ReviewJournal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics2021
Improving COVID-19 vaccine-related health literacy and vaccine uptake in patients: Comparison on the readability of patient information leaflets of approved COVID-19 vaccines.
Review in Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can hospitalists improve COVID-19 vaccination rates?BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Factors impacting COVID-19 vaccine decision making in older adults and people with underlying conditions in Victoria, Australia: A cross-sectional survey.Human vaccines & immunotherapeutics · 2022Article
- Article
- Personalized Digital Health Communications to Increase COVID-19 Vaccination in Underserved Populations: A Double Diamond Approach to Behavioral Design.Frontiers in digital health · 2022Article
- Improving COVID-19 vaccine-related health literacy and vaccine uptake in patients: Comparison on the readability of patient information leaflets of approved COVID-19 vaccines.Journal of clinical pharmacy and therapeutics · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
WHAT IS KNOWN AND
objectivePreparation of patient-facing materials of a complex topic, such as describing new vaccines for COVID-19, is difficult to accomplish. This study examined the readability of patient information leaflets accompanying approved COVID-19 vaccines. COMMENT: Readability of patient-facing literature by the medicines regulator in the United States and the United Kingdom describing the recently US (FDA) and UK (MHRA) COVID-19 approved vaccines (Pfizer/BioNTech, AstraZeneca, Moderna) was assessed employing 10 metrics. Analyses showed that showed that this material had a Flesch Ease of Reading score of 53.5 and 54, respectively and a Flesch-Kincaid reading age of between 7th and 8th Grade (12-13 year olds) and between 8th and 9th Grade (13-14 year olds), respectively. When compared to a recent study on COVID-19 information on healthcare websites, the vaccine literature readability was favourable. WHAT IS NEW &
conclusionAdoption of readability calculators and scrutiny of materials of their readability will help authors develop materials with improved understanding for COVID-19 vaccine recipients, carers and family, potentially leading to improved health literacy and vaccine uptake.
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.