was identified as the most commonly used jargon term.
conclusionPaediatric oral health education materials are readily available, yet their quality and readability vary widely and may be difficult to read for disadvantaged populations in Australia. A redesign of these leaflets while taking literacy into consideration is suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.