ArticleBMJ open2019
Assessing the readability and patient comprehension of rheumatology medicine information sheets: a cross-sectional Health Literacy Study.
Article in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed.
- Acceptability of a Peer-Led Faith-Based Intervention to Improve Breast, Bowel and Cervical Cancer Screening Uptake Among UK Muslim Women: A Qualitative Evaluation.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Development of a Co-Designed Patient Handout for Adults With Hallux Valgus.Musculoskeletal care · 2026Article
- The role of generative artificial intelligence in deciding fusion treatment of lumbar degeneration: a comparative analysis and narrative review.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2025Review
- Artificial Intelligence Versus Professional Standards: A Cross-Sectional Comparative Study of GPT, Gemini, and ENT UK in Delivering Patient Information on ENT Conditions.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- An Exploration of the Content and Language Used in Publicly Available National Health Service Patient Information Leaflets for People Considering Shoulder Replacement Surgery: A Qualitative Study.Musculoskeletal care · 2025Article
- Jargon and Readability in Plain Language Summaries of Health Research: Cross-Sectional Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Observational
- Article
- Readability Metrics in Patient Education: Where Do We Innovate?Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Article
- From Insights to Impact: Understanding Cancer Screening Choices through Mixed-Methods.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2024Article
- Informed consent in endoscopy: Read, understood, or just signed?iGIE : innovation, investigation and insights · 2024Article
- The Development and Evaluation of an Educational Video for Breast Cancer Patients Requiring Adjuvant Radiation Therapy.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2024Article
- Evaluation of information accuracy and clarity: ChatGPT responses to the most frequently asked questions about premature ejaculation.Sexual medicine · 2024Article
- Evaluation of online text-based information resources of gynaecological cancer symptoms.Cancer medicine · 2024Article
- Use and Utility of Patient After-Visit Instructions at a University Rheumatology Outpatient Clinic: Status and Randomized Prospective Pilot Intervention Study.ACR open rheumatology · 2024Article
- Barriers to accessing care for cardiometabolic disorders in Malawi: partners as a source of resilience for people living with HIV.International journal for equity in health · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Accuracy, Credibility, and Readability of Statin-Related Websites: Cross-Sectional Study.Interactive journal of medical research · 2024Article
- Article
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPatients are often provided with medicine information sheets (MIS). However, up to 60% of patients have low health literacy. The recommended readability level for health-related information is ≤grade 8. We sought to assess the readability of MIS given to patients by rheumatologists in Australia, the UK and Canada and to examine Australian patient comprehension of these documents.
designCross-sectional study.
settingCommunity-based regional rheumatology practice.
participantsRandom sample of patients attending the rheumatology practice. OUTCOME MEASURES: Readability of MIS was assessed using readability formulae (Flesch Reading Ease formula, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook scale, FORCAST (named after the authors FORd, CAylor, STicht) and the Gunning Fog scale). Literal comprehension was assessed by asking patients to read various Australian MIS and immediately answer five simple multiple choice questions about the MIS.
resultsThe mean (±SD) grade level for the MIS from Australia, the UK and Canada was 11.6±0.1, 11.8±0.1 and 9.7±0.1 respectively. The Flesch Reading Ease score for the Australian (50.8±0.6) and UK (48.5±1.5) MIS classified the documents as 'fairly difficult' to 'difficult'. The Canadian MIS (66.1±1.0) were classified as 'standard'. The five questions assessing comprehension were correctly answered by 9/21 patients for the adalimumab MIS, 7/11 for the methotrexate MIS, 6/28 for the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory MIS, 10/11 for the prednisone MIS and 13/24 for the abatacept MIS.
conclusionsThe readability of MIS used by rheumatologists in Australia, the UK and Canada exceeds grade 8 level. This may explain why patient literal comprehension of these documents may be poor. Simpler, shorter MIS with pictures and infographics may improve patient comprehension. This may lead to improved medication adherence and better health outcomes.
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.