ArticleBMC oral health2016
An analysis of the readability characteristics of oral health information literature available to the public in Tasmania, Australia.
Article in BMC oral health, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Large Language Models in Generating Physical Exercise Rehabilitation Programs for Musculoskeletal Disorders Across Multiple Clinical Scenarios.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of large Language models on pediatric asthma: a comparative study of Claude3-Opus, Gemini 2.0, ChatGPT-4o, and DeepSeek-a cross-sectional questionnaire study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Canadian Professional Association Resources on Diet and Tooth Decay: Website Content Analysis.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- 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
- The hidden health equity crisis: readability assessment of online information regarding periodontitis-diabetes relationship.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Credibility, Accuracy, and Comprehensiveness of Readily Available Internet-Based Information on Treatment and Management of Peripheral Artery Disease and Intermittent Claudication: Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Review
- Analysis of the third WHO Global Safety Challenge 'Medication Without Harm' patient-facing materials: exploratory descriptive study.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2021Article
- Article
- Mobile Phone Text Messaging for Tobacco Risk Communication Among Young Adult Community College Students: Protocol and Baseline Overview for a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2018Article
- Validation of mobile phone text messages for nicotine and tobacco risk communication among college students: A content analysis.Tobacco prevention & cessation · 2018Article
- Readability of informed consent forms in clinical trials conducted in a skin research center.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of print-based health promotion materials is dependent on their readability. This study aimed to assess the characteristics of print-based oral health information literature publically available in Tasmania, Australia.
methodsOral health education brochures were collected from 11 dental clinics across Tasmania and assessed for structure and format, content and readability. Reading level was calculated using three widely-used measures: Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level (FKGL), Flesch Reading Ease, and Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG) reading grade level.
resultsThe FKGL of the 67 brochures sampled ranged from grade 3 to 13. The grade level for government health department brochures (n = 14) ranged from grade 4 to 11 (5.6 ± 1.8). Reading levels for materials produced by commercial sources (n = 22) ranged from 3 to 13 (8.3 ± 2.1), those from professional associations (n = 22) ranged from grade 7 to 11 (8.9 ± 0.9) and brochures produced by other sources (n = 9) ranged from 5 to 10 (7.6 ± 1.5). The SMOG test was positively correlated with the FKGL (rs = 0.92, p < 0.001) though consistently rated materials 2-3 grades higher. The reading level required to comprehend brochures published by government sources were, on average, lower than those from commercial, professional and other sources. Government materials were also more likely to contain fewer words and professional jargon terms than brochures from the other sources.
conclusionA range of oral health information brochures were publically available for patients in both public and private dental clinics. However, their readability characteristics differed. Many brochures required a reading skill level higher than that suited to a large proportion of the Tasmanian population. Readability and other characteristics of oral health education materials should be assessed to ensure their suitability for use with patients, especially those suspected of having low literacy skills.
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.