Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34629971›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA2021

A health literacy analysis of the consumer-oriented COVID-19 information produced by ten state health departments.

Nandita S Mani, Terri Ottosen, Megan Fratta, Fei Yu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Video Abstracts in Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. COVID-19 Vaccine Videos: Health Literacy Considerations.Health literacy research and practice · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Nandita S Maninanditam@unc.edu, Associate University Librarian for Health Sciences, Director of the Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-0955-1066
Terri Ottosenottosen@email.unc.edu, Community Engagement and Health Literacy Librarian, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-1749-927X
Megan Frattamfratta@email.unc.edu, Community Outreach & Global Health Librarian, Health Sciences Library, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0002-0166-4197
Fei Yufeifei@email.unc.edu, Health Informatics Librarian, Assistant Professor, Health Sciences Library, School of Information & Library Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC.ORCID 0000-0003-1079-1590

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic highlights the public's need for quality health information that is understandable. This study aimed to identify (1) the extent to which COVID-19 messaging by state public health departments is understandable, actionable, and clear; (2) whether materials produced by public health departments are easily readable; (3) relationships between material type and understandability, actionability, clarity, and reading grade level; and (4) potential strategies to improve public health messaging around COVID-19.

methodsBased on US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention statistics from June 30, 2020, we identified the ten states with the most COVID-19 cases and selected forty-two materials (i.e., webpages, infographics, and videos) related to COVID-19 prevention according to predefined eligibility criteria. We applied three validated health literacy tools (i.e., Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool, CDC Clear Communication Index, and Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level) to assess material understandability, actionability, clarity, and readability. We also analyzed correlations between scores on the three health literacy tools and material types.

resultsOverall, COVID-19 materials had high understandability and actionability but could be improved in terms of clarity and readability. Material type was significantly correlated with understandability, actionability, and clarity. Infographics and videos received higher scores on all tools.

conclusionsBased on our findings, we recommend public health entities apply a combination of these tools when developing health information materials to improve their understandability, actionability, and clarity. We also recommend using infographics and videos when possible, taking a human-centered approach to information design, and providing multiple modes and platforms for information delivery.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health LiteracyHealth EducationHealth PromotionHumansInformation DisseminationPandemicsPublic HealthSARS-CoV-2State GovernmentUnited StatescommunicationconsumersCOVID-19health communicationhealth educationhealth informationhealth literacyinfodemicinformation designpublic healthstate health department

Identifiers

PMID34629971
PMCPMC8485956

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.