ArticleJMIR formative research2023
Multiple Automated Health Literacy Assessments of Written Health Information: Development of the SHeLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor v1.
Article in JMIR formative research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 58 citations in OpenAlex.
- Choosing the Most Appropriate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Hand Function: A Guide for Pediatric Hand Surgeons.Hand (New York, N.Y.) · 2026Pooled it
- One-Page Patient Fact Sheets for Low Back Pain in Primary Care: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2025Trial
- The Readability Study: A Randomised Trial of Health Information Written at Different Grade Reading Levels.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025Trial
- Online Plain Language Tool and Health Information Quality: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2024Trial
- Women's interest, knowledge, and attitudes relating to anti-Mullerian hormone testing: a randomized controlled trial.Human reproduction (Oxford, England) · 2024Trial
- Communicating the Imperfect Diagnostic Accuracy of COVID-19 Rapid Antigen Self-Tests: An Online Randomized Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Trial
- Resources to Support Families Navigating Early-Stage Type 1 Diabetes: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Development, Co-Design and Pilot Testing of Resources to Support Informed Decision-Making for Lung Cancer Screening in Australia: A Study Engaging Diverse Communities and Expert Healthcare Professionals.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Aligning Words With What Matters: Evaluation of a Nationwide Sample of Pediatric Kidney Transplant Educational Materials.Pediatric transplantation · 2026Article
- Building the Capacity of Adolescents as Researchers: The Co-Creation of the Health Hive Online Course.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
- Why We Need Patients and Community at the Center of AI Health Communication Research.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Messages and Notifications for the "OA Coach" Knee Osteoarthritis Self-Management Mobile App: Codevelopment and Evaluation Using a Participatory Research Design With Focus Groups and Surveys.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Multilingual Video Education for Hospitalized Patients With Myocardial Infarction (EDUCATE-MI): Single-Arm Implementation Study.JMIR cardio · 2026Article
- The Readability of British Association of Urology Society Patient Information Leaflets: Have We Done Enough for Patients to Understand?Journal of patient experience · 2026Article
- Privacy policies for FDA-authorized or FDA-recognized digital therapeutics impose high digital health literacy demands: a cross-sectional analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Improving the health of people with intellectual disability: past progress and future directions.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
- Co-Design and Development of the SmilesUp Text Messaging Intervention Using Behavioral Theory to Support Parents of Children With Early Childhood Caries: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2025Article
- Can co-designed educational interventions help consumers think critically about asking ChatGPT health questions? Results from a randomised-controlled trial.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Understanding Patient Rights: A Pilot Study Assessing Health Literacy in Written Pre-Appointment Letters.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Co-Design of a Health Screening Program Fact Sheet by People Experiencing Homelessness and ChatGPT: Focus Group Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Producing health information that people can easily understand is challenging and time-consuming. Existing guidance is often subjective and lacks specificity. With advances in software that reads and analyzes text, there is an opportunity to develop tools that provide objective, specific, and automated guidance on the complexity of health information. This paper outlines the development of the SHeLL (Sydney Health Literacy Lab) Health Literacy Editor, an automated tool to facilitate the implementation of health literacy guidelines for the production of easy-to-read written health information. Target users were any person or organization that develops consumer-facing education materials, with or without prior experience with health literacy concepts. Anticipated users included health professionals, staff, and government and nongovernment agencies. To develop this tool, existing health literacy and relevant writing guidelines were collated. Items amenable to programmable automated assessment were incorporated into the Editor. A set of natural language processing methods were also adapted for use in the SHeLL Editor, though the approach was primarily procedural (rule-based). As a result of this process, the Editor comprises 6 assessments: readability (school grade reading score calculated using the Simple Measure of Gobbledygook (SMOG)), complex language (percentage of the text that contains public health thesaurus entries, words that are uncommon in English, or acronyms), passive voice, text structure (eg, use of long paragraphs), lexical density and diversity, and person-centered language. These are presented as global scores, with additional, more specific feedback flagged in the text itself. Feedback is provided in real-time so that users can iteratively revise and improve the text. The design also includes a "text preparation" mode, which allows users to quickly make adjustments to ensure accurate calculation of readability. A hierarchy of assessments also helps users prioritize the most important feedback. Lastly, the Editor has a function that exports the analysis and revised text. The SHeLL Health Literacy Editor is a new tool that can help improve the quality and safety of written health information. It provides objective, immediate feedback on a range of factors, complementing readability with other less widely used but important objective assessments such as complex and person-centered language. It can be used as a scalable intervention to support the uptake of health literacy guidelines by health services and providers of health information. This early prototype can be further refined by expanding the thesaurus and leveraging new machine learning methods for assessing the complexity of the written text. User-testing with health professionals is needed before evaluating the Editor's ability to improve the health literacy of written health information and evaluating its implementation into existing Australian health services.
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.